There are two opinions on these points, the more prevalent being the former one, while the stronger one is the latter, particularly in case of one who has not been polluted by Janabat, so that if a person polluted by Janabat has a ritual impurity after performing its Tayammum occupies the position of a person who has ritual impurity after having performed his ritual bath who is required to perform only ablution or Tayammum in its place, while if a menstruating woman has ritual impurity after Tayammum, she occupies the position of a woman who has ritual impurity after she has performed ablution and ritual bath, in which case only her Tayammum in place of ablution is nullified, while it is more cautious for a person who is able to perform ablution also to perform Tayammum in place of ritual bath, while for a person who is not able to perform ablution, it is more cautious to perform a single Tayammum intending thereby to perform what he is liable to do when he is doubtful whether he should do it in place of ritual bath or ablution, in case he is polluted due to Janabat. In case he is not polluted due to Janabat, by way of caution, he shall perform two Tayammums, one in place of ablution and the other in place of ritual bath.
Problem # 6 If a person obtains water and he is able to use it legally and reasonably, or his cause of inability is removed before the prayer, his Tayammum shall be nullified, and it is not valid for him to offer prayer with it.
In case water again becomes unavailable or the cause of inability recurs, it shall be obligatory for the person to repeat his Tayammum.
Of course, if the time of availability of water or removal of the cause of inability is not extensive enough for the performance of ablution or ritual bath, the Tayammum is not far from being unnullified, though it is more cautious to repeat it in all circumstances.
The same rule shall apply if the availability of water or the removal of the cause of inability has taken place while the time is very short, his Tayammum shall not be nullified, and it shall be sufficient for the prayer for which very short time is left.
Problem # 7The Tayammum of a person polluted due to Janabat who has performed Tayammum shall not be nullified when he finds water sufficient for the performance of ablution. But any other person who has performed two Tayammums, his Tayammum which he has performed in place of ablution shall be nullified, if he finds water sufficient to perform ablution.
If a person obtains water which is sufficient only for the performance of the ritual bath, and it is not possible to use it for the performance of ablution, he shall perform the ritual bath only, and shall perform Tayammum in place of ablution.
If it is possible to use the water for either, but not both of them, then it is more cautious to use it for the ritual bath and to perform Tayammum in place of ablution, though it is not far from being likely that the previous Tayammum still subsists.
Problem # 8If a person obtains water after offering prayer, it shall not be obligatory to repeat It, but it shall be considered to have finished the prayer and the prayer to be valid.
The same rule shall apply if he obtains water during offering the prayer after Ruku’ (Kneeling) in the first Rak'at.
If, however, it takes place earlier, then there is difficulty in declaring his Tayammum and prayer invalid. It is not far from being not invalid and being preferable to revert and offer prayer again after attaining the state of cleanness by the use of water. It is cautious to complete the prayer and repeat it, provided that there is sufficient time for it when the prayer should not be left incomplete.
Problem # 9 If a person doubts about the validity of some portions of Tayammum after having completed it, he should not pay heed to it, and should treat it as valid.
According to the stronger opinion, the same rule shall apply if he doubts about the validity of some portions of Tayammum during its performance, regardless whether it is in place of ablution or ritual bath, though it is more cautious to pay heed to the doubt.
Chapter on Najasat (the Unclean Objects)
Their Discussion, Rules, How they pollute and which of them are Excused
Problem # 1 There are eleven unclean objects.
First & Second. The urine and excrement of an animal having a spurting blood whose meat is not eaten even if the prohibition is accidental, such as one eating unclean things or one with whom a man has committed bestiality.
However, as regards the urine and excrement of animals whose meat is allowed for eating, they are treated as clean.
The same rule applies to the animals that have no spurting blood or meat, like flies, mosquitoes and the like.
As regards the animals having meat, there is difficulty (in treating their urine and excrement as clean), though cleanness is not far from being the case, particularly their excrement being treated as clean, in the same way as, according to the stronger opinion, the urine and excrement of birds which are not eaten are treated as unclean.
