From Impurity to Violence

A few days ago, I was reading a piece by Mr. Hassan Eslami on this subject, in which he argued that there is no connection between the concept of the dog's impurity (najāsat) and the violence that is inflicted in various ways upon these oppressed animals in our society these days (this piece). While I greatly respect his ethical concerns and share much empathy with him on many issues, I cannot agree with the main claim of his article. According to his argument, "Those who behave savagely toward dogs, alongside numerous other reasons, sometimes point to their impurity and conclude that their behavior is justified. Therefore, two points must be addressed: one, the impurity of dogs, and the other, the permissibility of violent behavior toward dogs because of their impurity. Logically, there is no connection between these two issues; nevertheless, they follow one another so closely that many people believe the impurity of dogs is a good reason for behaving savagely toward them."

My intention here is to show that, on the contrary, there is a logical connection between the concept of declaring a living being impure and perpetrating violence against it. I will try to demonstrate my point step by step, by scrutinizing the jurisprudential concepts on this matter:

1_ The Concept of Impure (Najis): The term najis, in jurisprudential terminology, refers to things that are not considered pure or clean (ṭāhir) according to religious law. In other words, there is a difference between being impure and being contaminated. In fact, to use philosophical expressions, that which is called najis possesses a kind of ontological contamination; that is, the very essence of that thing, or the thing in itself, inherently possesses a kind of theological [jurisprudential] contamination. Something that perhaps cannot be purified even by washing, just as the ten categories of impurities (najāsāt), according to Shi'i jurisprudence, are.

2_ Instances of Impurities: According to the predominant view among Shi'i jurists, there are ten things that are "inherently impure" (ʿayn al-najāsah), meaning their essence is contaminated, in such a way that this contamination can never be removed from them. Blood, urine, feces, semen, carrion, the dog, the pig, the infidel (kāfir), wine, beer.

3_ Rulings on Impurities: While that which has become impure (mutanajjis) can be purified under certain conditions—for example, a garment stained with blood can be purified by washing the blood from it—those things that are inherently impure can under no circumstances be purified. In other words, whatever you do to blood, blood itself can never be purified. Regarding things that become mutanajjis through contact with these instances of impurity, as jurists say, only by removing the impurity from them, sometimes through specific rituals, can that thing be cleansed of impurity.

4_ From Impurity to Violence: As we have seen, the dog, the pig, the infidel, feces, urine, etc., are all placed in the same rank from a jurisprudential standpoint and according to the ruling of ritual purity: they are all the very essence of impurity and contamination, such that no conditions can be conceived under which they could be pure. In fact, according to jurisprudential literature, pure blood or a pure dog appears to be a kind of contradiction in terms. The infidel, too, as long as he is an infidel—that is, as long as he does not believe in religious principles and doctrines—is the very essence of impurity and must always be avoided and shunned. In a general statement, according to jurisprudential literature, that which is deemed impure must be "removed" (like blood, urine, or feces on clothing), "expelled" and "isolated," and even "eliminated" (like infidels). While this attitude may not be problematic regarding matters such as urine, feces, and blood, as soon as a living creature is characterized by the attribute of impurity and called the very essence of impurity, the "removal," "expulsion," and "isolation" of that creature—in other words, setting them aside from the sphere of the believer's and the believers' life relations—will lead to their suppression and elimination. If the suppression of urine, feces, and blood is meaningless due to their being deemed lowly and vile, once living creatures enter the equation, this existential and ontological vileness and baseness inherent in the nature of these creatures will inevitably lead to their removal, expulsion, elimination, and in other words, suppression. Thus it is that what is deemed impure is considered to possess the lowest and most base levels of existence, and in this way, violence emerges as the inescapable consequence of this viewpoint. Deeming living beings such as dogs and pigs impure, and equating these creatures with urine and feces, itself clearly demonstrates what status these beings hold in the jurisprudential cosmology. The distance from impurity to violence and suppression appears to be less than a hair's breadth.

.

---

.

From Impurity to Violence

Author: Behnam Khodapanah

A Critique of Hassan Eslami's Article "Titled The Dog of the Companions of the Cave" in Etemad Newspaper

Link to Seyyed Hassan Eslami's Note on his Telegram Channel:

t.me/hassan_eslami/314

For further explanation of the jurisprudential concepts of "Impure" and "Infidel," you can refer to the following links:

bit.do/eHM25

bit.do/eHM3n

.

---

.