Hadiths on anal intercourse with women are problematic | Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari
Islamic scholar and thinker
Ayatollah Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari
Lesson Title | Research on Human Purity 79
This evidence in the narrations states that he avoids it, that he abstains from it, and so on. He dislikes it. We do not eat it, and so forth. This is clear that he essentially wants to say, "It is between me and God." You are also in these narrations, these narrations which they use to justify anal intercourse, which certainly contains its own problems. The Imam, peace be upon him, although in a number of narrations he says that there is no problem with it, and a number of jurists have gone astray, but he says, "We do not do it." This is abstinence. And this point must be understood in the narrations: that it is not necessarily true that everything they abstained from, and that their elite followers or companions abstained from, is necessarily impure, necessarily forbidden, forever and ever. And this, God willing, if we are successful at the end of the research, God willing, we will come to a new theory. Of course, I do not want to say that I adopt it, but it is a new theory that exists in this field, and it is in two words that I will tell you, God willing, and I will explain it after that, which is that the legal rulings, because they are based on consideration, are hierarchical. So something may be disliked at one level, but forbidden at another level, and so on. Permissible, the same subject, but the person changes, not the subject itself. For example, a young, unmarried man in his twenties sits in front of a film and women appear—I don't want to say naked—but in a way that arouses him or not. If he says, in the words of one of the scholars (I don't want to mention his name), "I don't move and it doesn't affect me," he says, "Then you're an ass. If you say this music doesn't move me and that one doesn't affect me, and this one too, then between me and God, are you human or not? You're not human, otherwise, the implication of humanity between me and God is that a person moves when he sees something. Now, bring a man who is eighty years old and sit him in front of the same screen, will he be affected or not? It's not that the image doesn't move him and the external reality doesn't move him, the poor man. I want to say the effect, so between me and the image is one and the external reality is one, but the person is multiple. So, does the ruling multiply or not? This, God willing, is a theory that I will explain to you. This is what the author of Al-Hada'iq chose and applied. He says, "If there is a necessity, as I mentioned previously, then the disbelievers are not impure and do not become impure. If there is no necessity, then if you shake hands with a Jew, you become impure. How is that, my master?" He says, therefore, that rulings are discretionary. So, in a state of necessity, something is considered pure, but in a state of non-necessity, what is it? But if, in reality, the same thing is impure, does it change or not? The impurity remains, but the religious ruling is lifted, not the legal ruling. I say, is blood impure or not in reality? I am now compelled, or not compelled? Does it become impure or not? It becomes impure. You cannot say that in a state of necessity it is not impure, and in a state of non-necessity it is impure. No, in a state of necessity it is not forbidden, and in a state of non-necessity it is forbidden. It is not the legal ruling, even though the author of Al-Hada'iq changes the legal ruling, not the religious ruling. This means that the legal ruling changes from one state to another, even though, based on the reality of rulings and impurities, there are real benefits and harms. Does it necessarily change or not? No, it does not change. In other words, if eating carrion necessarily causes hardness of heart, is it necessarily lifted or not? It does not rise, it remains. Yes, you are in a state of choice. It is not permissible in a state of necessity. It is permissible. This is why they say necessities are measured by their measure. The owner of the gardens in this was followed by the jurist Al-Hamdani. He said, and fairness is with the owner of the gardens. If we are able to collect the narrations in another collection, this, God willing, will be in the fourth chapter when we come to the sections of collection. We will refer to the theory.