Problem # 2 If a person doubts about the excrement of an animal whether it belongs to an animal whose meat is eaten or it is forbidden, or the doubt may be about the animal being one whose excrement is treated as unclean or clean, in the same way as when a person sees something but he does not know whether it is the excrement of a mouse or cockroach, it shall be declared clean.
The same rule shall apply if a person doubts about the excrement whether it belongs to an animal having spurting blood or otherwise who has no meat as mentioned in the previous case.
If a person doubts whether the excrement belongs to an animal having (spurting) blood or otherwise, or it belongs to an animal having meat though it is ascertained that it belongs to an animal whose meat is not allowed to be eaten, then there is difficulty in applying the rule to it, though there is some reason to declare it to be clean.
Third. The semen of any animal having (spurting) blood, regardless whether it is allowed to eat its flesh or it is forbidden, except an animal not having (spurting) blood whose semen is treated as clean.
Fourth. The dead part of the body of an animal having spurting blood which was alive before it was separated from its body, or what is chopped off from its body while it was alive, except small pieces separated from its body like the pimples, warts and the crusts which are formed on the lips or the wounds etc. at the time of recovery, or the crusts on the skin of a leper, or the like, as also the other lifeless things like bones, horns, beaks, nails, hooves, hair, wool, fur and feathers are treated as clean.
Likewise, an egg of a dead animal whose meat is allowed for eating which is covered by a membrane, rather the egg of a dead animal whose meat is not allowed for eating (is also treated as clean). To this is affiliated the fermentative substance for cheese of yellow color which is found in the stomach of the foetus of sheep before it takes grass, as also the milk in the breast, both of which are not treated as unclean in their place, and what is more cautious which should not be given up is that this rule applies specially to the milk of an animal whose meat is allowed for eating.
Problem # 3 If it is proved that the bag of the musk deer when it was separated was alive, or if it was separated from a live deer, or from a dead one before its maturity, independence or deprivation of life from it, while the deer was still alive, according to the stronger opinion, it shall be unclean.
If it reaches the stage when it is indispensable to eject, then according to the stronger opinion, it shall be treated as clean, regardless of whether it was separated from the deer when the animal was alive or dead.
In case there is doubt about its being alive, it shall be declared clean. But in case there is knowledge or doubt about its reaching that stage, then it shall be declared unclean.
As regards its musk, there is no difficulty in declaring it clean in all circumstances, except when dampness has penetrated into it which is declared unclean, then its being is not free from difficulty. In case of ignorance about its actual position, however, it shall be declared clean.
Problem # 4 If meat, fat or skin is obtained from the hands of a Muslim or a market of Muslims, it shall be declared clean if there is no knowledge of its being previously in the hands of an infidel, even if there is no knowledge about the animal having been slaughtered according to the Islamic canonical law (Shar’).
The same rule shall apply to a thing which has been found lying in the lands of the Muslims.
If, however, there is knowledge of the thing being previously in the hands of an infidel, then if there is likelihood that the Muslim who has obtained it has already investigated about its actual position, and that it has already been slaughtered according to the Islamic canonical law, (it shall be declared clean).Rather, according to the more cautious opinion, if a Muslim has treated it in the way a lawfully slaughtered animal is treated, then it shall also be declared clean. If, however, there is knowledge that the Muslim has taken the thing from infidel without carrying out due investigation, then, according to the more cautious, rather stronger, opinion, it is obligatory to abstain from it.
Problem # 5 If a person has obtained meat, fat, or skin from an infidel or from a market of infidels, and it is not known whether it belongs to an animal having spurting blood or otherwise, such as a fish or the like, it shall be declared clean, though it is not ascertained that it had been slaughtered according to the Islamic canonical law, but it is not permissible to offer prayer with it.
