ṭahāra
- Arabic:
- “purity”
ṭahāra, system of ritual purity in Islam. This system is based on two premises: the first is that humans lapse from a state appropriate to ritual activity as a result of certain bodily acts, such as defecation, sexual intercourse, or menstruation. Second, there are certain substances, such as pork or blood, that are either unclean by nature or have the effect of defiling a space, person, or object, rendering it unfit for ritual use. In both cases, the unfitness of the thing or person can be remedied by the ritual application of water or of a simulacrum (sand, clean rock, etc.).
All things and places are presumed to be ritually acceptable or neutral unless Scripture—either Qurʾān or Hadith—indicates otherwise. Items that are always defiling are called najas and include swine, blood, dog saliva, and wine. All najas should be avoided when possible, and if clothing or dishes come in contact with these items they should be washed with water until there is no smell, sight, or other evidence of the proscribed item. Pork or carrion should never be eaten and neither should carrion eaters such as vultures or dogs; products such as feces or hides from these animals should also be avoided.
There are two ritually disabling states into which humans fall—affected (muḥdath) and precluded (junub). Acts that are “affects” are called ḥadath, and these include defecation, urination, breaking wind, touching a person of the opposite sex (with desire, for most schools of Islamic jurisprudence), or touching one’s own genitals. For most jurists, unconsciousness or sleeping in a prone position make it probable that one has at least broken wind and so is affected. Likewise, violent laughter, coughing, or anger, according to many jurists, ought to occasion ritual purification, if they do not actually require it. Until the affected person undoes this state, he or she cannot perform ritual worship (ṣalāt), circumambulate the Kaʿbah, or handle the Qurʾān.
The ritual purification for being affected is called ablution (wuḍūʾ). It consists of (1) intending to perform the wuḍūʾ, (2) washing the hands to the wrists three times, (3) rinsing out the mouth and snuffing water into the nostrils three times, and (4) washing the face from the hairline to the neck, the chin, and the openings of the nostrils. (5) The beard (if there is one) is then combed with wet fingers, and (6) the hands and arms are washed up to the elbows three times. (7) The head—from the forehead to the nape of the neck, including the ears—is then rubbed with both hands, and (8) the feet, particularly the tops and including the ankles, are rubbed. Finally, (9) the Muslim says, “I bear witness that there is no God but God, the unique, who has no partner. I bear witness that Muhammad is his servant and his Messenger.”
The other state of impurity, which is sometimes called the major impurity, is referred to in ritual texts as preclusion (janābah). It arises from sexual intercourse, seminal emission, menstruation, and childbirth. A person in a state of preclusion is ritually disabled like the affected person, but in addition he or she may not recite the Qurʾān, perform ritual recollections (dhikr) of God, or fast for Ramadan. This disability is reversed by—according to most schools—adding the pouring of water over the entire body to the rituals of ablution. This lustration (ghusl) is the reason why bathhouses are found throughout Islamdom, since every act of sexual intercourse, every menstruation, and every childbirth requires lustration before the Muslim can resume his or her ritual life. Only women are ritually disabled in this major way by acts they cannot control, and only women cannot immediately lustrate themselves into a state of ritual capability.
Unlike in many other ritual communities, however, in Sunni law a ritually disabled person does not, by touch, conversation, or other contact, have the power to disable another person ritually. Shīʿism differs from Sunni law precisely on this issue of the contamination through ritually disabled persons and impure substances. For Imami Shīʿites, women who are menstruating can render a man in need of ablution by contact with her. Indeed, according to some legists, the very sweat of a menstruating woman, passing through her clothing, can ritually disable a man. Also, prayer in an area contaminated by an impure substance or person is invalid. In addition, Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims have been seen in much of Shīʿite legal theory as ritually contaminating. According to some, food cooked by non-Muslims cannot be eaten, water being drunk by non-Muslims and the cup that contains it are ritually impure, and (as one of the distinctive features of Shīʿite law) Christians and Jews cannot be acceptable butchers, as they may be for Sunnis.
The penalties for transgressions of the rules of purity are generally mild. Muslims who have intercourse when the woman is menstruating must make a small donation to charity. Impure foods eaten inadvertently require no penance. Prayer or other rituals deliberately offered in a state of ritual impurity are simply invalid, causing one to suffer the double fault of disobeying God and failing validly to perform one’s ritual obligations.
One of the most striking features of the Islamic legal (fiqh) literature on purity (as on most things) is the nearly complete absence of any justification for ritual rules. Why God ordained washing in a certain way as a precondition of prayer or excluded menstruating women from ritual was not explained by the legists. The arbitrariness of these rules—from a human point of view—was recognized in legal and theological discourse. The Sufi tradition, by contrast, did not shy from venturing such explanations, and works like Abū Ṭālīb al-Makkī’s Qut al-qulub and al-Ghazālī’s Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn are filled with explanations of the reasons or symbolism behind the rituals of purity. In Sufism, they were particularly prone to see in the rituals of ablution and lustration figures of moral or spiritual purity. The cleansing of the body and the cleansing of the heart were conflated by Sufi legists, so that these rituals took on a deeper significance and acquired many layers of meaning.
In modern times the justification of ritual as obedience has seemed embarrassing to apologists, and from the 19th century both liberals and Islamists have labored to find the real point of these rituals. Most have assimilated ritual purity to “cleanliness” or “hygiene” and have seen in the rules for ablution a wise anticipation by God and his Prophet of the insights of modern scientists such as Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister.