• Start
  • Previous
  • 13 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 5258 / Download: 3502
Size Size Size
Social Psychology and World Politics

Social Psychology and World Politics

Author:
Publisher: McGraw Hill
English

www.alhassanain.org/english

Part Seven/ Interdisciplinary Perspectives

Chapter Thirty-Five

Handbook of Social Psychology, D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzwey (eds.), New York: McGraw Hill. (1998)

Social Psychology and World Politics

Philip E. Tetlock

The Ohio State University

www.alhassanain.org/english

Notice:

This version is published on behalf of www.alhassanain.org/english

The composing errors are not corrected.

Table of Contents

[Note] 5

[Introduction] 6

I. Standards of Evidence and Proof 9

A. Grounds for Scientific Pessimism 9

B. Grounds for Scientific Optimism 13

II. Psychological Challenges to Neorealist Rationality 18

A. Neorealism 18

B. Cognitivism 20

C. Are Psychologists Biased to Detect Bias? 31

D. Motivational processes 32

E. Placing Psychological Processes 37

F. Reprise 42

III. Psychological Challenges to Deterrence 43

A. Deterrence 43

B. Testing, Clarifying and Qualifying Deterrence 45

C. Influence Strategies 46

D. Reprise 51

IV. Nation-State Under Siege 53

A. Centrifugal and Centripetal Forces 53

B. Subnational Fragmentation 54

C. Beyond anarchy 57

D. Beyond Anarchy 59

V. Concluding Thoughts 62

Bibliography 67

[Note]

Chapter to appear in D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. Comments should be sent to the author at the Department of Psychology, 1885 Neil Ave., 142 Townsend Hall, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH, 43210. Portions of this chapter were completed while the author was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Preparation of this chapter was assisted by research grants from the MacArthur Foundation, the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation and the National Science Foundation as well as by a training grant from NSF to the Mershon Center at The Ohio State University. I thank Peter Suedfeld, Susan Fiske, Dan Gilbert, Ole Holsti, Bob Jervis, Peter Katzenstein, Ned Lebow, Yaacov Vertzberger, Herb Kelman, Bruce Russett, Paul t’Hart, Robyn Dawes, Randall Schweller, Rick Herrmann, Don Sylvan, Alan Fiske, and Bill Boettcher for helpful comments on earlier versions of this chapter.

[Introduction]

Does social psychology add to our understanding of war and peace among nations? For many social psychologists, the answer is an unequivocal "yes." What could be more obvious? Social psychology explores the causes of the thoughts, feelings and actions of human beings. International relationsis ultimately the product of the thoughts, feelings and actions of human beings who decide to arm or disarm nations, to engage in ethnic cleansing or to build pluralistic polities, and to treat international trade as a zero-sum or positive-sum game. It seems to follow that, insofar as social psychology achieves its explanatory goals, it cannot help but shed light on the central problems of world politics.

This reductionist syllogism, however, proves too much. By the same "logic," we could just as easily absorb psychology into neurophysiology or biochemistry into quantum mechanics. It is not enough to posit the relevance of the ostensibly more basic discipline: it is necessary to demonstrate its relevance. Moreover, demonstrating relevance is no small task. Skeptics stand ready to challenge the generalizability of laboratory findings (the external-validity controversy), to criticize social psychologists for not trying hard enough to bridge the gap between detailed case studies and abstract theory-testing (the idiographic-nomothetic controversy), to scold social psychologists for failing to respect the unbridgeable gap between descriptive and prescriptive propositions (the “is” - “ought” controversy), and to question the explanatory usefulness of "soft" micro constructs such as beliefs and values in a domain dominated by "hard" macro constraints such as determined domestic interest groups, unforgiving international creditors and lethal new weapons technologies in the hands of potential adversaries (the level-of-analysis controversy). From this standpoint, it is not at all obvious that social psychology plays an essential explanatory role in world politics. The scholarly community is well-advised to turn to other sources of theoretical guidance: for example, rational actor models derived from game theory and micro-economics (Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman, 1992; Waltz, 1979) or normative models derived from institutional economics and theories of international "regimes" (Keohane, 1984) or even Marxist analyses of center-periphery relations in the international system (Wallerstein, 1984).

There are thus two polar-opposite starting points for this chapter. One takes the relevance of social psychology as self-evident; the other takes the irrelevance of social psychology as equally self-evident. On reflection, most scholars would probably reject both starting points for staking out far too simplistic positions on the complex problem of how to weave together explanations that span the micro-macro continuum: from the individual decision-maker to small group dynamics to accountability constraints of organizations to domestic political competition to the international balance of power. Although theories grounded in these different levels of analysis do occasionally make contradictory predictions, the prevailing tendency today is to think "systemically" about the interconnections across levels of analysis and to stress the complementarity rather than the exclusivity of levels of analysis (Jervis, 1976).

In this spirit, the current chapter explores efforts over the last 27 years (the time of the last Handbook review on this topic--Etzioni, 1969) to assess the relevance of social psychology to world politics. The first section addresses the problem of setting standards of evidence and proof for causal claims in a domain where: (a) key events occur only once; (b) there are typically many plausible causal candidates; (c) experimental control is impossible and statistical control is often problematic; (d) investigators must therefore rely on speculative thought experiments concerning how events would have unfolded under alternative circumstances. Our task is further complicated by the emotionally and ideologically charged conclusions that investigators sometimes draw. When the null hypothesis is "nuclear deterrence played no role in preventing a Soviet-American war,” the routine scientific act of trading off Type I versus Type II errors becomes a defining political statement in itself. This combination of causal ambiguity, political controversy, and moral engagement makes doing "normal science" on world politics potentially hazardous to one's scientific reputation. No matter what one does, one runs the risk of standing accused of either political naiveté or of surreptitiously advancing an activist agenda or of clinging to an outmoded positivist philosophy of science that upholds the reactionary ideal of value-neutrality. The resolution to the trilemma proposed here emphasizes multi-method research programs in which investigators: (a) rigorously ground psychological propositions in political contexts; (b) self-critically practice "turnabout" thought experiments in which they ask each other whether they apply the same standards of evidence to politically opposing claims.

The second section examines the now familiar “rationality” debate as that controversy plays itself out in the study of world politics. Since Thucydides, self-styled realists have argued that world politics obeys a distinctive logic of its own. There is little leeway in the cut-throat arena of international competition for slow learners who allow personal beliefs, needs, or ideals to cloud their vision of looming threats. Accordingly, there is little need for psychological explanations. National leaders either respond in a timely manner to shifting balances of power (whether calibrated in strategic nuclear warheads or gross domestic products) or they are rapidly replaced by more realistic leaders. The choice is between rational updating of expectations in calculating Bayesian fashion and being selected out of the game in ruthless Darwinian fashion. The chapter explores: (a) why these purely systemic explanations are helpful for understanding broad historical patterns but are hardpressed to explain specific foreign policy decisions; (b) how psychological models can complement the explanatory strengths and weaknesses of systemic theories. The chapter also cautions us not to view the knowledge transfer as a one-directional flow from “basic” psychological truths to the applied international context; the macro context can set both normative and empirical boundary conditions on psychological generalizations, reminding us that response tendencies that look dysfunctional in the laboratory may be functional in many international settings as well as that response tendencies that look empirically robust in the laboratory may disappear at institutional and international levels of analysis.

The third section deals with interstate influence. Deterrence theorists--who enjoyed remarkable influence over American foreign policy in the post World War II period--take an extremely parsimonious view of the workings of diplomacy and negotiation. From this perspective, too much subtlety can be a dangerous thing when it communicates weakness and vacillation to potential aggressors. One prevails by possessing the necessary power and by clearly communicating the resolve to use it under specified circumstances. This section examines some psychologically richer conceptions of the influence process that emphasize the need to strike reasonable balances between the goals of deterrence (don't let the other side exploit you) and of reassurance (don't exacerbate the worst-case fears of the other side). It also examines evidence from multiple methods that clarifies when different influence tactics are likely to elicit desired reactions from the other side.

Thus far, the focus has been on fundamental processes--decision making and social influence--that are a safe bet to play key roles in almost every conceivable scenario for the next century. World politics, is, however, in a state of flux. The nation-state, it is frequently claimed, is under siege by both sub-national forces of ethnic fragmentation and supra-national forces of economic integration. An empirically comprehensive analysis can no longer treat the nation-state as the unchallenged decision-making unit. People may direct their loyalties elsewhere. And a theoretically balanced analysis can no longer assume that international relations are inherently anarchic and lawless. Accordingly, the fourth section of this chapter targets theories that address the powerful centrifugal and centripetal forces operating on the international system. The focus shifts to the complexities of applying theories of group identification and of distributive and procedural justice to a rapidly transforming world. Key questions for the attentive public become "Who am I?", "To what groups do I belong?", "What is a fair distribution of burdens and benefits of group membership within and across national boundaries?", and "When should we coordinate the policies of our nation with those of others to provide the international equivalent of public goods in such diverse domains as health, commerce, environmental protection, peace, and human rights?”

I. Standards of Evidence and Proof

In epistemology, as in life, it is helpful to set one's aspiration level high, but not too high. On the one hand, the early pioneers of the scientific approach to world politics were probably too optimistic (Richardson, 1960). We will never have clock-like Newtonian laws of world politics that predict the waxing and waning of great powers or the trajectories of arms races. On the other hand, post-modernist debunkers of scientific approaches have probably gone too far (Ashley, 1988). Predicting political events is not as hopeless as predicting the shape, color and size of the clouds in the sky next week. That said, however, there are good reasons for supposing that there is limited potential for discovering powerful laws that support accurate long-term forecasts (Almond and Genco, 1978; Jervis, 1992b).

A. Grounds for Scientific Pessimism

(1) the tape of history runs only once. Psychologists have grown accustomed to the inferential luxury of control groups that allow them to assess whether the hypothesized cause really made a difference. In world politics, the control groups exist--if "exist" is the right word--only in the imaginations of political observers who try to reconstruct how events would have unfolded if the hypothesized cause had taken on a different value in an alternative world. Could we have averted World War II if Churchill rather than Chamberlain had confronted Hitler at Munich in 1938? Could we have triggered World War III if Kennedy had followed his more hawkish advisors and launched air strikes against Soviet missile sites in Cuba in 1962? Would the newly industrializing countries of the 1970's and 1980's have grown even more rapidly if their governments had pursued less interventionist economic policies? Time-machines fantasies to the side, there is no way to rerun history and experimentally manipulate the presence or absence of a "key" personality, event, or policy.