Problem # 6 If a person obtains something from infidels or from their market and it is not known that it is from among the parts of body of an animal, or otherwise, it shall be declared clean, as long it is not known that it has associated with some pervading unclean thing. Rather it shall be proper to offer prayer with it. To this category belong rubber and the candles for burning incense from the infidel countries these days, while their actual positon is not clear.
Fifth. Blood of an animal having spurting blood, contrary to the blood of an animal not belonging to this category, like a fish, mosquito, louse and fleas, which is clean. If there is doubt whether it belongs to the animals of the former category or pattern, it shall be declared clean.
It is more cautious to abstain from semen transformed into a blood clot, or the coagulated blood In an egg, though the cleanness of the coagulated blood in an egg is not devoid of preference, and according to the stronger opinion, the blood found inside an egg is clean, though it is more cautious to abstain from it, rather from the entire contents of such an egg, except when the blood lies in a vein or under the skin between the blood and the rest of the egg.
Problem # 7 The blood that remains in an animal slaughtered according to the Islamic canonical law, if it belongs to an animal whose meat is not allowed for eating, it is more cautious to abstain from it. otherwise, it is clean after it has come out of the animal after it has been slaughtered by slitting the throat or piercing a spear, etc, into the neck of an animal (like a camel, etc.), regardless whether it has remained in its stomach, meat, veins, heart or kidney, unless it has not been rendered unclean by any other object like the slaughtering weapon, etc.
The same rule shall apply if the blood has remained in the parts not meant for eating, though it is more cautious to abstain from it.
The blood which returns into the interior of the animal due to swallowing the breath or due to raising the head of the slaughtered animal is not like the clean blood which has remained in the animal.
The clean blood which remains in an animal is not allowed to be eaten, except what has mixed up with the broth, etc., or it has been there in the meat in a way that it is treated as a part of it.
Problem # 8 If there is doubt whether an object is blood or something else, it shall be clean, such as what comes out of a wound, and there is doubt whether it is blood or not. If a person due to darkness or blindness, etc. doubts whether what has come out of a wound is blood or puss, (it shall be clean), and it is not obligatory to make investigation about it.
Likewise, (the same rule shall apply) if a person doubts whether the blood belongs to an animal having spurting blood or not, due to ignorance about the actual position of the animal, as, for example, a snake, or due to the doubt about the blood, as, for example, whether it belongs to a sheep or a fish.
So, if a person sees blood on his garment, and does not know whether it belongs to himself or a mosquito or a flea, it shall be declared clean.
Problem # 9 The blood that comes out from between the teeth is unclean, and it is forbidden to swallow it. If it is mixed with the saliva, it shall become clean, and it shall be permissible to swallow it, and it shall not be obligatory to cleanse mouth by rinsing.
Problem # 10 The blood coagulated under the nails or skin due to bruise is unclean, if it appears due to splitting of the skin, or the like, except when it is known that it has transformed itself. If the skin has split and water has penetrated into it, it shall be rendered unclean, and it shall be difficult to perform ablution or ritual bath with that water. It shall be obligatory to remove the blood, if there is no harm in it.
In case the blood is left there, it shall be obligatory to place something like a splint on it, and perform the ritual rubbing on it, or the person should perform ablution or ritual bath by dipping it into water which is not rendered unclean by touching something unclean like water in a quantity of Kur or running water. This is the case when there is already knowledge of its being coagulated blood. But if there is likelihood of its being meat which has turned into the form of blood due to bruise, then it shall be clean.
Sixth and Seventh. A dog and a pig, both belonging to the animals living on land, themselves or their saliva and all their parts of body even those treated as lifeless like hair, bones or the like (are unclean). But an otter or beaver and sea-pigs are clean.
Eighth. An intoxicant which is by nature liquid (is unclean), excluding the one that is by nature solid like hemp which may temporarily be fermented and consequently become fluid. But the grape juice is apparently clean if it is boiled and its two-third part has not evaporated, though it is forbidden undoubtedly.
Likewise, the juice of raisins is also clean, and according to the stronger opinion, it is not forbidden.
If, however, the grape juice or raisins juice becomes fermented automatically and turns into intoxicants, as mentioned, they shall be unclean (as well as forbidden). The same rule shall apply to dates juice (with similar supposition). In case, there is doubt (about their being intoxicant), they shall all be declared clean.
Problem # 11There is no objection in eating raisins and dates if they become fermented in oil, or they are put generally in a stuffed or cooked food or broth. Particularly when there is doubt about the fermentation of their interior, as is usually the case.
Ninth. Beer, a special drink mostly made of barley (is unclean and forbidden). But if it is made of any other thing, then there is hesitation in its being forbidden and unclean, even if it is named beer, except when it is intoxicant.
Tenth. An infidel (is also unclean). He is one who professes a faith other than Islam, or one who professes Islam but renounces what he knows to be among the essentials of faith, in a way that his renunciation amounts to the rejection of prophet hood (of Prophet Muhammad), or denial of the Prophet, Allah's Blessings be on him and his Progeny, or censuring his holy Shari'at (canonical law), or he has committed an act, or made a statement which is tantamount to his disbelief (Kufr), regardless of whether he is an apostate or an original Harbi (citizen of a country at war with a Muslim country ), infidel or a Dhimmi (a non-Muslim subject of a Muslim country). As regards the Nawasib (those who openly disparage Ah/-i Bayt) or Khawarij (those who openly oppose Imam Ali), Allah's damnation be upon them, are both unclean without any hesitation, and that is due to their denial amounting to the denial of Prophethood (of Prophet Muhammad). As regards the extremists among them, if their extremism necessitates denial of Allah or His Unity or the Prophethood (of Prophet Muhammad), they shall be declared infidels; otherwise not.
Problem # 12 Those belonging to Shi'ah sects other than the Ithna Ashari, as long as there is no display of open opposition or enmity or disparagement of the Imams In whose Imamat they do not believe, are clean. But in case of display of open opposition, enmity or disparagement, they shall be similar to other Nawasib (those who openly disparage Ahl-i Bayt).
Eleventh. The sweat of a camel eating filth (is unclean), while, according to the stronger opinion, the sweat of other filth-eating animals is clean, though it is more cautious to abstain from it, in the same way as, according to stronger opinion, the sweat of a person who has become polluted unlawfully is clean, though it is more cautious to abstain from him while offering prayer, and caution should be observed from him in all circumstances.
Rules concerning Najasat (Unclean Objects)
Problem # 1 Cleanness of the body is a condition in offering prayer or performing circumambulation, obligatory or voluntary, including the hair, nails, etc. which are the adjuncts of the body as well as the garments covering the body, etc., except what is excluded from the Najasat (unclean objects), or what falls under their category from among the unclean objects, their small ones even if equal to the eye of a needle being like their large ones except what is excluded from them. It is also a condition in the validity of prayer that the place of prostration should also be clean excluding other places, so that there is no harm in their being unclean as long as their uncleanness does not spread upto the body or garments of the person which is not to be excused.
According to the more cautious opinion, it is obligatory to remove the uncleanness from the mosques including all its portions, such as its land and building structure, even the outer sides of the walls, as it is forbidden to pollute them. To them are affiliated the holy shrines and sacred graves, and all those things whose veneration is obligatory in a way to avoid defiling them like the earth of Imam Husayn's grave, rather the earth of the Prophet's grave, Allah's Blessing be on him and his Progeny, and that of the graves of other Imams, the Holy Mushaf (i.e., the Holy Quran) including even its binding cover and outer covering, rather, according to the more cautious opinion, the books containing the Traditions of the (fourteen) Masumin (Impeccable personalities), Peace be upon them, or, according to the stronger opinion, if it brings disgrace to them, rather generally in case of some of them.
The cleanness of the objects mentioned is obligatory collectively on all believers and not particularly on one who has defiled them, in the same way as it is obligatory to expedite their cleanness in case of capability. If it requires spending some money, it shall be obligatory to do so. Whether the cost is to be borne by the person who has been responsible for defiling them is a question which is to be reasonably answered in the affirmative.
If the act of cleanness of the mosque requires the excavation of its land or destruction of some of its part, it shall be permissible; rather it shall be obligatory. As regards the liability of the person who has defiled it for the payment of the cost of repair, there is strong support for it. If a person finds some unclean object for example; in a mosque and the due time of prayer has already reached it is obligatory on him to expedite its removal before offering prayer provided that there is ample time for it so that if he fails to do so despite his capability and occupies himself in offering prayer he shall be considered to have committed a sin but according to the stronger opinion his prayer shall be valid. Even in case the time for offering prayer is tight he shall give priorty to the removal of the unclean object (from the mosque).
Problem # 2 According to the more cautious opinion the mats and carpets of the mosque are like the mosque itself as regards the prohibition of defiling them and the obligation of the removal of their uncleanness even if it requires chopping off the defiled portion.
Problem # 3 It makes no difference whether the mosque is in function, ruined or deserted rather the rule shall also apply when its title is changed as in case it has been usurped and turned into a residential house a caravansary or a shop.
Problem # 4 It is known that the person making an endowment has excluded some of the parts of the mosque from his endowment; they shall not be governed by the relevant rules. In case of doubt the place shall not be affiliated to the mosque unless there are clear signs of its being part of the mosque.
Problem # 5 As it is forbidden to defile the Mushaf (i.e. the Holy Quran) it is also forbidden to write it with unclean ink. If a person writes it (with an unclean ink) due to ignorance or deliberately it shall be obligatory on him to rub off what is possible to be rubbed and it is obligatory to clean the rest like the printing ink.
Problem # 6 If a person offers prayer wearing unclean garments deliberately, his prayer shall be invalid and it shall be obligatory on him to repeat it regardless whether there is time left for the prayer or not. As regards a person who offers prayers with unclean garments out of forgetfulness his case is similar to that of one who does it deliberately. As regards one who does it out ignorance until he has finished it he shall not be required to repeat it within the due time or after it though it is more cautious to repeat it.
If a person comes to realize about the uncleanness during offering the prayer then if he does not know that it was there even before the prayer and it is possible to remove it by taking the garments off or in some other way so that it may not be repugnant to prayer and his privy parts may also be duly covered he may do it and continue his prayer. If it is not possible to do so he must offer prayer again (after changing his garments) If there is sufficient time for it. If it is possible to take off the clothes and offer prayer without clothes according to the stronger opinion he must do so, and if this also not possible he must offer prayers wearing the unclean clothes. The same rule shall apply if the uncleanness takes place during offering the prayer and he knew that it was there before offering prayer it shall be obligatory on him to offer it again provided that there is ample time for it.
Problem # 7If a person has only an unclean garment for covering his private parts, and he is not able to take them off due to cold or the like he shall offer the prayer wearing that unclean garment if the time for prayer is too short or when there is reasonably no likelihood of the removal of the cause for inability and he shall not be required to offer the prayer again.
If it is possible to take off the unclean garment, then, according to the stronger opinion, shall offer the prayer without wearing the clothes, provided that the time for offering prayer is short, rather even if there is sufficient time for offering prayer while there is no likelihood of removal of the cause of inability, and he shall not be required to offer compensatory prayer.
Problem # 8If a clean garment becomes suspected with an unclean one, and he has no other clothes, he shall repeat the prayer wearing the same garments. If, however, there is no sufficient time left, then it shall be more cautious to offer prayer without wearing clothes, if possible, and the person shall offer compensatory prayer after the due time wearing clean clothes.
If it is not possible, he shall offer prayer in one of the clothes, and, according to the more cautious opinion, offer compensatory prayer in clean clothes.
If the suspected clothes are three or more in number, the person shall offer prayer in each of them in a way that he may know that he has offered prayer in clean clothes.
Problem # 1 A clean object does not become unclean if it touches an unclean object provided that both are dry.
