Session Forty-Four, The Proofs of the Inherent Dignity of the Human Being
Session Forty-Four
The Proofs of the Inherent Dignity of the Human Being — The Second Proof: Traditions (Riwayāt) — The Conflicting Traditions — The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Groups
May 24, 2025
Summary of the Previous Session
Our discussion concerned the traditions that conflict with those indicating human dignity; we quoted four groups of these traditions and answered them in outline. Numerous other groups of traditions indicate the absence of dignity, or at least, as some have stated, their apparent meaning is the negation of human dignity. As in the past, we shall refer to one or two traditions from each group.
The Fifth Group
The fifth group comprises traditions indicating insult and hatred toward disbelievers, enemies of the religion, and enemies of the Household (peace be upon them), especially the Nawāṣib.
The First Tradition
“From al-Ṣādiq, Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad (peace be upon him), who said: ‘Whoever loves a disbeliever has indeed hated Allah, and whoever hates a disbeliever has indeed loved Allah.’ Then he (peace be upon him) said: ‘The friend of Allah’s enemy is Allah’s enemy…'” (عَنِ الصَّادِقِ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ ع قَالَ مَنْ أَحَبَّ كَافِراً فَقَدْ أَبْغَضَ اللَّهَ وَ مَنْ أَبْغَضَ كَافِراً فَقَدْ أَحَبَّ اللَّهَ ثُمَّ قَالَ ع صَدِيقُ عَدُوِّ اللَّهِ عَدُوُّ اللَّهِ).
The Second Tradition
The second tradition, which is more severe than the previous one, is recorded in ʿUyūn Akhbār al-Riḍā and quoted by the author of al-Wasāʾil; it is a relatively long tradition that begins as follows: “From Abū al-Ḥasan, ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al-Riḍā (peace be upon him), in a tradition in which he said: ‘Indeed, those who fabricated traditions on our authority concerning determinism (jabr) and anthropomorphism (tashbīh) are the extremists (al-ghulāt) who belittled the greatness of Allah. So, whoever loves them has indeed hated us, and whoever hates them has indeed loved us; whoever allies with them has indeed opposed us, and whoever opposes them has indeed allied with us; whoever cuts them off has indeed connected with us, and whoever connects with them has indeed cut us off; whoever shuns them has indeed treated us with kindness, and whoever treats them with kindness has indeed shunned us; whoever honors them has indeed insulted us, and whoever insults them has indeed honored us; whoever rejects them has indeed accepted us, and whoever accepts them has indeed rejected us; whoever does good to them has indeed done evil to us, and whoever does evil to them has indeed done good to us; whoever believes them has indeed belied us, and whoever belies them has indeed believed us; and whoever gives to them has indeed deprived us, and whoever deprives them has indeed given to us'” (عَنْ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مُوسَى الرِّضَا ع فِي حَدِيثٍ قَالَ إِنَّمَا وَضَعَ الْأَخْبَارَ عَنَّا فِي الْجَبْرِ وَ التَّشْبِيهِ الْغُلَاةُ الَّذِينَ صَغَّرُوا عَظَمَةَ اللَّهِ فَمَنْ أَحَبَّهُمْ فَقَدْ أَبْغَضَنَا وَ مَنْ أَبْغَضَهُمْ فَقَدْ أَحَبَّنَا وَ مَنْ وَالاهُمْ فَقَدْ عَادَانَا وَ مَنْ عَادَاهُمْ فَقَدْ وَالانَا وَ مَنْ قَطَعَهُمْ فَقَدْ وَصَلَنَا وَ مَنْ وَصَلَهُمْ فَقَدْ قَطَعَنَا وَ مَنْ جَفَاهُمْ فَقَدْ بَرَّنَا وَ مَنْ بَرَّهُمْ فَقَدْ جَفَانَا وَ مَنْ أَكْرَمَهُمْ فَقَدْ أَهَانَنَا وَ مَنْ أَهَانَهُمْ فَقَدْ أَكْرَمَنَا وَ مَنْ رَدَّهُمْ فَقَدْ قَبِلَنَا وَ مَنْ قَبِلَهُمْ فَقَدْ رَدَّنَا وَ مَنْ أَحْسَنَ إِلَيْهِمْ فَقَدْ أَسَاءَ إِلَيْنَا وَ مَنْ أَسَاءَ إِلَيْهِمْ فَقَدْ أَحْسَنَ إِلَيْنَا وَ مَنْ صَدَّقَهُمْ فَقَدْ كَذَّبَنَا وَ مَنْ كَذَّبَهُمْ فَقَدْ صَدَّقَنَا وَ مَنْ أَعْطَاهُمْ فَقَدْ حَرَمَنَا وَ مَنْ حَرَمَهُمْ فَقَدْ أَعْطَانَا).
