Salam! I was reading Musnad Zayd and I found a potential contradiction. Knowing that you are quite knowledgeable about Zaydi doctrine I was wondering if you could explain it to me. In Musnad Zayd Chapter One Imam Zayd ibn Ali said that if we trample on the wet dung of an animal then we should wash it but it also says in Chapter 1 that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) stepped over the wet dung of a camel and then crushed the dung of the camel against the ground and offered his prayer without renewing ablution or washing his foot. So why does Imam Zayd ibn Ali say we should wash it if the Prophet didn't?
Salaams!
Thank you for your question! As for the possibility of contradiction in our books, it is possible since no book but the Qur'an is perfect. I would propose that what you mentioned doesn't necessarily imply a contradiction. After the passage where it says that Imam Zayd (as) declares that the moist dung should be washed, it says that he said: "The horse, mule and donkey are the same in this regard." So, it is evident that Imam Zayd (as) holds to the view that the moist dung of these animals should be washed. However, in the same passage, it says that Imam Zayd (as) made a dispensation for horse meat but 'discouraged its urine and dung.'
Furthermore, it says that the imam saw no problem with the urine of sheep, camels and cows. By analogy, such would also apply to their dung--wet or dry--because there is no evidence that the dung and urine are different in this respect. If we go back to the report that mentioned that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, had not washed the moist dung of an animal, the animal was identified as a camel (
ba'ir). Thus, the seeming contradiction is resolved.
Hopefully, this addresses your question. And Allah knows best!
IRS