Nor does a clean object become unclean if it touches an unclean object despite their being wet, provided that the unclean wet object does not transfer some of its contents into the clean object.
Of course, the clean object becomes unclean if either of them is wet in a way that its wetness reaches the other object.
So it is not sufficient for a thing to be fluid like quicksilver, rather even melted gold or silver unless some wetness does not reach it from outside. Thus the melted gold in an unclean crucible shall not become unclean, unless there is some pervading wetness in the crucible or in the gold.
Even if there is some pervading wetness in either of them, it will not defile the gold except its apparent portion, as is the case with a solid object.
Problem # 2 If there is doubt about wetness or its being pervading, verdict shall be given in favour of absence of uncleanness. So if a fly sits on an unclean object and then on a garment, the garment shall not be declared unclean due to the likelihood of the wetness in the feet of the fly not reaching the garment.
Problem # 3 No verdict as to the cleanness or uncleanness of an object shall be given unless its uncleanness is established with certainty or by the information given by the person in whose hands it is, or by the testimony of two just witnesses. There is difficulty in accepting the testimony of a single witness as sufficient. So caution must not be given in both the cases. So also in both cases, a judgment shall not be established by means of mere conjecture, even if it is strong. Nor is it established by doubt, except in case of what comes out before Istibrâ’, as has been under stood before.
Problem # 4 A brief knowledge is like a detailed knowledge. So if there is knowledge about the uncleanness of one of two objects, it is obligatory to abstain from both, except when one of them has not been subject to suspicion before obtaining knowledge, in which case it is not obligatory to abstain from the object subject to suspicion, but there is difficulty in accepting this opinion, though in our view this one is preferable.
Brief knowledge is like brief testimony if it relates to a single subject. If there is no testimony in its favour, there shall be difficulty in accepting the opinion, and so caution should not given up in it, or in what there is testimony in a brief way, even in the presence of two witnesses.
Problem # 5 If two witnesses have given testimony in favour of prior uncleanness (of an object), but a person has doubt about its removal, it shall be obligatory on him to abstain from it.
Problem # 6A person in whose hand an object exists means any person in whose charge it is, regardless whether it is by ownership, rent, loan, trust rather even by usurpation. So if the wife, maid servant or slave-girl informs about the uncleanness of what she has in her hand, like the clothes of the husband or master or the utensils of the house, it shall be sufficient for declaring the object unclean.
The same rule shall apply if the governess of a child informs about the uncleanness of the child or its clothes.
The statement of a master about his slave is, however, an exception to this preceding general rule. So there is difficulty in accepting the statement of a master regarding the uncleanness of the body of his slave, or slave-girl or the clothes in their possession, rather its unreliability is not free from force, particularly when both of them inform about cleanness, so that according to the stronger opinion, their statement shall be reliable but not of the master.
Problem # 7If an object is in the hands of two persons like partners, the statement of each of them regarding its uncleanness shall be acceptable. If, however, one of them says that the object is unclean while the other says that it is clean, the statements of both of them shall be dropped, in the same way as the testimony of two witnesses is dropped when they contradict each other.
In case of contradiction, the testimony by two just witnesses shall be preferred to the statement of the person in whose hands the object lies. This is all when the information of one of the two partners or one of the testimonies is not based on principle, and the other on conscience, otherwise the one based on conscience shall be preferred. So if one of the partners informs about the cleanness or uncleanness of an object based on principle, while the other contrary to it based on conscience, the latter shall be preferred.
The same rule shall apply in case of testimony.
Likewise, the testimony based on principle shall not be preferred to the statement of the person in whose hands the object lies.
Problem # 8It makes no difference whether the person in whose hands an object lies is morally sound (Adil) or profligate. There is difficulty in accepting the statement of an infidel as reliable, though, according to the stronger opinion, it is reliable.
It is not far from being likely to treat the statement of a child as reliable, when he is adolescent; rather caution must also be observed in case of a discreet child who is not adolescent.