This tradition concerns a group of Muslims and Shi’ites known as the extremists (al-ghulāt); in this tradition, insult, doing evil, hatred, hostility, shunning, and the likes are mentioned. All of these indicate that at least some human beings do not possess dignity. It is true that this is not all-encompassing, but ultimately, it negates dignity regarding certain human beings.
In addition, some traditions describe the Nawāṣib and the Kharijites (al-Khawārij) as dogs; in some, the expression “dogs of the fire” (kilāb ahl al-nār) appears, and in others, they are described as dogs in this very world.
The Sixth Group
The sixth group comprises traditions indicating the permissibility of slander (calumny) against certain human beings. These are traditions concerning the people of innovation (ahl al-bidʿah), which declare both dissociation from them mandatory and insulting, accusing, and slandering them permissible. Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) said: “The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) said: ‘When you see the people of doubt and innovation after me, manifest dissociation from them, and increase your revilement of them, speaking against them, and criticizing them; and slander them so that they do not crave corruption in Islam, and the people beware of them and do not learn from their innovations. Allah will write for you, by virtue of that, good deeds, and will raise your ranks thereby in the Hereafter'” (قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص إِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ أَهْلَ الرَّيْبِ وَ الْبِدَعِ مِنْ بَعْدِي فَأَظْهِرُوا الْبَرَاءَةَ مِنْهُمْ وَ أَكْثِرُوا مِنْ سَبِّهِمْ وَ الْقَوْلِ فِيهِمْ وَ الْوَقِيعَةِ وَ بَاهِتُوهُمْ كَيْلَا يَطْمَعُوا فِي الْفَسَادِ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ وَ يَحْذَرَهُمُ النَّاسُ وَ لَا يَتَعَلَّمُونَ مِنْ بِدَعِهِمْ يَكْتُبِ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ بِذَلِكَ الْحَسَنَاتِ وَ يَرْفَعْ لَكُمْ بِهِ الدَّرَجَاتِ فِي الْآخِرَةِ).
He says: revile them, slander and accuse them, dissociate from them, along with some other commands. Ultimately, the permissibility of revilement—even if it is toward a specific group—and the permissibility of accusation and saying whatever you wish about them, meaning anything that weakens their status and respect among the people, indicates that you should perform this action.
The Seventh Group
The seventh group comprises traditions indicating the permissibility, or even necessity, of cursing (laʿn). The traditions concerning cursing have been stated regarding various groups and categories of human beings. Perhaps we can say that these traditions possess thematic frequency (tawātur maʿnawī). In these traditions, cursing is deemed permissible toward disbelievers, Nawāṣib, Kharijites, and extremists; among these: “May Allah curse the enemy of the family of Muhammad” (لَعَنَ اللَّهُ عَدُوَّ آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ); “May Allah curse those who enjoin good yet abandon it, and those who forbid evil yet practice it” (لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْآمِرِينَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ التَّارِكِينَ لَهُ وَ النَّاهِينَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ الْعَامِلِينَ بِهِ); “May Allah curse the Qadariyyah, may Allah curse the Harūriyyah, may Allah curse the Murjiʾah” (لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْقَدَرِيَّةَ لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْحَرُورِيَّةَ لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْمُرْجِئَة); “May Allah curse wine, its planter, its presser, its drinker, its server, its seller, its buyer, the consumer of its price, its carrier, and the one to whom it is carried” (لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْخَمْرَ وَ غَارِسَهَا وَ عَاصِرَهَا وَ شَارِبَهَا وَ سَاقِيَهَا وَ بَائِعَهَا وَ مُشْتَرِيَهَا وَ آكِلَ ثَمَنِهَا وَ حَامِلَهَا وَ الْمَحْمُولَةَ إِلَيْهِ); and “The curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers” (لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ).
Apart from these general titles, the names of certain individuals have also been mentioned in some traditions, showing that they were cursed in particular. Cursing is, in fact, an insult and a humiliation. Now, how can a human being, even if he were a disbeliever, be insulted in such a manner? This indicates that inherent dignity does not exist.
The Eighth Group
The eighth group comprises traditions indicating the humiliation of the people of Dhimmah (protected non-Muslim citizens). That is, despite the fact that the people of Dhimmah have a contract with the Islamic state and ruler and pay the poll tax (jizyah), some traditions nevertheless emphasize that you should humiliate them when collecting the jizyah.