Whereas experimental control is simply impossible, statistical control is possible in principle, but often deeply problematic in practice. For many categories of questions--such as the role of nuclear weapons in preserving the long peace (1945-1991) between the U.S.A. andU.S.S.R.( Gaddis, 1993)--there are too many confounding variables and too few degrees of freedom to disentangle competing casual claims. Judicious selection of comparison cases and meticulous process tracing of decision-making records can sometimes tip the scales of plausibility in these statistically indeterminate cases (George, 1980; Khong, 1991), but any causal inferences will still ultimately rest on counterfactual assumptions about what would have happened in possible worlds in which the hypothesized independent variables took on alternative values from those in the actual world. The dependence on thought experiments is not, however, adequately appreciated (Fearon, 1991) and is regarded by many as embarrassing, undercutting the validity of all casual claims about world politics. This reaction is understandable but exaggerated. To say that debates over security issues ultimately reduce to competing counterfactual scenarios is not to concede that anything goes. It is possible to articulate standards of evidence and proof even for counterfactual arguments (Tetlock & Belkin, 1996). Among other things, good counterfactual arguments should have clearly specified antecedents, consequents and connecting principles, should not rewrite massive stretches of history, should rely on connecting principles that are consistent with well-established theoretical and empirical generalizations, and should contain the seeds of testable hypotheses in the actual world.

(2) many plausible causal candidates. When scholars perform thought experiments to explore what might have happened under this or that contingency, they often discover a plethora of possibilities. Half a dozen schools of thought may stand ready to advance their preferred causal candidates and to assert confidently that they know how events would have worked out if the hypothesized causes had taken on different values. These causal candidates are drawn from the full spectrum of levels of analysis. It is instructive to observe their interplay in two actual controversies: the debates over blame for World War I and credit for the Asian "tigers."

(I) World War I. For nearly a century, scholars have debated the origins of the ironically labeled "war to end all wars." Some claims invoke "butterfly-effect" counterfactuals that, in the spirit of chaos and complexity theory, stress the role of quasi-random contingencies in shaping events (cf. Gaddis, 1993). A classic example is the precipitating event--such as the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in June 1914--which can be easily "undone" by simply positing that the driver of the royal carriage possessed a map of Sarajevo and did not make a fateful wrong turn that gave the Serbian assassins who had just botched the job a remarkable second chance to do it right. Other claims invoke cause-effect generalizations drawn from traditional disciplines. Some psychobiographers suggest that German foreign policy would have been more prudent if Kaiser Wilhelm had not been so insecure (perhaps because of his withered arm) and determined to assert his manhood (Kohut, 1982). Students of crisis decision-making suggest that time pressure and information load promoted simplification and rigidity of thought (perhaps preventing policy-makers from generating complex compromise agreements that might have averted war--Holsti, 1972). Students of military doctrine and organization assign blame to the widespread "cult of the offensive" that led key planners to believe that the side which mobilized first possessed a decisive strategic advantage (Snyder, 1984). Students of identity-politics trace the conflict to the inherent instability of multi-ethnic empires such as Austro-Hungary and to the resulting power vacuum. Neorealist analysts of international systems point to the inherent instability of multipolar balances of power and the threat to that balance posed by the rapid growth of German industrial and military strength. In this view, World War I was a conflagration waiting to happen. The Sarajevo assassination was but one of countless sparks that could have easily set off the same underlying conflict.

(ii) The emergence of the "Asian tigers”. Almost no social scientists in the 1950's predicted that the astonishing growth rates of East Asian economies in the late 20th century. But almost all social scientists in the 1990's can generate four or five reasons for the inevitability of those same growth rates. Advocates of cultural explanations can point to the "work-ethic" character traits inculcated by Confucianist family values: hard work, in-group loyalty, and willingness to subordinate immediate gratification of individual desires to long-term group goals (Pye, 1985). Advocates of strategic trade can point to government subsidies and nurturance of "infant industries" in high-growth-potential sectors of the economy (Johnson, 1993; Tyson, 1993). Advocates of neoclassical economic theory can point to intense competition within many of these "infant industries" and to tax laws and low-inflation macro-economic policies that encourage high savings rates that, in turn, provide large pools of low-interest investment capital (Friedman, 1992). Defenders of authoritarian government as an essential transitional phase toward prosperity can point to the importance of suppressing unions and maintaining low wage rates in labor-intensive industries as an early source of comparative advantage in international trade.

What do World War I and the economic miracles of East Asia have in common? In each case, we find a long list of distinct but interrelated causal candidates, each of which rests on difficult-to-test assumptions about what would have had to be different to alter the observed outcome. In each case, an event that virtually no one predicted appears, with benefit of theoretical hindsight, hopelessly over-determined (Fischhoff, 1975; Hawkins & Hastie, 1990). Finally, in each case, people often find it very difficult to recapture the sense of uncertainty that prevailed before the historical outcome was known. We exaggerate the degree to which we “knew it all along.” Our capacity to assimilate known outcomes from the past to favorite causal schemata vastly exceeds our ability to predict unknown outcomes in the future (cf. Dawes, 1993).

(3) the interrelatedness of potential causes. In the ideal thought experiment, we manipulate one cause at a time and gauge its impact. Part of what makes "assassination" counterfactuals so popular among chaos and complexity theorists is that it seems so easy to rewrite one or two trivial details of history, to hold all else constant, and to observe big effects. All we need to do is to suppose that Lee Harvey Oswald was not quite so good a marksman and most of us share the intuition that we would have a rather different list of American presidents from 1963 onward. The thought experiment seems to illustrate the "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" of major events (McCloskey, 1991).

Thought experiments are, however, more problematic than this laboratory model suggests. Causes rarely exist in isolation from each other. When we tamper with one potential cause, we almost always alter a host of others, thereby creating confounding variables (Jervis, 1996). For instance, if we counterfactually posit slower German growth rates in pre-1914 Europe, we simultaneously change the entire geopolitical calculus. Perhaps Britain would no longer perceive Germany as the power most likely to achieve European hegemony but rather would see France as the primary threat (as in Napoleonic times) or Russia (as after 1945). A shift in the domestic political or economic condition of one state may have far-reaching ramifications on alliance structures. Game theorists have been most explicit in modeling these sorts of "ripple effects" by mapping out the best responses available to other players in the event that one player (for whatever reason) deviates from the equilibrium path (Bueno de Mesquita, 1996; Weingast, 1996). To reach determinate counterfactual conclusions, however, these game theorists must make heroic assumptions both about the rationality of the players and about the assumptions that the players themselves make about each other's rationality (necessary for identifying equilibrium strategies via backward induction).

If world politics is best represented as systems embedded within systems and if it is generally inappropriate even to imagine manipulatingan hypothesized cause in isolation from the causal network within which it is embedded, we confront an extraordinary dilemma. For the more densely interconnected the potential causes, the less possible it becomes to trace the impact of any change even after the fact, less still to predict it before the fact. From this standpoint, the most popular research strategy for disentangling cause and effect in world politics--the comparative case method--is deeply, perhaps fatally, flawed. Searching for several cases that are similar except for one "independent variable" is systematically misleading. Not only is there no random assignment to conditions, there is the problem of path-dependence (Jervis, 1996). Our location in the historical flow of events is consequential. What we do now is shaped by what happened earlier. These earlier branching-point events have taught us particular lessons and values. For example, when we compare the consequences of pursuing deterrence versus reassurance policies (a popular comparison in political psychology), we need to factor into our intuitive causal model the variety of reasons why people found it reasonable to resort to deterrence in certain cases but to reassurance in others. Deterrence may be an effect as well as a cause--a sign in itself of how far the relationship had already deteriorated. Interpretive controversies of this sort surface frequently in security debates.

The strong form of the "system-effects” argument leaves us teetering on the brink of policy nihilism, with no way to tell what might have happened if we had listened to one or the other faction in a policy dispute. Of course, the strong form of the argument may be too strong. In the cosmic matrix of causal interconnections, most entries may be close to zero (cf. Pattee, 1973), in which case the indeterminacy problems are less acute. The only sure fact is that no one knows for sure. Firm opinions must be based on metaphysical guesses.

(4) counterfactuals are often politically controversial. A fourth factor complicates efforts to make sense of world politics. Most debates over counterfactual scenarios engage partisan political motives. For instance, defenders of the Reagan defense build-up of the 1980's argued that, without it, the Soviet political establishment would never have accepted as radically a reformist leader as Gorbachev--a leader whose policies of glasnost and perestroika "led to" the disintegration of the Soviet state (Pipes, 1993). Critics of the Reagan administration argued that the defense build-up was either an irrelevancy or an impediment to Soviet reformers and--in either case--an egregious waste of national treasure (Garthoff, 1994; Lebow & Stein, 1994). For our purposes, the key point is this: one can neither sensibly defend nor compellingly criticize a policy initiative without making assumptions about how things would have worked out differently if the government had done something else.

Short of adopting a stance of radical agnosticism toward all policy initiatives, something few social scientists are willing to do, there is no avoiding the daunting task of setting thresholds of proof for counterfactual thought exercises. One must judge the likelihood of making Type I versus Type II errors (e.g., concluding that deterrence works when it does not versus concluding that it does not work when it does) and the risks associated with each error, all the while under partisan pressure to tip the scales of plausibility in one direction or another.

(5) too much is at stake to confess ignorance. Putting political pressures aside, human beings find it dissonant to acknowledge that they are making extraordinarily consequential decisions with little knowledge of the likely consequences. Insofar as people need to believe that they are masters of their destiny or, at least, that they live in a comprehensible and predictable world, they will bolster their confidence in preferred counterfactual scenarios and downplay rival scenarios. They will also tend to dismiss indeterminacy arguments as nihilistic carping. Indeed, they will find it aversive to be reminded of the soft counterfactual underbelly of their belief systems. Who wants to be told that deeply held convictions rest on speculative assumptions about what might have happened in imaginary worlds?

In sum, there are powerful temptations--cognitive, emotional, and political--to claim to know more than one does or even can about world politics. Part of the problem is how few causal claims can withstand systematic scientific scrutiny. There are usually many plausible accounts and imperfect means of gauging their relative credibility. Part of the problem is the magnitude of the policy consequences and the awkwardness of confessing how little one knows when so much is at stake. The scholarly study of world politics seems to require a superhuman capacity to tolerate ambiguity and to resist the siren calls of moral-political advocacy.

