Types of Certitude – Methodical and Substantive Certitude – Subcategories of Substantive Certitude

First Session: Types of Certitude – Methodical and Substantive Certitude – Subcategories of Substantive Certitude

Date: August 30, 2023

Divine Piety (taqwa) in Solitude

At the outset of our discussion on the principles of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh), we begin with a narration from Amir al-Mu’minin, Imam Ali (peace be upon him), seeking blessings and guidance from his luminous words to enhance our scholarly endeavors and enrich our academic journey.

Imam Ali (peace be upon him) said: “Fear the sins committed in solitude, for the Witness is also the Judge.”

Divine piety (taqwa), which entails self-restraint and vigilance, is a recurring theme in the Quran and narrations. Contrary to the notion of fearfulness, taqwa signifies guarding oneself against acts deemed disobedient to Allah. Imam Ali emphasizes this vigilance “in solitude” (fi al-khalawat). While refraining from sin in public may be challenging, maintaining self-restraint in private—where no human witness observes—is far more difficult. For individuals like us, who are mindful of public perception and strive to avoid disgrace or misjudgment, public sins are generally avoided. However, in solitude, where no one sees, temptations intensify. Imam Ali stresses that guarding against sin in private reflects a high degree of divine piety, as the absence of human observers removes external deterrents, making the lure of sin stronger.

The Imam provides a profound rationale: “For the Witness is also the Judge.” This statement carries two key insights:

1. Solitude is Not Truly Solitude: One might assume they are alone, but in reality, a Witness—Allah—observes all actions. Believing in this divine oversight transforms one’s behavior. Just as a person refrains from certain acts in the presence of others, the awareness that Allah, the most present of all observers, is watching should deter sin. This belief profoundly influences conduct.
2. The Witness is the Judge: In the divine court, every deed—however small—is accounted for, as the Quran states: “Whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it” (Quran 99:7-8). Unlike worldly courts that rely on external witnesses, in the Hereafter, no such testimony is needed. A person’s own limbs bear witness, and above all, Allah—the ultimate Judge (Ahkam al-Hakimin)—is Himself the Witness. Thus, one must not assume that sins committed in solitude escape accountability.

We must exercise vigilance in solitude, where no apparent observer exists, knowing that Allah is both Witness and Judge. Should a sin—however minor—occur, repentance and seeking forgiveness are imperative. Imam Reza (peace be upon him) warns: “Minor sins pave the way to major sins.” He further explains: “One who does not fear Allah regarding small sins will not fear Him regarding great ones.” Persistent minor sins can desensitize one to greater transgressions, potentially leading to a loss of divine blessings in both material and spiritual matters. We must reflect on whether such lapses stem from habitual minor sins that gradually escalate.

May Allah grant us the ability to guard against our desires, avoid both minor and major sins in public and private, and increase our divine blessings, protecting us from stumbling into disobedience.

Types of Certitude

Following our discussion on tajri (acting against a presumed ruling), we now address the types of certitude (qat‘). Shaykh Ansari, in his Rasa’il, divides certitude into two categories: methodical certitude (qat‘ tariqi) and substantive certitude (qat‘ mawdu‘i). Our prior discussions focused on methodical certitude, but now we explore substantive certitude. Akhund Khorasani, in his Kifaya, also elaborates on these categories. We will clarify these types and examine scholarly opinions on their possibility or impossibility.

1. Methodical Certitude

Methodical certitude is straightforward and requires little explanation. It refers to certitude that is not incorporated into the subject of a legal ruling. For instance, in the rulings “Prayer is obligatory” or “Wine is forbidden,” the subject of the ruling—prayer or wine—refers to their actual essence, not the certitude about them. If someone is certain that a liquid is wine, this certitude serves as a means (tariq) to ascertain reality, but it does not influence the ruling itself. Methodical certitude is merely a pathway to discerning the truth and plays no role in establishing the legal ruling, as it is not part of the subject of the legal directive.

2. Substantive Certitude

Substantive certitude, however, is certitude incorporated into the subject of a legal ruling. Akhund Khorasani explains that certitude regarding a ruling cannot be part of the subject of an identical or opposing ruling. For example, one cannot say, “If you are certain of the obligation of prayer, prayer is obligatory,” as certitude about a ruling cannot be the subject of the same ruling. Similarly, “If you are certain of the obligation of prayer, prayer is forbidden” is invalid, as certitude cannot be the subject of an opposing ruling. However, certitude about a subject can be incorporated into the subject of a ruling. For instance, “If you are certain that something is wine, it is forbidden” makes certitude about the subject (wine) part of the ruling’s subject. Thus, we distinguish between methodical certitude (a means to reality) and substantive certitude (part of the ruling’s subject).

Question: What is substantive certitude? It is certitude incorporated into the subject of a legal directive, either as certitude about the subject (e.g., wine) or about the ruling itself (though the latter is limited, as explained).

Subcategories of Substantive Certitude

Substantive certitude is divided into two main categories:

First Division:

1. Substantive Certitude as the Entire Subject: Here, certitude alone determines the ruling, regardless of reality. For example, “If you are certain that something is wine, it is forbidden.” The prohibition depends solely on certitude about the substance being wine, even if it is actually water. The ruling applies to the object of certitude, not the reality.
2. Substantive Certitude as Part of the Subject: Here, certitude is one of two conditions for the ruling, alongside reality. For example, “If you are certain that something is wine and it is actually wine, it is forbidden.” Both certitude and the actual nature of the substance must align for the prohibition to apply. Certitude alone or reality alone is insufficient.

Second Division:

Each of these categories—entire subject or part of the subject—is further divided into:

1. As a Psychological Attribute: Certitude is considered a psychological state of the obligated person, focusing on the internal conviction.
2. As a Means to Reality: Certitude is viewed as a pathway to discovering reality, not as a psychological state but as a revealer of truth.

Within the “means to reality” category, certitude can be:

• Complete Revealer: Certitude is seen as fully revealing reality.
• General Revealer: Certitude is considered a revealer of reality, whether complete or partial.

This results in five subcategories for substantive certitude: entire subject as a psychological attribute, entire subject as a complete revealer, entire subject as a general revealer, part of the subject as a psychological attribute, and part of the subject as a revealer (complete or general).

There are discussions about whether some of these subcategories are possible or rationally impossible, which will be explored further.