“From Zurārah, who said: ‘I said to Abū ʿAbdillāh (peace be upon him): What is the limit of the jizyah upon the People of the Book, and is there a prescribed amount on them regarding that, which should not be exceeded? He said: That is up to the Imam, to take from each person among them what he wishes, according to his wealth, in accordance with what he can tolerate. Indeed, they are a people who ransomed themselves from being enslaved or killed. Thus, the jizyah is taken from them according to what they can tolerate, and he may seize them by it until they embrace Islam; for Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, said: “…until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled” (حَتَّى يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَ هُمْ صاغِرُونَ) [Surah Al-Tawbah, 9:29]. And how can he be humbled if he does not care about what is taken from him, until he finds humiliation in what is taken from him and feels pain due to it, and thus embraces Islam? … And the Imam has no right to more than the jizyah; if the Imam wishes, he places it on their heads and there is nothing on their wealth, and if he wishes, on their wealth and there is nothing on their heads. I said: What about this one-fifth (khums)? He said: This is merely something upon which the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) made peace with them'” (عَنْ زُرَارَةَ قَالَ قُلْتُ لِأَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع مَا حَدُّ الْجِزْيَةِ عَلَى أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَ هَلْ عَلَيْهِمْ فِي ذَلِكَ شَيْءٌ مُوَظَّفٌ لَا يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَجُوزُوا إِلَى غَيْرِهِ فَقَالَ ذَاكَ إِلَى الْإِمَامِ أَنْ يَأْخُذَ مِنْ كُلِّ إِنْسَانِ مِنْهُمْ مَا شَاءَ عَلَى قَدْرِ مَالِهِ بِمَا يُطِيقُ إِنَّمَا هُمْ قَوْمٌ فَدَوْا أَنْفُسَهُمْ مِنْ أَنْ يُسْتَعْبَدُوا أَوْ يُقْتَلُوا فَالْجِزْيَةُ تُؤْخَذُ مِنْهُمْ عَلَى قَدْرِ مَا يُطِيقُونَ لَهُ أَنْ يَأْخُذَهُمْ بِهِ حَتَّى يُسْلِمُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَ تَعَالَى قَالَ حَتَّى يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَ هُمْ صاغِرُونَ وَ كَيْفَ يَكُونُ صَاغِراً وَ هُوَ لَا يَكْتَرِثُ لِمَا يُؤْخَذُ مِنْهُ حَتَّى يَجَدَ ذُلًّا لِمَا أُخِذَ مِنْهُ فَيَأْلَمَ لِذَلِكَ فَيُسْلِمَ … وَ لَيْسَ لِلْإِمَامِ أَكْثَرُ مِنَ الْجِزْيَةِ إِنْ شَاءَ الْإِمَامُ وَضَعَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى رُءُوسِهِمْ وَ لَيْسَ عَلَى أَمْوَالِهِمْ شَيْءٌ وَ إِنْ شَاءَ فَعَلَى أَمْوَالِهِمْ وَ لَيْسَ عَلَى رُءُوسِهِمْ شَيْءٌ فَقُلْتُ فَهَذَا الْخُمُسُ فَقَالَ إِنَّمَا هَذَا شَيْءٌ كَانَ صَالَحَهُمْ عَلَيْهِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص).
This also indicates, in some manner, the absence of inherent dignity.
The Ninth Group
The ninth group comprises traditions indicating the ritual impurity (najāsah) of disbelievers; of course, some jurists have also ruled on the impurity of non-disbelievers and certain groups who are outwardly Muslim. However, ultimately, numerous traditions have been transmitted that consider disbelievers to be ritually impure. This is separate from the verses—for now, we have nothing to do with the verses, such as: “The polytheists are only impure” (إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ) [Surah Al-Tawbah, 9:28]—which constitutes a type of insult and negation of dignity. These traditions themselves comprise two groups.
Some of the traditions concerning disbelievers relate their ritual impurity to the consequence of the impurity of certain things they consume; meaning an accidental ritual impurity (najāsah ʿaraḍiyyah), such as wine (khamr) and pork (khinzīr). Therefore, the term “impure” (najis) is used regarding them, and avoiding the vessels they use is requested.
Other traditions express their ritual impurity generally, without reference to what they eat and drink; this is apparent in their possessing an inherent ritual impurity (najāsah dhātiyyah). Some traditions might also combine both.
“From Muḥammad ibn Muslim, who said: ‘I asked Abū Jaʿfar (peace be upon him) concerning the vessels of the people of Dhimmah and the Magians. He said: Do not eat from their vessels, nor of their food which they cook, nor in their vessels in which they drink wine'” (عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمِ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ ع عَنْ آنِيَةِ أَهْلِ الذِّمَّةِ وَ الْمَجُوسِ فَقَالَ لَا تَأْكُلُوا فِي آنِيَتِهِمْ وَ لَا مِنْ طَعَامِهِمُ الَّذِي يَطْبُخُونَ وَ لَا فِي آنِيَتِهِمُ الَّتِي يَشْرَبُونَ فِيهَا الْخَمْرَ). From one perspective, this relates the impurity to their vessels and wine. However, he states: do not use the food they cook either. This perhaps does not relate to the vessels or meat, but rather introduces them as impure.