This argument might be mistaken for a counsel of despair, perhaps even a postmodernist critique of the quest for causal laws in both social psychology and history (cf. Gergen, 1978). It is one matter, however, to acknowledge candidly the difficulty of the task and quite another to abandon it altogether and replace it with a hermeneutic agenda. Awareness of epistemological traps and political temptations helps to calibrate realistic aspiration levels for research. The classic goal--well-defined covering laws that allow us to deduce past events and to predict future ones with great accuracy (Hempel,1965)-- is outside our reach now and perhaps forever. A more modest goal--cumulative multi-method research programs that allow us to identify recurring patterns in the past and to anticipate some future events with greater than chance accuracy--is within our reach. Indeed, the proof is the research literature.

B. Grounds for Scientific Optimism

Given the scale of the indeterminacy problems in world politics, how can researchers build a persuasive case for a particular hypothesis? This chapter argues for a three-pronged strategy in which: a) researchers draw upon middle-range theoretical generalizations that rest on cumulative empirical work in other fields as sources of causal hypotheses; b) researchers make good-faith (reasonably value-neutral) efforts to test the applicability of these generalizations to various facets of world politics; c) researchers remain vigilant to the possibility that the transfer of knowledge is not one-directional and that "basic" psychological findings may have to be seriously qualified or even reversed by political, economic, and cultural moderator variables.

With respect to the first requirement, the wide assortment of "basic-process" chapters in the volume should serve as evidence that cumulative bodies of work exist on such relevant topics as judgment and choice (Dawes, Handbook Chapter) bargaining and negotiation (Pruitt, Handbook Chapter) social identity maintenance and intergroup conflict (Brewer & Brown, Handbook Chapter) and perceptions of fairness within and across group boundaries (Tyler & Smith, Handbook Chapter). Prima facie relevance is not enough, however, to clinch the case. Thoughtful theorists deny the relevance of laboratory studies on one or another of the following grounds: a) selection arguments (to make it into high-level political roles, one must be a lot more mature and rational than the typical sophomore participant in laboratory studies); b) motivational arguments (policy-makers are especially motivated to make rational decisions because the stakes are so high); c) accountability-constraint arguments (even if policy-makers were prone to the same effects as laboratory participants, they work within complex institutional systems of checks and balances that prevent those effects from being translated into policy).

Each argument raises subtle issues concerning boundary conditions for experimental findings. Here the key point is the necessity of obtaining independent evidence that the hypothesized psychological processes are indeed operating in the political world. The crucial question becomes one of multi-method convergence: Do we obtain similar functional relationships between the conceptual independent and dependent variables studied in laboratory and real-world settings? Consider three examples:

1) laboratory studies have revealed that people tend to shift into "simpler" modes of cognitive processing as information load, time pressure, and threat exceed some optimal point (Gilbert, 1989; Kruglanski & Freund, 1983; Streufert and Streufert, 1978; Svenson and Maules, 1994). Archival researchers, relying on content analyses of political statements, have concluded that similar processes have occurred in numerous international crises (Raphael, 1982; Suedfeld, 1992a; Wallace & Suedfeld, 1992; Walker & Watson, 1989, 1994).

2) laboratory studies of bargaining and influence reveal that threats often either do not work as intended or even backfire. One recurring theme is the relative effectiveness of some version of the tit-for-tat strategy that protects one from exploitation but leaves the door open for reconciliation. Qualitative case studies and quantitative event-analytic studies of international relations often converge on strikingly similar conclusions (Leng, 1993), as do computer simulations that pit all logical combinations of strategies against each other (Axelrod, 1984).

3) laboratory studies of judgmental biases reveal a host of mistakes that people apparently make in drawing causal attributions, estimating relationships among variables, revising views in response to new evidence, and attaching confidence to their judgments (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). Many case studies of the foreign policy decision-making process suggest that policy-makers fall prey to the same effects (Jervis, 1976; Lebow, 1981; Snyder, 1984; Vertzberger, 1986; Wirtz, 1991).

When it arises, and it does frequently in this chapter, multi-method convergence is generally taken as an encouraging sign. The working assumption is that theoretical generalizations that pass radically different tests stand a better chance of capturing robust regularities than do generalizations whose support is confined to one genre of research. Controlled experiments reassure us of the internal validity of the original causal claim whereas field methods--case studies, content analysis, event analysis, codifying expert judgment--reassure us that the hypothesized process holds up in the hurly-burly of world politics.

There is much to recommend this methodological division of labor and I have indeed endorsed it elsewhere (Tetlock, 1983). But there are good reasons for caution. First, convergence is sometimes spurious. Field researchers may conclude that policy-making that only superficially resembles a laboratory analog is the product of the same underlying process. For instance, policy makers may appear to rely on crude rules of thumb in drawing lessons from history (a finding consistent with laboratory work on analogical reasoning -- Gilovich, 1981). Policy makers may, however, actually possess a farmore subtle grasp of the situation. They may be using simple historical arguments such as "no more Munichs" or "no more Vietnams" to achieve impression management goals: to rally support from wavering political constituencies and to pre-empt potential critics. In a similar vein, policy makers may not be unaware of value trade-offs or of contradictory evidence but may find it politically useful to refuse to acknowledge them. Distinguishing perceptual-cognitive from impression management explanations is often a tricky judgment call even in controlled laboratory settings (Tetlock & Manstead, 1985); the indeterminacy problems are obviously more severe in historical case studies.

Political psychologists, nonetheless, frequently make such judgments. Holsti (1989) made such judgments in assessing whether crisis-induced stress really impairs policy reasoning or whether policy makers are trying to influence the calculations of other national leaders by persuading them that such impairment has occurred (see Schelling, 1966, on the rationality of occasionally appearing irrational). Stein (1991) made similar sorts of judgments in assessing whether leaders of states that challenge deterrence are allowing motives and wishes to inflate the perceived odds of success or whether they are trying to intimidate the status quo power by persuading it that the challengers have no choice (given their public commitments) but to persevere with confrontational policies. Fischhoff (1991) and Sagan (1985) grappled with a similar dilemma in the domain of nuclear command, control and communications systems. How can we assess whether decision makers responsible for operating these systems overestimate their ability to simultaneously avoid Type I errors (falsely conclude that an attack is occurring) and Type II errors (falsely conclude that an attack is not occurring) or whether these decision makers are self-consciously promoting a functional fiction that the system is in sound working order (so that the public will not panic and that adversaries will not test the system) . In short, it is no simple matter to distinguish true from spurious multi-method convergence.

There is also a second reason for caution. Multimethod divergence sometimes occurs. It is easy to identify real-world exceptions to most laboratory-based generalizations. Decision makers sometimes draw flexible, multidimensional lessons from history (Neustadt and May, 1986), confront trade-offs even in highly stressful situations (Maoz, 1981), and display a willingness to change their minds in response to new evidence (Breslauer & Tetlock, 1991). Multimethod divergence of this sort does not, of course, mean that one set of findings must be right and the other wrong. When different research methods yield different results, there are lots of possible explanations. How people think may depend on a variety of boundary conditions: individual differences in intellectual capacity, cognitive style, and interpersonal style, cultural background, and institutional variables such as the nature of the decision making task, small groups processes and role and accountability relationships. Each class of variables--by itself or in combination with others--may explain inconsistencies in the evidence.

Finally, a third cautionary comment merits mention. There is inevitably an element of subjectivity in judgments of multimethod convergence and divergence which creates potential for both the appearance and reality of political bias. There are no hard and fast rules that specify how quickly one should conclude that "convergence is specious" or "divergence constitutes falsification." When the hypotheses at stake are as politically consequential as "conservatives are more prone to cognitive biases than liberals” (Kanwisher, 1989) or "deterrence typically does not work" (White, 1984), the stage is set for epistemic mischief on an epic scale. Most social scientists are well known to be liberal in their political sympathies (Lipsett, 1982) and the suspicion inevitably arises -- justifiably or not -- that they are selectively raising and lowering standards of evidence to favor certain hypotheses (cf. Tetlock, 1994). Under these inauspicious circumstances, the scholarly community can best protect its reputation for reasonably fair and value-neutral scholarship by affirming its commitment to a level field for hypothesis-testing. "Turnabout” thought experiments should become routine mental exercises in the peer review process in which skeptics are encouraged to make the case, for example, that "if liberals instead of conservatives displayed a certain judgmental tendency, we would have been more reluctant to label the tendency a bias" or "if the predictions of the conflict-spiral rather than deterrence theory had been refuted, we would have more vigorously challenged the logical adequacy of the test". The key questions become: Have the rules of evidence been "stacked against" unpopular points of view? Do we require exceptionally strong evidence to challenge popular hypotheses and accept remarkably weak evidence to reject unpopular hypotheses? Do we, in brief, fall prey to the same theory-driven biases of thought of which we accuse others? And what scientific accountability mechanisms can we create to check such biases and adjudicate claims of epistemic double standards in so methodologically eclectic a field as world politics?

Notwithstanding these qualifications, multi-method triangulation still provides the soundest basis for causal claims in world politics. In the following sections, I shall be explicit about the evidential basis for various claims, giving extended attention to those that enjoy multi-method support.

Mutahhirat (Purifying Agents)

71. There are twelve things which make Najis objects Tahir:

(i) Water

(ii) Earth

(iii) The Sun

(iv) Trancformation (Istihalah)

(v) Change (Inqilab)

(vi) Transfer (Intiqal)

(vii) Islam

(viii) Subjection (Tabaiyyah)

(ix) Removal of original Najasah

(x) Confining (Istipà) of animal which feeds on Najasah

(xi) Disappearance of a Muslim

(xii) Draining of the usual quantity of blood from the slaughtered body of an animal.

I.Water

72. The interior of a Najis vessel, or utensil, even if it has been made Najis with wine, must be washed three times if less than Kurr water is used, and as per obligatory percaution,the same will apply if Kurr or running water is used. If a dog drinks water or any other liquid from a utensil, the utensil should be first scrubbed with Tahir earth,and after washing off the dust, it should be washed twice with running, Kurr or under Kurr water. similarly, if the dog licks a utensil, it should be scrubbed with dust before washing. And if the saliva of a dog falls into the utensil, or somewhere of its body meets the utensil, as per obligatory precaution, it should be scrubbed with dust and then washed with water three times.

73. If a utensil is licked by a pig, or if it drinks any liquid from it, or in which a rat has died, it should be washed seven times with running water, or Kurr or lesser water. It will not be necessary to scour it with dust.

A Najis utensil can be made Tahir with under Kurr water in two ways:

(i) The utensil is filled up with water and emptied three times.

(ii) some quantity of water and poured in it, and then the utensil is shaken, so that the water reaches all Najis parts. This should be done three times and then the water is spilled.

74. If a Najis thing is immersed once in Kurr or running water, is such a way that water reacher all its Najis parts, it becomes Tahir. And in the case of a carpet or dress, it is not necessary to squeeze or wring or press it. And when body or dress is Najis because of urine, it must be washed twice even in Kurr water.

