PDA

View Full Version : [Utensils] Tahara and Najasah of Dead animal and its remains


Abuz Zubair
14th March 2005, 08:27 PM
* The author then states: “The wool and hair of a dead animal is pure.”

It is important to understand here that by the term ‘dead animal’ in our context, we are referring to any animal not slaughtered in accordance with Islamic regulations; which includes animals that die a natural death, or that are slaughtered for other than Allah, or slaughtered by a Muhrim, or if the gullet remains uncut, or if the animal isn’t allowed to be eaten, such as a lion, a pig or a snake.

As a rule, any animal that dies in any way other than the Islamic way of slaughtering becomes Najis due to death. The author, however, mentions two exceptions to the rule, namely; the wool and the hair of dead animal.

This is because the wool and the hair of the animal does not die due to the death of the animal. Since the wool and the hair do not posses a soul, when they are trimmed or shaven, it is not said that ‘the hair died’, and hence, it follows that the wool and hair of an animal does not become Najis due to the death of the animal, rather it remains Tahir.

* The author then says: “All skins of dead animals, irrespective of whether they have been tanned or not, are Najis”

Tanning is a process by which skins and hides are converted into leather.

There are two main issues here;
1) Skins of dead animals before being tanned, and that they are Najis.
2) Skins of dead animals after being tanned, and that they are also Najis according to the correct opinion in the Madhab, contrary to the rest of the three Imams, and the majority of the scholars. Hence, this opinion is from the Mufradat of the Madhab; meaning that the Madhab is unique in holding this position, because Imam Ahmad was the only one to hold this opinion, from amongst the rest of the Imams.

There is, however, another Riwayah from the Imam, which regards the skins of those dead animals that were Tahir before death (unlike pig or dog), to be Tahir after their death provided that they are tanned. This is also the opinion of many of the great Hanbali scholars, such as Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, Ibn Hamdan, Ibn Razin, al-Majd as well as Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah. Al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la and Baha’ al-Din claim that Imam Ahmad actually retracted from his previous position and agreed with the majority, that the skins of dead animals that are Tahir before their death, do become Tahir after tanning. Others from the Hanbali scholars simply regarded this narration to be a second Riwayah from Ahmad on the issue, instead of rendering the first Riwayah as abrogated.

Having established the Najasah of the skins of dead animals – according to the Madhab, it is also worth mentioning that the Madhab also allows the usage of the skins of dead animals that have been tanned – in dry substances only. This means that it is allowed to wear garments made of such skins, but one is required to take them off while praying in order to fulfil one of the conditions of the prayer, and that is to remove any existing Najasah from ones body, clothes and the place of prayer.

* The author then states: “…and likewise, their bones”

Meaning, just as the skins of dead animals are Najis irrespective of whether they have been tanned or not, the bones of dead animals are similarly Najis.

The reason for that is because the skins or the bones are a part of the dead animal, and therefore, it comes under the statement of Allah – ‘Azza wa-Jall: “The dead animal has been made forbidden upon you” (al-Maida 3)

* The author then states: “Every dead animal is Najis”

This is a general rule, which is established by the consensus of the scholars, due to the general statement of Allah – ‘Azza wa –Jall – in His Book: “The dead animal has been made forbidden upon you” (al-Maida 3)

However, author mentions three exceptions to this rule, the first of them being:

* “1) A dead human being”

A human being does not become Najis due to death, rather he remains Tahir. The evidence for this ruling is the Hadeeth of Abu Hurairah – may Allah be pleased with him – when he left the company of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – in order to make the Ghusl of Janabah (sexual defilement). Upon his return the Prophet asked him where he was, to which he replied that he was in the state of Janabah, and did not like to sit next to him without Taharah. The Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alahi wa-sallam – said to him in reply: “SubhaanAllah! Verily, a Muslim does not become Najis.”

Therefore, the words ‘Verily, a Muslim does not become Najis’, indicate that a Muslim remains Tahir before and after death.

Similarly, a Kafir is also considered to be Tahir according to the correct position in the Madhab, before and after death.

Another argument in support of this ruling, is that if a human being were to become Najis after death, there would be no benefit in washing the dead, since it would only increase the Najasah.

* “2) A dead sea-animal”

This is due to the statement of the Messenger of Allah – SallAllahu 'alaihi wa-sallam about sea water: "Its water is Tahoor, and its dead is Halal". Al-Bukhari declared it to be Sahih.”

This is the second exception mentioned by the author, and the evidence he gives for the ruling is self-explanatory. The Hadeeth cited by the author here is authentic, which has been collected by al-Tirmidhi (who called it Hasan Sahih), Abu Dawud, al-Nasai, Ibn Majah and many others.

Al-Hakim also declared the Hadeeth to be authentic, and al-Dhahabi agreed with al-Hakim.

As for the author’s statement: “al-Bukhari declared it to be Sahih”, then we must note that al-Bukhari did not mention this Hadeeth in his Sahih, but nevertheless, al-Tirmidhi says that he asked al-Bukhari about this Hadeeth, and he said: ‘It is Sahih’. Therefore, the author’s statement here is referring to al-Bukhari's response to al-Tirmidhi, and not Sahih al-Bukhari itself.

* “3) A dead bloodless animal, as long as it does not originate from Najasat (filth).”

This is the third exception from the aforementioned rule that the author mentions.

What does the author mean here by a ‘bloodless animal’?

It is interesting to note that in the olden days, animals were not categorised according to the modern categorisation. In fact, Aristotle divided the animals into two types; those with blood, and those without blood, which corresponds closely to the modern day distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates.

The term ‘bloodless animals’ in our context refers to all those animals in which blood does not circulate or flow. This includes insects, such as a fly, a cockroach, etc; just as it would include a fish. Hence, it becomes clear that our definition of ‘bloodless animals’ isn’t precisely the same as the modern definition, nor that of Aristotle’s.

The author says that the bloodless animals do not become Najis due to death, and this is supported by the Hadeeth of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – about a fly dropping into ones utensil, that he should dip the fly therein three times, for one of the wings of the fly contains a disease while the other contains the cure (Narrated by al-Bukhari).

When a fly is dipped into water or food three times, then it is most likely to die. The fact that the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – ordered us to dip the fly into the utensil three times, irrespective of whether or not the fly dies, shows that the fly does not become Najis by its death, and if it did, the Prophet wouldn’t have ordered us to dip it in our food and drink three times.

The only exception given to the dead ‘bloodless animals’ are those creatures that originate from filth, such as cockroaches or certain flies that are hatched in excrements; for these type of insects are Najis in their origin, and therefore Najis when they are dead.

Unspecified
16th March 2005, 02:20 AM
Some questions:

- What do the following words mean? Mufradat (the actual orginal meaning of word etc.), Riwayah

- the issue of all skins of animals (except skins of animals who were tahir before & after death) being najis...

When we are learning a madhab, we should stick to one, and then after, we can look at issues on a comparative basis. Is that the correct way to do it?

Because say that I want to learn one madhab - what do you do when an issue like this occurs? i.e. only this madhab holds this opinion? Many Muslims wear leather socks when they pray - if they are at the stage that they are learning the hanbali madhab, would they have to go with the madhab said? and not wear leather socks?

Because this is only one issue - undoubtedly, many other issues will crop up. What is the best way of dealing with this if you are a beginner? (apart from simply just taking the fatwa from Islam Q & A!)

- Bloodless animals

Im a bit confused here as to the definition. Is it saying that fish is a bloodless animal? (it has blood which does circulate, as far as I know!)

Abuz Zubair
16th March 2005, 10:29 PM
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,

JazaakumAllahu Khairan for raising some important questions.

What do the following words mean? Mufradat (the actual orginal meaning of word etc.), Riwayah

Mufradat is the plural for Mufrad, which means single, lone, isolated, etc.

Al-Riwayah and Wujuh have been covered previously:
http://www.islamicawakening.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=426

When we are learning a madhab, we should stick to one, and then after, we can look at issues on a comparative basis. Is that the correct way to do it?

Because say that I want to learn one madhab - what do you do when an issue like this occurs? i.e. only this madhab holds this opinion? Many Muslims wear leather socks when they pray - if they are at the stage that they are learning the hanbali madhab, would they have to go with the madhab said? and not wear leather socks?

Because this is only one issue - undoubtedly, many other issues will crop up. What is the best way of dealing with this if you are a beginner? (apart from simply just taking the fatwa from Islam Q & A!)

In principle, whenever any Muslim is faced with a new situation, his obligation is to find out Allah’s ruling regarding that situation. If he is a qualified Mujtahid, then he must strive his utmost to find out Allah’s ruling regarding that situation. If he isn’t a qualified Mujtahid, then he must refer to the one who is qualified to perform Ijtihad – even if only in that particular issue.

If one isn’t able to find a Mujtahid in that issue, then he may refer to someone well-grounded in one of the four Madhabs, who will most probably give a verdict in accordance with what he believes to be the correct position in his Madhab. According to the vast majority of the scholars from four schools, the questioner does not need to ask a Mufti from a particular school, rather he may ask any of the Muftis and act on his Fatwa.

Hence, the person should look for the one who is regarded to be a religious reference point in his community, and that he is accepted as a person who is qualified to issue verdicts, even if he is not a Mujtahid, yet well-versed in his Madhab; not someone who paves his way to the position of a Mufti by promoting himself, feigning knowledge and creating controversy. Be careful of fake Muftis!

If a person does not have access to any such Mufti at all (which is very unlikely nowadays), he may then act according to what he has learned of the Madhab.

If all one has access to is a book of Fatwas on various issues, or a Fatwa website for that matter such as Islam-qa, then obviously, he has no choice but to refer to that, and fear Allah as much as he can.

Another situation where a person may simply follow the Madhab he is learning, in spite of a Mujtahid being present, is when the Mujtahid’s response is not convincing, and the questioner is left confused between various opinions, then he may follow the Madhab opinion, until the truth becomes clear to him.

Similarly, a person may act according to the Madhab, if he is faced with a situation and he does not have enough time to contact a Mufti. In fact, in a situation like this, the person may even issue a verdict based on what he has learned from the Madhab, if the questioner does not have access to anyone else, wallahu A’lam.

I hope the answer is clear!

- Bloodless animals

Im a bit confused here as to the definition. Is it saying that fish is a bloodless animal? (it has blood which does circulate, as far as I know!)

Fish is a ‘bloodless animal’, in the sense that its blood does not sprout forth when slaughtered; unlike a goat or a sheep, when it is slaughtered, the blood sprouts out of the body. The case isn’t the same with a fish.

The Arabic phrase used is: Ma la nafsa lahu sa’ilah.

‘Nafs’ here refers to blood, and ‘sa’ilah’ here refers to flowing.

My translation might not be accurate, but I guess the meaning is understood?

wasalam

Unspecified
18th March 2005, 12:22 AM
JazakAllaahu khairan for your reply.

Yes, the answers were very clear.