In some traditions, shaking hands (muṣāfaḥah) with disbelievers is also prohibited. “From Muḥammad ibn Muslim, from Abū Jaʿfar (peace be upon him) concerning a man who shook hands with a Magian man. He said: He washes his hand and does not perform ablution (wuḍūʾ)” (عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمِ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع فِي رَجُلٍ صَافَحَ رَجُلًا مَجُوسِيّاً قَالَ يَغْسِلُ يَدَهُ وَ لَا يَتَوَضَّأُ). Here, he has prohibited it generally.
“From Abū Baṣīr, from one of them (peace be upon them) concerning a Muslim shaking hands with a Jew or a Christian, who said: ‘From behind a garment; but if he shook hands with you with his hand, then wash your hand'” (عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرِ عَنْ أَحَدِهِمَا ع فِي مُصَافَحَةِ الْمُسْلِمِ الْيَهُودِيَّ وَ النَّصْرَانِيَّ قَالَ مِنْ وَرَاءِ الثَّوْبِ فَإِنْ صَافَحَكَ بِيَدِهِ فَاغْسِلْ يَدَكَ).
Some of these traditions have been subjected to criticism. One objection is that, after all, when one shakes hands, his hand does not necessarily have moisture, and a dry hand poses no problem; therefore, some have said this has no relation to the issue of ritual impurity. Rather, the act of shaking hands and warming up to them is itself detested by Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He. He wishes to convey the ugliness of this action to Muslims.
At any rate, the main point is that these traditions, despite their differences in terms of subject matter—as some point to inherent impurity, and some indicate accidental impurity—nevertheless indicate the absence of human dignity. If we consider their impurity to be inherent, as there is this same disagreement regarding the verse: “The polytheists are only impure” (إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ) [Surah Al-Tawbah, 9:28]—most consider it to indicate inherent impurity, while some say that what is understood from it is inward filth (khubth bāṭinī) and it does not indicate inherent ritual impurity; and if a disbeliever or polytheist possesses impurity, it is by virtue of the pork, dog, and wine they eat and drink. In any case, whichever it may be, whether inherent or accidental impurity, and whether it is the detestableness and dislike of any kind of connection with disbelievers—which at least some of the traditions convey—it indicates the negation of human dignity.
The Tenth Group
There is another group of traditions that itself comprises several other minor groups, and each of these minor groups is capable of being an independent group; however, we place all of them under a single title, which is the traditions indicating severity of action toward disbelievers—whether in punishments, blood money (diyyah), penal laws (hudūd), retaliation (qiṣāṣ), inheritance, testimony… I shall only mention the titles and pass over them.
The traditions indicating the prohibition of marriage with the People of the Book; the traditions indicating enslavement, execution, and restricting a captive disbeliever; the traditions indicating fighting disbelievers until they accept Islam; the traditions indicating restriction upon an apostate (murtadd); the traditions indicating the absence of sanctity for the blood and property of a Nasibi (some traditions have been transmitted indicating that neither the blood of a Nasibi nor his property possesses sanctity); the traditions indicating the absence of retaliation against a Muslim for killing a disbeliever; the traditions indicating the non-acceptance of the testimony of a disbeliever against a Muslim, even if he were a Dhimmi; the traditions indicating the deprivation of a disbeliever from inheriting from a Muslim. These traditions exist and are not few; these several examples can be grouped under one title: severity and intensity in dealing with disbelievers and those who falsely claim Islam (muntaḥilīn bi-l-Islām).
All of these indicate the absence of human dignity. That a disbeliever is deprived of inheriting from a Muslim, that his testimony is not accepted, that his property and blood are considered permissible—all of these indicate that this category of human beings does not possess dignity; this cannot be reconciled with dignity. What insult is higher than these, and what restrictions and pressures are higher than what has been stated here?
Discussion of the Next Session
As you observed, we mentioned ten groups of traditions, and this last group itself comprises several groups that we consolidated under a single title. We answered the first four groups, but are these latter six groups answerable? That is, is the conflict between these traditions and those indicating dignity resolvable, and can we reconcile them? This is a matter of great importance and is path-finding for us. Here, we can provide general and common answers to the conflict of these six groups with the traditions of dignity, and at the same time, we can also mention specific answers for each of them. Since time is short, I shall state the general and common answers in outline, and if there is a need for explanation regarding some of these groups in the meantime, I shall mention it, God willing.