75. When a thing which has become Najis with urine, is to be made Tahir with under_Kurr water, it should be poured once, and as water flows off eliminating all the traces of urine,the thing will become Tahir. But if dress or body has become Najis because of urine, it must be washed twice to be made Tahir. when a cloth or a carpet and similar things are made Tahir with water which is less than Kurr, it must be wrung, or squeezed, till the water remaining in it runs out.

76. If anything becomes Najis with the urine of a suckling child, who has not yet started taking solid food, the thing will be Tahir if water is poured over it once, reaching all parts which had been Najis.

163. If anything becomes Najis with Najasah other than urine, it becomes Tahir by first removing the Najasah and then pouring under-Kurr water once allowing it to flow off. But, if it is a dress etc, it should be squeezed so that the remaining water should flow off.

77. If the exterior of soap becomes Najis, it can be made Tahir, but if its interior becomes Najis, it cannot become Tahir, and if soap or not, its interior will be considered Tahir.

78. A Najis thing does not become Tahir unless the najis_ul_Ayn is removed from it,but there is not harm if the colour, or smell of the Najasah remains in it. So, if blood is removed from a cloth, and the cloth is rinsed with water, it will become Tahir even if the colour of blood remains on it.

79. Meat or fat which becomes Najis, can be made Tahir with water like all other things. same is the case if the body or dress or utensil has a little grease on it, which does not revent water from reaching it.

80. Tap water which is connected with Kurr water is considered to be Kurr.

81. If a person washed a thing with water, and becomes sure that it has become Tahir, but doubts later whether or not he had removed the Najis_ul_Ayn from it, he should wash it again, and ensure that the Najis_ul_Ayn has been removed.

82. If a ground which absorbs water (e.g. land on the surface of which there is fine sand) becomes Najis, it can be made Tahir even with under Kurr water.

83. If the floor which is made of stones, or picks or other hard ground, in which water is not absorbed, becomes Najis, it can be made Tahir with under Kurr water, but, it is necessary that so much water is poured on it that it begins to flow. And if that Water is not drained out, and it collects there, it should be drawn out by a vessel or soaked by a cloth.

II.Earth

84. The earth makes the sole of one’s feet and shoes Tahir, provided that the following four conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The earth should be Tahir.

(ii) The earth should be dry, as a precaution.

(iii) As an obligatory precaution, the Najasah should have stuck from the earth.

(iv) If najis-ul- Any, like blood or urine, or something which has become Najis, like najis clay, is stuck on the sole of a foot, or a shoe, it will be Tahir only if it is cleared by walking on earth, or by rubbing the foot or the shoe against it. therefore, if the Najis-ul-Any vanishes by itself, and not by walking or rubbing on the ground, the foot or the sole will not be Tahir by earth, as an obligatory precaution. And the earth should be dust or sand, or consisting of stones or laid with picks ; which means walking on carpet, mats, green grass will not make the sole of feet or shoes Tahir.

85. It is a matter of Ishkal that walking over a tarred road. or a wooden floor will make the Najis sole of feet and shoes Tahir. ( In other words, as an obligatory precaution, tarred road or wooden floor does not make Najis sole of feet or shoes Tahir.)

86. When the Najis sole of one's foot or shoe becomes Tahir by walking on earth, the parts adjacent to it, which are usually blotched with mud, become Tahir.

87. If a person moves on his hands and knees, and his hands or knees become Najis, it is a matter of Ishkal (it is improbable) that they become Tahir by such movement. Similarly, the end of a stick, the bottom of a prosthetic leg, the shoe of quadruped and the wheels of a car or a cart etc. would not become Tahir.

III.The Sun

88. The sun makes the earth, building,and the walls Tahir, provided the following five conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The Najis thing should be sufficiently wet, and if it is dry, it should be made wet so that the sun dries it up.

(ii) Any Najis-ul-Ayn should not be remained on it.

(iii) Nothing should intervene between the Najis thing and the sun. Therefore, if the rays fall on the Najis thing from behind a curtain, or a cloud etc, and makes it dry, the thing will not become Tahir. But, there is no harm if the cloud is so thin that it does not serve as an impediment between the Najis thing and the sun.

(iv) Only the sun should make the Najis thing dry. So, if a Najis thing is jointly dried by the wind and the sun, it will not become Tahir. However, it would not matter if the wind blows so lightly that it can be said that the thing has dried by the sun.

(v) The sun should dry up the whole Najis part of the building all at once. if the sun dries the surface of the Najis earth, or building, first, and later on dries the inner part, only the surface will become Tahir, and the inner portion will remain Najis.

89. If the sun shines on Najis earth, and one doubts later whether the earth was wet or not at that time, or whether the wetness dried up because of the sunshine or not, the earth will remain najis. Similarly, if one toubts whether Najis-ul- Ayn had been removed from the earth, or whether there was any impediment preventing direct sunshine, the earth will remain Najis.

IV. Transformation (Istia*àlah)

90. If a Najis thing undergoes such a change, that it assumes the category of a Tahir thing it becomes Tahir ; for example, if a Najis wood burns and is reduced to ashes,or a dog falls in a salt-marsh and transforms into salt, it becomes Tahir. But a thing does not become Tahir if its essence or category does not change ; like, if wheat is ground into flour, or is used for baking pead, it does not become Tahir

Change (Inqilab)

91. Any wine which becomes vinegar by itself, or by mixing it with vine gar or salt, becomes Tahir.

92. If the juice of grapes ferments by itself, or when heated, it becomes Halal (allowed). However, if it boils so much that only one third of it is left, it becomesHalal (allowed). It has already been mentioned in rule 60 that the juice of grapes does not become Najis on fermentation.

VI. Transfer (Intiqal)

93. If the blood of a human being, or of an animal whose blood gushes forth when its large vein is cut, is sucked by an insect, normally known to be bloodless, and it becomes part of its body, the blood becomes Tahir. This process is called intiqal.

VII. Islam

94. If an unbeliever testifies Oneness of Allah, and the Prophethood of prophet Muhammad(s), in whatever language, he becomes a Muslim. And just as he was Najis before, he becomes Tahir after becoming a Muslim, and his body, along with the saliva and the sweat, is Tahir.

95. If an unbeliever professes Islam, he will be Tahir even if another person is not sure whether he has empaced Islam sincerely, or not. And the same order applies even if it is known that he has not sincerely accepted Islam, but his words or deeds do not betray anything which may be contrary to the confirmation by him of the Oneness of Allah, and of prophet Muhammad(s) beingprophet of Allah.

VIII. subjection (TABA ‘IYYAH)

96. Tabaiyyah means that a Najis thing becomes Tahir, in subjection of another thing becoming Tahir.

97. When wine is transformed into vinegar, its container, up to the level wine reached on account of fermentation, will become Tahir. And so will the cloth or other thing which is usually put on it, if it has became Najis due to the wine. But, if the back part of the container become Najis because of contact with wine, it should be avoided, as an obligatory precaution, even after wine has transformed into vinegar.

98. If an unbeliever empaces Islam, his child in subjection to him becomes Tahir. Similarly, if the mother, grandfather or grandmother of a child empaces Islam, the child will become Tahir, provided that it is in their custody and care and there is not a Kàfir relative closer than them with it, and if the child has attained the age of under standing and discerning, it does not show inclination to unbelief.

99. The plank or slab of stone on which a dead body is given Ghusl, and the cloth with which his private parts are covered, and the hands of the person who gives Ghusl and all things washed together with the dead body, become Tahir when Ghusl is over.

100. When a person washes something with water to make it Tahir, his hands washed along with that thing, will be Tahir when the thing is Tahir.

101. If cloth etc. Is washed with under-Kurr water and is squeezed as usual, allowing water to flow off, the water which still remains in it is Tahir.

102. When a Najis utensil is washed with under-Kurr water, the small quantity of water left in it after spillig the water of final wash, is Tahir.

IX. Remoral of Najis-ul ‘Ayn

103. If body of an animal is stained with a Najis-ul-Ayn like blood or with something which has become Najis, for example, Najis water, its body becomes Tahir when the Najasah disappears. Similarly, the inner parts of the human body, for example inner parts of mouth, or nose or inner ears which become Najis with an external Najasah,become Tahir, after the Najasah has disappeared. But the internal Najasah, like the blood from the gums of the teeth,does not make inner mouth Najis. Similarly, any external thing which is placed internally in the body,does not become Najis when it meets with the internal Najasah. So if the dentures come in contact with blood from the gums, it does not require rinsing. Of course, if it contacts a Najis food, it must be made Tahir with water.

104. If food remains between the teeth, and blood emerges within the mouth, the food will not be Najis if it comes in contact with that blood.

105. Those parts of the lips and the eyes which overlap when shut, will be considered as inner parts of the body, and they need not be washed when an external Najasah reaches them. But a part of which one is not sure whether it is intenal or external, must be washed with water if it meets with an external Najasah.

X. Istipa’ of an animal which Eats Najasah

106. The dung and urine of an animal which is habituated to eating human excrement,is najis, and it could be made Tahir by subjecting it to "Istipà", that is, it should be prevented from eating Najasah, and Tahir food should be given to it,till such time that it may no more be considered an animal which eats Najasah.

XI. Disappeance of aMuslim

107. When body, dress, household utensil, carpet or any similar thing, which has been in the possession of an adult Muslim or an underage Muslim who is capable of distinguishing between purity and impurity, becomes Najis, and there after that Musl’m disappears, the things in question can be treated as Tahir, if one believes that he may have rinsed them.

108. A scrupulous person who can never be certain about a Najis becoming Tahir, he should follow the method used by the common people.

XII. Flowing out of a slau ghtered Animal’s Blood in Normal Quantity

109. As stated in rule 98, if an animal is slaughtered in accordance with the rules prescribed by Islam, and blood flows out of its body in normal quantity, the blood which still remains in the body of the animal is Tahir.

Rule of Gold and Silver Utensils

110. It is Halal (allowed) to use gold and silver vessels for eating and drinking purposes, and as an obligatory precaution, their general use is also Halal (allowed). However, it is not Halal (allowed) to have them in possession as item of decoration. Similarly, it is not Halal (allowed) to manufacture gold and silver vessels, or to buy and sell them for possession or decoration.

Ghosl

111. In Ghosl, it is obligatory to wash the face and hands (including the forearms), and to wipe the front portion of th head and the upper part of two feet.

112. The length of the face should be washed from the upper part of the forehead, where hair grow, up to the farthest end of the chin, and its peadth should be washed to the part covered between the thumb and the middle finger. If even a small part of this area is left out, Ghosl will be void. thus, in order to ensure that the prescribed part has been fully washed, one should also wash a bit of the adjacent parts.

113. If a person suspects that there is dirt or something else in the eyepows, or corners of his eyes, or on his lips, which does not permit water to reach them and that suspicion is reasonable, he should examine it before performing Ghosl, and remove any such thing if it is there.

114. If the skin of the face is visible from under the hair growing on the face, like beard, liphair etc, he should make the water reach the skin, but if it is not visible, it is sufficient to wash the hair, and it is not necessary to make the water reach beneath it.

115. While performing Ghosl, it is not obligatory that one should wash the inner parts of the nose, nor of the lips and eyes which cannot be seen when they close. however, if one is not sure that all parts have been washed, in order to ensure, it is obligatory that some portion of these parts (i.e. inner parts of nose, lips and eyes) are also included. And if a person did not know how much of the face should be washed, and does not remember whether he has washed his face thoroughly in Ghosl already performed, his prayers will be valid, and there will be no need to do fresh Ghosl for the ensuing prayers.

116. The hands and forearms, and as an obligatory precaution the face, shold be washed from above downwards, and if one washes the opposite way, his Ghosl will be void.

117. After washing the face, one should first wash the right forearm and hand and then the left forearm and hand, from the elbows to the tips of the fingers.

118. If one is not sure that the elbow has been washed thoroughly, in order to ensure, he should include some portion above the elbow in washing.

119. If before washing his face, a person has washed his hands up to the wrist, he should, while performing Ghosl, wash them again up to the tips of the fingers, and if he washes only the forearms up to the wrist, his Ghosl will be void.

120. While performing Ghosl, it is obligatory to wash the face and the hands and forearms once, and it is recommended to wash them twice. Washing them three or more times is Halal (allowed). As regads to which washing should be treated as the first, it will depend upon pouring water on the face or hand so much that it cover them thoroughly, leaving no room for precaution, with the intention of Ghosl. So, if one pours water on his face ten times, in order to cover it thoroughly, with the intention of the first washing for Ghosl, there is no harm. The first washing realises only when one washes with the intention of Ghosl. Thus, he can wash his face or hands several times, and in the final wash, make the intention of washing for Ghosl. But if he follows this procedure, the face or the hands should not be washed more than once again, as an obligatory precaution, even if without the intention of washing for Ghosl.

121. After washing both the hands and forearms, one performing Ghosl should wipe front part of the head with the wetness of his hand: and the recommended precaution is that he should wipe it with the palm of his right hand, from the upper part of the hand, downwards.

256. The part on which wiping should be performed, is the one fourth of the head posterior to the forehead it is sufficient to wipe however mucha tany place in this part of the head.

Ghusl for Touching a Dead Body

284. If a person touches a human dead body which has become cold and has not yet been given Ghusl (i.e. pings any part of his own body in contact with it) he should do Ghusl.

285. If a person touches a dead body which has not become entirely cold, Ghusl will not be obligatory, even if the part touched has become cold.

286. If a person pings his hair in contact with the body of a dead person, or if his body touches the hair of the dead person or if his hair touches the hair of the dead person, Ghusl will not become obligatory.

287. It is not obligatory to do Ghusl for touching a separated bone which has not been given Ghusl, whether it has been separated from a dead body or a living person. The same rule applies to touching the teeth which have been separated from a dead body or a living person.

288. The method of doing Ghusl for touching the dead body is the same as of Ghusl for Janaban and it does not require any Ghosl.

Rules Related to a Dying Person

289. A Mu'min who is dying, whether man or woman, old or young, should, as a measure of precaution, be laid on his/her back if possible, in such a manner that the soles of his/her feet would face the Qiblah (direction towards the holy Ka'bah).

290. It is an obligatory precaution upon every Muslim, to lay a dying person facing the Qiblah. And if it is known that the dying person consents to it and he or she is not defective, there is no need to seek the permission for it from the guardian. Otherwise, the permission must be sought as a precaution.

291. It is recommended that the doctrinal testimory of Islam (Shahadatayn) and the acknowledgement of the twelve Imàms and other tenets of faith should be inculcated to a dying person in such a manner that he/she would understand. It is also recommended that these utterances are repeated till the time of his/her death.

The obligation of Ghusl, Kafn (Shrouding),Salat and Burial

292. Giving Ghusl, Kafn, Hunot, salat and burial to every dead Muslim, regardless of whether he/she is an Ithna-Ashari or not,is obligatory on the guardian must either discharge all these duties himself or appoint someone to do them.

‏ The Method of Ghusl of Mayyit

293. It is obligatory to give three Ghusl to a dead body. The first bathing should be with water mixed with Sidr (powdered leaves of lote tree). The second bathing should be with water mixed with caphor and the third should be with unmixed water.

294. The quantity of Sidr and caphor should neither be so much that the water becomes mixed (Muèàf), nor so little that it may be said that Sidr and caphor have not been mixed in it at all.

295. Aperson who gives Ghusl to a dead body should be a Muslim and sane and as a precaution a Shi'ah Ithna-Ashariyyah, and ahould know the rules of Ghusl.

296. One who gives Ghuls to the dead body should perform the act with the intention of Qurbah, and it is enough to be with intention of complying with the God's will.

297. Ghusl to a Muslim dead child, even illegitimate, is obligatory.

298. If a foetus of 4 months or more is aborted it is obligatory to give it Ghuls, and even if it has not completed four months, but it has formed features of a human child, it must be given Ghusl as a precaution. In the event of both of these circumstances being absent, the foetus will be wrapped up in a cloth and buried without Ghusl.

299. It is unlawful for a man to give Ghusl to the dead body of a non-Mahram woman and for a woman to give Ghusl to the dead body of a non-Mahram man. Husband and wife can, however, give Ghusl to the dead body of each other.

300. If there is an essential impurity on any part of the dead body, it is obligatory to remove it befor giving Ghusl.

301. Ghusl for a dead body is similar to Ghusl of Janàbah. And the obligatory precaution is that a corpse should not be given Ghusl by Irtimàsi',that is, immersion, as long as it is possible to give Ghusl by way of Tartibi. And even in the case of Tartibi Ghusl it is necessary that the body should be washed on the right side first. And then the left side.

302. There is no rule for Jabi'rah in Ghusl of mayyit, so if water is not available or there is some other valid excuse for abstaining from using water for the Ghusl, then the dead body should be given one Tayammum instead of Ghusl.

303. A perscon giving Tayammum to the dead body should strike his own palms on earth and then wipe them the face and back of the hands of the daed body. And the recommended precaution is that he should, if possible, use the hands of the dead for another Tayammum.

Rules Regarding Kafn (Shrouding)

304. The body of a dead Muslim should be given Kafn with three pieces of cloth:a loin cloth, a shirt or tunic, and a full cover.

305. As an obligatory precaution, the loin cloth should be long enough to cover the body from the navel up to the knees, better still if it covers the body from the chest up to the feet. As an obligatory precaution, the shirt should be long enough to cover the entire body from the top of the shoulders up to the middle of the forelegs, and better still if it reaches the feet. The sheet cover should be long enough to conceal the whole body, and as an obligatory precaution it should be so long that both its ends could be tied, and its peadth should be enough to allow one side to overlap the other.

306. As a precaution, it must be ensured that each of the three pieces used for Kafan is not so thin as to show the body of the deceased. However, if the body is fully consealed when all the three pieces are put together, then it will suffice.

307. It is not permissible to give a Kafan which is Najis, or which is made of pure silk, or as a precaution which is women with gold, except in the situation of helplessness, when no alternative is to be found.

308. If the Kafan becomes Najis owing to Najasah, of the deceased, or owing to some other Najasah, its Najis part should be washed or cut off in such a manner that the Kafan may not be lost, even after the dead body has been placed in the grave. And if it is not possible to wash it, or to cut it off, but it is possible to change it, then it should be changed.

Rules of Hunot

309. After having given Ghusl to a dead body it is obligatory to give Hunot, which is to apply caphor on its forehead, both the palms, both the knees and both the big toes. It is not necessary to rub the caphor ; it must be seen on those parts. It is Mustahab to apply caphor to the nose tip also. Caphor must be powdered and freash and Tahir and Mubah, and if it is so stale that it has lost its fragrance, then it will not suffice.

310. It is better that Hunotis given before Kafn, although there is no harm in giving Hunotduring Kafn or even after.

311. Though it is Halal (allowed) for a Mutakif and a woman whose husband has died and she is in Iddah to perform him/herself, but if he or she dies, it is obligatory to give her Hunot.

312. It is Mustahab to mix a small quantity of Turbah (soil of the shrine of Imàm Husayn) with caphor, but it should not be applied to those parts of the body, where its use may imply any disrespect. It is also necessary that the quantity of Turban is not much, so that the identity of caphor does not change.

Rules ofSalat -ul-Mayyit

313. It is obligatory to offerSalat-ul-Mayyit for every dead Muslim, as well as for a Muslim child if it has completed 6 years of its age.

314. If a child had not completed 6 years of its age, but it was a discerning child who knew whatSalat was, then as an obligatory precautionSalat-ul-Mayyit for it should be offered. If it did not know ofSalat, the prayer msy be offered with the hope of pleasing Allah (Raja'an). However, to offerSalat-ul- mayyit for a still born child is not Mustahab.

315. Salat-ul-Mayyit should be offered after the dead body has been given Ghusl, Hunotand Kafan and if it is offered before or during the performance of these acts, it does not suffice, even if it is due to forgetfulness or on account of not knowing the rule.

316. It is not necessary for a person who offersSalat-ul-Mayyit to be in Ghosl or Ghusl or Tayammum nor is it necessary that his body and dress be Tahir. Rather there is no harm even if his dress is a usurped one.

317. One who offersSalat-ul-Mayyit should face the Qiblah, and it is also obligatory that at the time ofSalat-ul-Mayyit, the dead body remains before him on its back, in a manner that its head is on his right and its feet on his left side.

318. The place where a man stands to offerSalat-ul-Mayyit should not be higher or lower than the place where the dead body is kept. However, its being a littie higher or iower is immaterial.

319. The person offeringSalat-ul-Mayyet should not be distant from the dead body. However, it he is praying in a congredation (Jamaah), then there is no harm in his being distant from the head body in the rows which are connected to each other.

320. InSalat-ul-Mayyit, one who offers prayer should stand in such a Way that the dead body is in front of him, except if theSalat is prayed in a congregation and the lines extend beyond on both sides, then praying away from the dead body will not be objectionable.

321. If a dead body is buried withoutSalat-ul- Mayyet, either intentionally or forgetfully, or on account of an excuse, or if it trancpires after its burial that the prayer offered for it was void, it will not be permissible to dig up the grave for prayingSalat-ul-Mayyit. There is no objection to praying, with the hope of pleasing Allah, by the graveside, if one feels that decay has not yet taken place.

Method ofSalat-ul-Mayyit

322. There are 5 Takbirs (saying Allahu Akbar) inSalat-ul-Mayyit and it is sufficient if a person recites those 5 Takbirs in the following order:

After making intention to offer the prayer and pronouncing the 1st Takbir he should say: Ashhadu an la ilaha illa-llah, wa anna muhammadan Rasulullah. (I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger.)

After the 2nd Takbir he should say: Allahumma salli ala Muhammadin wa ali Muhammad. (O'Lord ! Bestow peace and blessing upon Muhammad and his progeny.)

After the 3rd Takbir he should say: Allahumma-ghfi rlil-mu'minina walmu'minat. (O'Lord ! Forgive all believers men as well as women.)

After the 4th Takbir he should say: Allahumma-ghfir li-hadhal-mayyit. (O'Lord Forgive this dead male person).If the dead person is a female, he would say:

Allahumma-ghfir li-hadhihil-mayyit.

Thereafter he should pronounce the 5th Takbir.

323. A person offering prayer for the dead body should recite Takbirs and supplications in a sequence, so thatSalat-ul-Mayyit does not lose its from.

324. A person who joinsSalat-ul-Mayyit to follow an Imàm should recite all the Takbirs and supplisations.

Rules About Burial of the Dead Body

325. It is obligatory to bury a dead body in the ground, so deep thst its smell does not come out and the beasts of prey do not dig it out.

326. The dead body should be laid in the grave on its right side so that the face remains towards the Qiblah.

327. It is not permitted to bury a muslim in the graveyard of the con Muslims, nor to bury a non-Muslim in the graveyard of the Muslims.

328. It is not permissible to bury a dead body in a usurped place not in a place which is dedicated for purposes other then burial (e.g.in a Masjid), if it is harmful or obtrusive for the dedication. As an obligatory precaution this is not permitted, even if it is not harmful or obstructive for the dedication.

329. It is not permissible to dig up a grave for the purpose of burying another dead body in it, unless one is sure that the grave is very old and the former body has been totally disintegrated.

330. Anything which is separated from the dead body (even its hair, nail or tooth) should be buried along with it. And if any part of the body, including hair. nails or teeth are found after the body has been buried, they should be buried at a separate place, as per obligatory precaution. And it is Mustahab that nails and teeth cut off or extracted during lifetime are also buried.

Exhumation

331. It is Halal (allowed) to open the grave of a Muslim even if it belongs to a child or an insane person. However, there is no objection in doing so if the dead body has decayed and turned into dust.

332. Digging up or destroying the graves of the descendants of Imàms the martyrs, the Ulama (religious scholars) and all cases whose destroying amounts to desecration, is Halal (allowed) even if they are very old.

333. Digging up the grave is allowed in some cases, which are explained fully in defailed books.

Recommended Ghusls

334. In Islam, several Ghusls are Mustahab. Some of them are listed below:

* Ghusl-ul-jumu'ah (Friday Ghusl): Its prescribed time is from Fajr (dawn) to sunset, but it is better to perform it near noon. If, however, a person does not perform it till noon, he can perform it till dusk without an entention of either performing it on time or as Qaèà. And if a person does not perform his Ghusl on Friday it is Mustahab that he should perform the Qaèà of Ghusl on Saturday at any time between dawn and dusk.

* Taking baths on the 1st, 17th, 19th, 21st, 23rd and 24th nights of the holy month of Ramadan.

* Ghusl on id-ul-Fitr day and id-ul-Adha day. The time of this Ghusl is from Fajr up to sunset. it is, however, better to perform it before id prayer.

* Ghusl on the 8th and 9th of the month of Dhul-Hijjah. As regars the bathing on the 9th of Dhul-Hijjad it is better to perform it at noon-time.

* Some other Ghusls which are mentioned in detailed books.

‏335 After having taken a Ghusl wich its being recommended is established, like those listed in rule no. 651, one can perform acts (e.g. prayer) for which Ghosl is necessary. However, Ghusls which thier being Mustahab is not estoblished do not suffice for Ghosl (i.e.Ghosl has to be performed).

336. If a person wishes to perform a number of Mustahab Ghusls, one Ghusl with the intention of performing all the Ghusls will be sufficient.

Mutahhirat (Purifying Agents)

71. There are twelve things which make Najis objects Tahir:

(i) Water

(ii) Earth

(iii) The Sun

(iv) Trancformation (Istihalah)

(v) Change (Inqilab)

(vi) Transfer (Intiqal)

(vii) Islam

(viii) Subjection (Tabaiyyah)

(ix) Removal of original Najasah

(x) Confining (Istipà) of animal which feeds on Najasah

(xi) Disappearance of a Muslim

(xii) Draining of the usual quantity of blood from the slaughtered body of an animal.

I.Water

72. The interior of a Najis vessel, or utensil, even if it has been made Najis with wine, must be washed three times if less than Kurr water is used, and as per obligatory percaution,the same will apply if Kurr or running water is used. If a dog drinks water or any other liquid from a utensil, the utensil should be first scrubbed with Tahir earth,and after washing off the dust, it should be washed twice with running, Kurr or under Kurr water. similarly, if the dog licks a utensil, it should be scrubbed with dust before washing. And if the saliva of a dog falls into the utensil, or somewhere of its body meets the utensil, as per obligatory precaution, it should be scrubbed with dust and then washed with water three times.

73. If a utensil is licked by a pig, or if it drinks any liquid from it, or in which a rat has died, it should be washed seven times with running water, or Kurr or lesser water. It will not be necessary to scour it with dust.

A Najis utensil can be made Tahir with under Kurr water in two ways:

(i) The utensil is filled up with water and emptied three times.

(ii) some quantity of water and poured in it, and then the utensil is shaken, so that the water reaches all Najis parts. This should be done three times and then the water is spilled.

74. If a Najis thing is immersed once in Kurr or running water, is such a way that water reacher all its Najis parts, it becomes Tahir. And in the case of a carpet or dress, it is not necessary to squeeze or wring or press it. And when body or dress is Najis because of urine, it must be washed twice even in Kurr water.

75. When a thing which has become Najis with urine, is to be made Tahir with under_Kurr water, it should be poured once, and as water flows off eliminating all the traces of urine,the thing will become Tahir. But if dress or body has become Najis because of urine, it must be washed twice to be made Tahir. when a cloth or a carpet and similar things are made Tahir with water which is less than Kurr, it must be wrung, or squeezed, till the water remaining in it runs out.

76. If anything becomes Najis with the urine of a suckling child, who has not yet started taking solid food, the thing will be Tahir if water is poured over it once, reaching all parts which had been Najis.

163. If anything becomes Najis with Najasah other than urine, it becomes Tahir by first removing the Najasah and then pouring under-Kurr water once allowing it to flow off. But, if it is a dress etc, it should be squeezed so that the remaining water should flow off.

77. If the exterior of soap becomes Najis, it can be made Tahir, but if its interior becomes Najis, it cannot become Tahir, and if soap or not, its interior will be considered Tahir.

78. A Najis thing does not become Tahir unless the najis_ul_Ayn is removed from it,but there is not harm if the colour, or smell of the Najasah remains in it. So, if blood is removed from a cloth, and the cloth is rinsed with water, it will become Tahir even if the colour of blood remains on it.

79. Meat or fat which becomes Najis, can be made Tahir with water like all other things. same is the case if the body or dress or utensil has a little grease on it, which does not revent water from reaching it.

80. Tap water which is connected with Kurr water is considered to be Kurr.

81. If a person washed a thing with water, and becomes sure that it has become Tahir, but doubts later whether or not he had removed the Najis_ul_Ayn from it, he should wash it again, and ensure that the Najis_ul_Ayn has been removed.

82. If a ground which absorbs water (e.g. land on the surface of which there is fine sand) becomes Najis, it can be made Tahir even with under Kurr water.

83. If the floor which is made of stones, or picks or other hard ground, in which water is not absorbed, becomes Najis, it can be made Tahir with under Kurr water, but, it is necessary that so much water is poured on it that it begins to flow. And if that Water is not drained out, and it collects there, it should be drawn out by a vessel or soaked by a cloth.

II.Earth

84. The earth makes the sole of one’s feet and shoes Tahir, provided that the following four conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The earth should be Tahir.

(ii) The earth should be dry, as a precaution.

(iii) As an obligatory precaution, the Najasah should have stuck from the earth.

(iv) If najis-ul- Any, like blood or urine, or something which has become Najis, like najis clay, is stuck on the sole of a foot, or a shoe, it will be Tahir only if it is cleared by walking on earth, or by rubbing the foot or the shoe against it. therefore, if the Najis-ul-Any vanishes by itself, and not by walking or rubbing on the ground, the foot or the sole will not be Tahir by earth, as an obligatory precaution. And the earth should be dust or sand, or consisting of stones or laid with picks ; which means walking on carpet, mats, green grass will not make the sole of feet or shoes Tahir.

85. It is a matter of Ishkal that walking over a tarred road. or a wooden floor will make the Najis sole of feet and shoes Tahir. ( In other words, as an obligatory precaution, tarred road or wooden floor does not make Najis sole of feet or shoes Tahir.)

86. When the Najis sole of one's foot or shoe becomes Tahir by walking on earth, the parts adjacent to it, which are usually blotched with mud, become Tahir.

87. If a person moves on his hands and knees, and his hands or knees become Najis, it is a matter of Ishkal (it is improbable) that they become Tahir by such movement. Similarly, the end of a stick, the bottom of a prosthetic leg, the shoe of quadruped and the wheels of a car or a cart etc. would not become Tahir.

III.The Sun

88. The sun makes the earth, building,and the walls Tahir, provided the following five conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The Najis thing should be sufficiently wet, and if it is dry, it should be made wet so that the sun dries it up.

(ii) Any Najis-ul-Ayn should not be remained on it.

(iii) Nothing should intervene between the Najis thing and the sun. Therefore, if the rays fall on the Najis thing from behind a curtain, or a cloud etc, and makes it dry, the thing will not become Tahir. But, there is no harm if the cloud is so thin that it does not serve as an impediment between the Najis thing and the sun.

(iv) Only the sun should make the Najis thing dry. So, if a Najis thing is jointly dried by the wind and the sun, it will not become Tahir. However, it would not matter if the wind blows so lightly that it can be said that the thing has dried by the sun.

(v) The sun should dry up the whole Najis part of the building all at once. if the sun dries the surface of the Najis earth, or building, first, and later on dries the inner part, only the surface will become Tahir, and the inner portion will remain Najis.

89. If the sun shines on Najis earth, and one doubts later whether the earth was wet or not at that time, or whether the wetness dried up because of the sunshine or not, the earth will remain najis. Similarly, if one toubts whether Najis-ul- Ayn had been removed from the earth, or whether there was any impediment preventing direct sunshine, the earth will remain Najis.

IV. Transformation (Istia*àlah)

90. If a Najis thing undergoes such a change, that it assumes the category of a Tahir thing it becomes Tahir ; for example, if a Najis wood burns and is reduced to ashes,or a dog falls in a salt-marsh and transforms into salt, it becomes Tahir. But a thing does not become Tahir if its essence or category does not change ; like, if wheat is ground into flour, or is used for baking pead, it does not become Tahir

Change (Inqilab)

91. Any wine which becomes vinegar by itself, or by mixing it with vine gar or salt, becomes Tahir.

92. If the juice of grapes ferments by itself, or when heated, it becomes Halal (allowed). However, if it boils so much that only one third of it is left, it becomesHalal (allowed). It has already been mentioned in rule 60 that the juice of grapes does not become Najis on fermentation.

VI. Transfer (Intiqal)

93. If the blood of a human being, or of an animal whose blood gushes forth when its large vein is cut, is sucked by an insect, normally known to be bloodless, and it becomes part of its body, the blood becomes Tahir. This process is called intiqal.

VII. Islam

94. If an unbeliever testifies Oneness of Allah, and the Prophethood of prophet Muhammad(s), in whatever language, he becomes a Muslim. And just as he was Najis before, he becomes Tahir after becoming a Muslim, and his body, along with the saliva and the sweat, is Tahir.

95. If an unbeliever professes Islam, he will be Tahir even if another person is not sure whether he has empaced Islam sincerely, or not. And the same order applies even if it is known that he has not sincerely accepted Islam, but his words or deeds do not betray anything which may be contrary to the confirmation by him of the Oneness of Allah, and of prophet Muhammad(s) beingprophet of Allah.

VIII. subjection (TABA ‘IYYAH)

96. Tabaiyyah means that a Najis thing becomes Tahir, in subjection of another thing becoming Tahir.

97. When wine is transformed into vinegar, its container, up to the level wine reached on account of fermentation, will become Tahir. And so will the cloth or other thing which is usually put on it, if it has became Najis due to the wine. But, if the back part of the container become Najis because of contact with wine, it should be avoided, as an obligatory precaution, even after wine has transformed into vinegar.

98. If an unbeliever empaces Islam, his child in subjection to him becomes Tahir. Similarly, if the mother, grandfather or grandmother of a child empaces Islam, the child will become Tahir, provided that it is in their custody and care and there is not a Kàfir relative closer than them with it, and if the child has attained the age of under standing and discerning, it does not show inclination to unbelief.

99. The plank or slab of stone on which a dead body is given Ghusl, and the cloth with which his private parts are covered, and the hands of the person who gives Ghusl and all things washed together with the dead body, become Tahir when Ghusl is over.

100. When a person washes something with water to make it Tahir, his hands washed along with that thing, will be Tahir when the thing is Tahir.

101. If cloth etc. Is washed with under-Kurr water and is squeezed as usual, allowing water to flow off, the water which still remains in it is Tahir.

102. When a Najis utensil is washed with under-Kurr water, the small quantity of water left in it after spillig the water of final wash, is Tahir.

IX. Remoral of Najis-ul ‘Ayn

103. If body of an animal is stained with a Najis-ul-Ayn like blood or with something which has become Najis, for example, Najis water, its body becomes Tahir when the Najasah disappears. Similarly, the inner parts of the human body, for example inner parts of mouth, or nose or inner ears which become Najis with an external Najasah,become Tahir, after the Najasah has disappeared. But the internal Najasah, like the blood from the gums of the teeth,does not make inner mouth Najis. Similarly, any external thing which is placed internally in the body,does not become Najis when it meets with the internal Najasah. So if the dentures come in contact with blood from the gums, it does not require rinsing. Of course, if it contacts a Najis food, it must be made Tahir with water.

104. If food remains between the teeth, and blood emerges within the mouth, the food will not be Najis if it comes in contact with that blood.

105. Those parts of the lips and the eyes which overlap when shut, will be considered as inner parts of the body, and they need not be washed when an external Najasah reaches them. But a part of which one is not sure whether it is intenal or external, must be washed with water if it meets with an external Najasah.

X. Istipa’ of an animal which Eats Najasah

106. The dung and urine of an animal which is habituated to eating human excrement,is najis, and it could be made Tahir by subjecting it to "Istipà", that is, it should be prevented from eating Najasah, and Tahir food should be given to it,till such time that it may no more be considered an animal which eats Najasah.

XI. Disappeance of aMuslim

107. When body, dress, household utensil, carpet or any similar thing, which has been in the possession of an adult Muslim or an underage Muslim who is capable of distinguishing between purity and impurity, becomes Najis, and there after that Musl’m disappears, the things in question can be treated as Tahir, if one believes that he may have rinsed them.

108. A scrupulous person who can never be certain about a Najis becoming Tahir, he should follow the method used by the common people.

XII. Flowing out of a slau ghtered Animal’s Blood in Normal Quantity

109. As stated in rule 98, if an animal is slaughtered in accordance with the rules prescribed by Islam, and blood flows out of its body in normal quantity, the blood which still remains in the body of the animal is Tahir.

Rule of Gold and Silver Utensils

110. It is Halal (allowed) to use gold and silver vessels for eating and drinking purposes, and as an obligatory precaution, their general use is also Halal (allowed). However, it is not Halal (allowed) to have them in possession as item of decoration. Similarly, it is not Halal (allowed) to manufacture gold and silver vessels, or to buy and sell them for possession or decoration.

Ghosl

111. In Ghosl, it is obligatory to wash the face and hands (including the forearms), and to wipe the front portion of th head and the upper part of two feet.

112. The length of the face should be washed from the upper part of the forehead, where hair grow, up to the farthest end of the chin, and its peadth should be washed to the part covered between the thumb and the middle finger. If even a small part of this area is left out, Ghosl will be void. thus, in order to ensure that the prescribed part has been fully washed, one should also wash a bit of the adjacent parts.

113. If a person suspects that there is dirt or something else in the eyepows, or corners of his eyes, or on his lips, which does not permit water to reach them and that suspicion is reasonable, he should examine it before performing Ghosl, and remove any such thing if it is there.

114. If the skin of the face is visible from under the hair growing on the face, like beard, liphair etc, he should make the water reach the skin, but if it is not visible, it is sufficient to wash the hair, and it is not necessary to make the water reach beneath it.

115. While performing Ghosl, it is not obligatory that one should wash the inner parts of the nose, nor of the lips and eyes which cannot be seen when they close. however, if one is not sure that all parts have been washed, in order to ensure, it is obligatory that some portion of these parts (i.e. inner parts of nose, lips and eyes) are also included. And if a person did not know how much of the face should be washed, and does not remember whether he has washed his face thoroughly in Ghosl already performed, his prayers will be valid, and there will be no need to do fresh Ghosl for the ensuing prayers.

116. The hands and forearms, and as an obligatory precaution the face, shold be washed from above downwards, and if one washes the opposite way, his Ghosl will be void.

117. After washing the face, one should first wash the right forearm and hand and then the left forearm and hand, from the elbows to the tips of the fingers.

118. If one is not sure that the elbow has been washed thoroughly, in order to ensure, he should include some portion above the elbow in washing.

119. If before washing his face, a person has washed his hands up to the wrist, he should, while performing Ghosl, wash them again up to the tips of the fingers, and if he washes only the forearms up to the wrist, his Ghosl will be void.

120. While performing Ghosl, it is obligatory to wash the face and the hands and forearms once, and it is recommended to wash them twice. Washing them three or more times is Halal (allowed). As regads to which washing should be treated as the first, it will depend upon pouring water on the face or hand so much that it cover them thoroughly, leaving no room for precaution, with the intention of Ghosl. So, if one pours water on his face ten times, in order to cover it thoroughly, with the intention of the first washing for Ghosl, there is no harm. The first washing realises only when one washes with the intention of Ghosl. Thus, he can wash his face or hands several times, and in the final wash, make the intention of washing for Ghosl. But if he follows this procedure, the face or the hands should not be washed more than once again, as an obligatory precaution, even if without the intention of washing for Ghosl.

121. After washing both the hands and forearms, one performing Ghosl should wipe front part of the head with the wetness of his hand: and the recommended precaution is that he should wipe it with the palm of his right hand, from the upper part of the hand, downwards.

256. The part on which wiping should be performed, is the one fourth of the head posterior to the forehead it is sufficient to wipe however mucha tany place in this part of the head.

Ghusl for Touching a Dead Body

284. If a person touches a human dead body which has become cold and has not yet been given Ghusl (i.e. pings any part of his own body in contact with it) he should do Ghusl.

285. If a person touches a dead body which has not become entirely cold, Ghusl will not be obligatory, even if the part touched has become cold.

286. If a person pings his hair in contact with the body of a dead person, or if his body touches the hair of the dead person or if his hair touches the hair of the dead person, Ghusl will not become obligatory.

287. It is not obligatory to do Ghusl for touching a separated bone which has not been given Ghusl, whether it has been separated from a dead body or a living person. The same rule applies to touching the teeth which have been separated from a dead body or a living person.

288. The method of doing Ghusl for touching the dead body is the same as of Ghusl for Janaban and it does not require any Ghosl.

Rules Related to a Dying Person

289. A Mu'min who is dying, whether man or woman, old or young, should, as a measure of precaution, be laid on his/her back if possible, in such a manner that the soles of his/her feet would face the Qiblah (direction towards the holy Ka'bah).

290. It is an obligatory precaution upon every Muslim, to lay a dying person facing the Qiblah. And if it is known that the dying person consents to it and he or she is not defective, there is no need to seek the permission for it from the guardian. Otherwise, the permission must be sought as a precaution.

291. It is recommended that the doctrinal testimory of Islam (Shahadatayn) and the acknowledgement of the twelve Imàms and other tenets of faith should be inculcated to a dying person in such a manner that he/she would understand. It is also recommended that these utterances are repeated till the time of his/her death.

The obligation of Ghusl, Kafn (Shrouding),Salat and Burial

292. Giving Ghusl, Kafn, Hunot, salat and burial to every dead Muslim, regardless of whether he/she is an Ithna-Ashari or not,is obligatory on the guardian must either discharge all these duties himself or appoint someone to do them.

