Answered by Shaykh Amjad Rasheed
Translated by Shaykh Hamza Karamali, SunniPath Academy Teacher
I heard that an area that is affected by indiscernible filth [i.e., it has come into moist contact with filth but the colour, taste, or smell of the filth are not apparent on it] cannot in turn render anything else filthy through moist contact because the actual substance of the filth does not exist on it. I also heard that the indiscernible filth of dogs and pigs is an exception to this rule in that it does render other things filthy [through moist contact]. Is this position correct?
Translated by Hamza Karamali
It is a mistake to ascribe this position to the Shafi`i school. The one who claims this must substantiate it by referencing the texts of the Imams of the school. The unqualified statements of our imams indicate that filth is always transferred through moist contact with an area affected by filth, whether or not the traces of the filth are discernible, and whether the filth is from dogs and pigs or from other sources.
Imam Shirazi said in the Muhadhdhab: “The things that become affected by their (i.e., filthy substances’) filth are pure substances when they come into contact with any of these filthy substances with one of the two being moist; in this case, they become affected by filth through contact with it.” Imam Nawawi said in his commentary, “What he has said is clear, but a number of things are excepted from this unqualified statement …” (2.571). Imam Nawawi then mentions the things that are excepted and does not mention [the indiscernible filth that] is mentioned in the question.
Furthermore, the reasoning mentioned in the question is incorrect and self-contradictory.
The reasoning is incorrect because the scholars have not stipulated the transfer of the actual substance of the filth as a condition for something becoming affected by filth. Rather they sufficed themselves with mere moist contact of something pure with something that is filth (as has been mentioned above in the words of the Muhadhdhab). Don’t you see, for example, that if someone touches a dry dog with a moist hand, then there is no disagreement that his hand becomes affected by filth even though the actual substance of the dog has not transferred to the hand of the one who touched it? We ruled that [the hand] become affected by filth through mere moist contact.
The reasoning is self-contradictory because the question excepted the indiscernible filth of dogs and pigs: if the cause of becoming affected by filth was the actual substance of the filth, then it would not make sense to rule that the indiscernible filth of dogs and pigs can cause something else to become filthy even though it does not have any substance to it.
After writing this response, I showed the question to our shaykh, the exacting jurist, Muhammad al-Khatib, and he rejected what was mentioned in the question and thought it strange.
الجواب : نسبةُ هذا الحكم لمذهب الشافعية غير صحيح ، وعلى مدعيه بيانُ نصوص أئمة المذهب فيما ادعاه ، وإطلاق كلام أئمتنا أن النجاسةَ تنتقل من المحل المتنجس مع وجود الرطوبة مطلقاً سواء كانت النجاسة حُكمية أو عينية مغلظة أو غيرها .
قال الإمام الشيرازي في “المهذب” :” وأما ما تنجس بذلك – أي : الأعيان النجسة – فهو الأعيانُ الطاهرة إذا لاقاها شيءٌ من هذه النجاسات وأحدهما رطبٌ فينجس بملاقاتها “. اهـ بتوضيح ، قال الإمام النووي في “شرحه” (2/571) :” هذا الذي قاله واضحٌ لا خفاء به ، لكن يُستثنى من هذا الإطلاق أشياء … “. اهـ وذكرَ المستثنياتِ ولم يستثنِ ما قاله ذلك القائل .
والتعليلُ المذكور في كلام ذلك القائل فاسدٌ ومنقوضٌ ؛ أما وجه فساده فهو أن العلماء لم يشترطوا لتحقق التنجيس بالنجاسة انتقالُ عين النجاسة بل اكتفوا بمجرد ملاقاة الطاهرِ النجسَ مع الرطوبة كما تقدم في عبارة “المهذب” ، ألا ترى لو أن شخصاً مسَّ كلباً جافاً بيدٍ رطبةٍ أن يده تتنجس بلا خلاف مع أن عيناً من الكلب لم تنتقل إلى يد اللامس ، فبمجرد الملاقاة مع الرطوبة حكمنا بالتنجيس .
وأما وجه نقض ذلك التعليل فبما استثناه هو من التنجيس بالنجاسة الحكمية المغلظة ؛ إذ لو كانت العلةُ عدمَ وجود العين فَلِمَ حَكَمَ بالتنجيس في المغلظة الحكمية مع أنها لا عين لها أيضاً .
وبعد كتابة هذا الجواب عرضتُ المسألةَ على شيخنا الفقيه المحقق محمد الخطيب فأنكر ما قاله ذلك القائل وعجبَ منه أيما عجبٍ .