General Rules of Jurisprudence Lesson 20 The principle of purification Part two قاعدة الطهارة Discussion of evidences Other evidences to prove the rule The rule includes ZAATIYA and AARIDHA impurity

The comments: The first General Hadeeth: Every thing is clean (pure) until you know that it is filthy (impure), so when you get that knowledge then it becomes filthy (impure) and what ever you do not have knowledge (of it) you are not responsible (no obligation ) is upon you). This is the most important and clear HADEETH supporting this principle.

The Specific HADEETH: These Hadeeth can only be generalized if there was a clearly derived (TANQEEH) common criteria (MANAAT) (TANQEEH ALMANAAT) in other words an element in those AHADEETH which can easily be used as a point of generalization, or supported by a practical principle such as ISTISHAAB. But such does not exists in these AHADEETH. Based on that we can not exceed from the specification of the content of such AHADEETH to the generalization. Even though - hypothetically if the two conditions available (TANQEEH ALMANAAT and ISTISHAAB), it will not be absolutely general, there will be large areas where it can not be used.

2- The habitual of the legislator The second supporting evidence for the principle of Purification or TAHARAH is, that the habitual or the habit or the routine practice of the legislator is to inform about forbidden (BARA AH) and impure things (TAHARAH), because such things are very few, and when we observe the pure things or permitted things they are plenty and uncountable. So if the legislator does not inform us about something being impure or being forbidden that means that such thing is permitted or pure. Besides that any doubt in the impurity is and indirect doubt in the prohibition, and when ever we have a doubt in the prohibition, we will consider it not prohibited base on the Principle of BARAAH, that means we will consider the things pure until we gain the knowledge of its impurity.

The problem with the second evidence As mentioned that there are two types of doubts: 1.SHOBHA HOKMIYA: Doubt in the rule, the third evidence is helpful in this type only, where the impurity is related to prohibition, such as if the rabbit is impure then it should not be eaten, or the grape juice if it boils then it becomes NAJIS or not, so if it becomes NAJIS then it will be forbidden to consume it. Or any doubt in impurity which is associated with prohibition, such as impurity of food to eat. 2.SHOBHA MOWDHOIYA: Doubt in the subject or the thing it self. As mentioned only salaat, Tawaf and eating or drinking is affected by the rules of impurity, not every thing which is NAJIS is forbidden to use, so if a clothe is impure then a person can wear it, it is not forbidden for him to wear it, or washing the car with an impure water, as long as it will not affect the Salaat or the food or drink it will not be forbidden.

3-ISTISHAAB of purification: NAJASAT or the impurity is an activation of a legislated rule, so if we doubt that some thing has become impure or not, then we will extend the assured previous status which is purity ISTISHAAB or extension of the previous rule. Before any legislation people are free for any kind of responsibility (obligation or prohibition), and responsibility is legislated on the human, so if we doubt that has some thing been legislated or has a legislation been activated, we will extend the previous status and consider it not legislated or not activated (ISTISHAAB). The knowledge of impurity activates the responsibility of observing the impurity, and there is no knowledge while doubt. There is a mild issue with this ISTISHAAB which will be discussed in higher levels.

The important and perfect evidence: The first evidence the MOWATHAQA of AMMAR which indicates the General rule clearly. A problem in the SANAD or the link of MOWATHAQA of AMMAR: The narrators in the linked are trusted, except only one narrator Ahmed son of YAHAYA who is unknown, there are several narrators who have similar name, some are trusted and some are unknown. The solution: All the narrations which has the same link of narrators from the author of the book to AMMAR who narrates from Imam ASSADIQ (AS), do not have that name (Ahmed son of YAHYA) in the same portion in between the link, so it seems that the existence of such name in such portion of the link is an error in the link. By that the problem in the SANAD is solved.

ZAATIYA and AARIDHA impurity The impurity could be by self (ZAATIYA) or accidental (AARIDHA) 1.The Self (by self) impurity (ZAATIYA): The doubt in the purity of the wine or the blood or the urine in its self, is considered the doubt in the self impurity, that means we are doubting that is the urine impure or not. 2.AARIDHA: The accidental impurity: Water or clothe or the body is not impure originally, but we doubt that did it become impure or not?!. The problem exists from the word (QAZR قذر ) كل شيء نظيف حتى تعلم انه قذر So if it is a noun (QAZIRON), that means impure, then it includes both types, and if it is a past tense verb (QAZORA) means it is becomes filthy or impure, then the rule includes only the second type of doubt in impurity. ERAWANI: It includes both types because (QAZIRON) is a noun, and is opposite of clean (NADHEEF).