‏ The Method of Ghusl of Mayyit

293. It is obligatory to give three Ghusl to a dead body. The first bathing should be with water mixed with Sidr (powdered leaves of lote tree). The second bathing should be with water mixed with caphor and the third should be with unmixed water.

294. The quantity of Sidr and caphor should neither be so much that the water becomes mixed (Muèàf), nor so little that it may be said that Sidr and caphor have not been mixed in it at all.

295. Aperson who gives Ghusl to a dead body should be a Muslim and sane and as a precaution a Shi'ah Ithna-Ashariyyah, and ahould know the rules of Ghusl.

296. One who gives Ghuls to the dead body should perform the act with the intention of Qurbah, and it is enough to be with intention of complying with the God's will.

297. Ghusl to a Muslim dead child, even illegitimate, is obligatory.

298. If a foetus of 4 months or more is aborted it is obligatory to give it Ghuls, and even if it has not completed four months, but it has formed features of a human child, it must be given Ghusl as a precaution. In the event of both of these circumstances being absent, the foetus will be wrapped up in a cloth and buried without Ghusl.

299. It is unlawful for a man to give Ghusl to the dead body of a non-Mahram woman and for a woman to give Ghusl to the dead body of a non-Mahram man. Husband and wife can, however, give Ghusl to the dead body of each other.

300. If there is an essential impurity on any part of the dead body, it is obligatory to remove it befor giving Ghusl.

301. Ghusl for a dead body is similar to Ghusl of Janàbah. And the obligatory precaution is that a corpse should not be given Ghusl by Irtimàsi',that is, immersion, as long as it is possible to give Ghusl by way of Tartibi. And even in the case of Tartibi Ghusl it is necessary that the body should be washed on the right side first. And then the left side.

302. There is no rule for Jabi'rah in Ghusl of mayyit, so if water is not available or there is some other valid excuse for abstaining from using water for the Ghusl, then the dead body should be given one Tayammum instead of Ghusl.

303. A perscon giving Tayammum to the dead body should strike his own palms on earth and then wipe them the face and back of the hands of the daed body. And the recommended precaution is that he should, if possible, use the hands of the dead for another Tayammum.

Rules Regarding Kafn (Shrouding)

304. The body of a dead Muslim should be given Kafn with three pieces of cloth:a loin cloth, a shirt or tunic, and a full cover.

305. As an obligatory precaution, the loin cloth should be long enough to cover the body from the navel up to the knees, better still if it covers the body from the chest up to the feet. As an obligatory precaution, the shirt should be long enough to cover the entire body from the top of the shoulders up to the middle of the forelegs, and better still if it reaches the feet. The sheet cover should be long enough to conceal the whole body, and as an obligatory precaution it should be so long that both its ends could be tied, and its peadth should be enough to allow one side to overlap the other.

306. As a precaution, it must be ensured that each of the three pieces used for Kafan is not so thin as to show the body of the deceased. However, if the body is fully consealed when all the three pieces are put together, then it will suffice.

307. It is not permissible to give a Kafan which is Najis, or which is made of pure silk, or as a precaution which is women with gold, except in the situation of helplessness, when no alternative is to be found.

308. If the Kafan becomes Najis owing to Najasah, of the deceased, or owing to some other Najasah, its Najis part should be washed or cut off in such a manner that the Kafan may not be lost, even after the dead body has been placed in the grave. And if it is not possible to wash it, or to cut it off, but it is possible to change it, then it should be changed.

Rules of Hunot

309. After having given Ghusl to a dead body it is obligatory to give Hunot, which is to apply caphor on its forehead, both the palms, both the knees and both the big toes. It is not necessary to rub the caphor ; it must be seen on those parts. It is Mustahab to apply caphor to the nose tip also. Caphor must be powdered and freash and Tahir and Mubah, and if it is so stale that it has lost its fragrance, then it will not suffice.

310. It is better that Hunotis given before Kafn, although there is no harm in giving Hunotduring Kafn or even after.

311. Though it is Halal (allowed) for a Mutakif and a woman whose husband has died and she is in Iddah to perform him/herself, but if he or she dies, it is obligatory to give her Hunot.

312. It is Mustahab to mix a small quantity of Turbah (soil of the shrine of Imàm Husayn) with caphor, but it should not be applied to those parts of the body, where its use may imply any disrespect. It is also necessary that the quantity of Turban is not much, so that the identity of caphor does not change.

Rules ofSalat -ul-Mayyit

313. It is obligatory to offerSalat-ul-Mayyit for every dead Muslim, as well as for a Muslim child if it has completed 6 years of its age.

314. If a child had not completed 6 years of its age, but it was a discerning child who knew whatSalat was, then as an obligatory precautionSalat-ul-Mayyit for it should be offered. If it did not know ofSalat, the prayer msy be offered with the hope of pleasing Allah (Raja'an). However, to offerSalat-ul- mayyit for a still born child is not Mustahab.

315. Salat-ul-Mayyit should be offered after the dead body has been given Ghusl, Hunotand Kafan and if it is offered before or during the performance of these acts, it does not suffice, even if it is due to forgetfulness or on account of not knowing the rule.

316. It is not necessary for a person who offersSalat-ul-Mayyit to be in Ghosl or Ghusl or Tayammum nor is it necessary that his body and dress be Tahir. Rather there is no harm even if his dress is a usurped one.

317. One who offersSalat-ul-Mayyit should face the Qiblah, and it is also obligatory that at the time ofSalat-ul-Mayyit, the dead body remains before him on its back, in a manner that its head is on his right and its feet on his left side.

318. The place where a man stands to offerSalat-ul-Mayyit should not be higher or lower than the place where the dead body is kept. However, its being a littie higher or iower is immaterial.

319. The person offeringSalat-ul-Mayyet should not be distant from the dead body. However, it he is praying in a congredation (Jamaah), then there is no harm in his being distant from the head body in the rows which are connected to each other.

320. InSalat-ul-Mayyit, one who offers prayer should stand in such a Way that the dead body is in front of him, except if theSalat is prayed in a congregation and the lines extend beyond on both sides, then praying away from the dead body will not be objectionable.

321. If a dead body is buried withoutSalat-ul- Mayyet, either intentionally or forgetfully, or on account of an excuse, or if it trancpires after its burial that the prayer offered for it was void, it will not be permissible to dig up the grave for prayingSalat-ul-Mayyit. There is no objection to praying, with the hope of pleasing Allah, by the graveside, if one feels that decay has not yet taken place.

Method ofSalat-ul-Mayyit

322. There are 5 Takbirs (saying Allahu Akbar) inSalat-ul-Mayyit and it is sufficient if a person recites those 5 Takbirs in the following order:

After making intention to offer the prayer and pronouncing the 1st Takbir he should say: Ashhadu an la ilaha illa-llah, wa anna muhammadan Rasulullah. (I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger.)

After the 2nd Takbir he should say: Allahumma salli ala Muhammadin wa ali Muhammad. (O'Lord ! Bestow peace and blessing upon Muhammad and his progeny.)

After the 3rd Takbir he should say: Allahumma-ghfi rlil-mu'minina walmu'minat. (O'Lord ! Forgive all believers men as well as women.)

After the 4th Takbir he should say: Allahumma-ghfir li-hadhal-mayyit. (O'Lord Forgive this dead male person).If the dead person is a female, he would say:

Allahumma-ghfir li-hadhihil-mayyit.

Thereafter he should pronounce the 5th Takbir.

323. A person offering prayer for the dead body should recite Takbirs and supplications in a sequence, so thatSalat-ul-Mayyit does not lose its from.

324. A person who joinsSalat-ul-Mayyit to follow an Imàm should recite all the Takbirs and supplisations.

Rules About Burial of the Dead Body

325. It is obligatory to bury a dead body in the ground, so deep thst its smell does not come out and the beasts of prey do not dig it out.

326. The dead body should be laid in the grave on its right side so that the face remains towards the Qiblah.

327. It is not permitted to bury a muslim in the graveyard of the con Muslims, nor to bury a non-Muslim in the graveyard of the Muslims.

328. It is not permissible to bury a dead body in a usurped place not in a place which is dedicated for purposes other then burial (e.g.in a Masjid), if it is harmful or obtrusive for the dedication. As an obligatory precaution this is not permitted, even if it is not harmful or obstructive for the dedication.

329. It is not permissible to dig up a grave for the purpose of burying another dead body in it, unless one is sure that the grave is very old and the former body has been totally disintegrated.

330. Anything which is separated from the dead body (even its hair, nail or tooth) should be buried along with it. And if any part of the body, including hair. nails or teeth are found after the body has been buried, they should be buried at a separate place, as per obligatory precaution. And it is Mustahab that nails and teeth cut off or extracted during lifetime are also buried.

Exhumation

331. It is Halal (allowed) to open the grave of a Muslim even if it belongs to a child or an insane person. However, there is no objection in doing so if the dead body has decayed and turned into dust.

332. Digging up or destroying the graves of the descendants of Imàms the martyrs, the Ulama (religious scholars) and all cases whose destroying amounts to desecration, is Halal (allowed) even if they are very old.

333. Digging up the grave is allowed in some cases, which are explained fully in defailed books.

Recommended Ghusls

334. In Islam, several Ghusls are Mustahab. Some of them are listed below:

* Ghusl-ul-jumu'ah (Friday Ghusl): Its prescribed time is from Fajr (dawn) to sunset, but it is better to perform it near noon. If, however, a person does not perform it till noon, he can perform it till dusk without an entention of either performing it on time or as Qaèà. And if a person does not perform his Ghusl on Friday it is Mustahab that he should perform the Qaèà of Ghusl on Saturday at any time between dawn and dusk.

* Taking baths on the 1st, 17th, 19th, 21st, 23rd and 24th nights of the holy month of Ramadan.

* Ghusl on id-ul-Fitr day and id-ul-Adha day. The time of this Ghusl is from Fajr up to sunset. it is, however, better to perform it before id prayer.

* Ghusl on the 8th and 9th of the month of Dhul-Hijjah. As regars the bathing on the 9th of Dhul-Hijjad it is better to perform it at noon-time.

* Some other Ghusls which are mentioned in detailed books.

‏335 After having taken a Ghusl wich its being recommended is established, like those listed in rule no. 651, one can perform acts (e.g. prayer) for which Ghosl is necessary. However, Ghusls which thier being Mustahab is not estoblished do not suffice for Ghosl (i.e.Ghosl has to be performed).

336. If a person wishes to perform a number of Mustahab Ghusls, one Ghusl with the intention of performing all the Ghusls will be sufficient.


4

5

6