The Tripartite Division of Knowledge and the Obligation to Pursue Beneficial Knowledge – Issue 4 – Two Positions in the Discussion – Sayyid’s Opinion

The Tripartite Division of Knowledge and the Obligation to Pursue Beneficial Knowledge

At the beginning of the lessons in the current academic year, according to the customary method and for blessing, we narrate a tradition so that, God willing, it may be beneficial and useful for us and serve as a shining lamp illuminating the path of our scholarly progress. The narration is from Imam al-Kazim (peace be upon him), as transmitted in Alām al-Dīn. He states: “The most fitting knowledge for you is that without which your action cannot be reformed,” meaning knowledge that reforms your action and has an impact on it. “And the most obligatory action upon you is that for which you will be held accountable,” meaning the action for which you will be questioned. It is as if human actions are of two types: one type is not subject to questioning, and the other type is subject to questioning. Evidently, the action that is subject to questioning is the most obligatory; a person cannot remain indifferent toward it. “And the most obligatory knowledge for you is that which guides you to the righteousness of your heart and reveals its corruption to you,” meaning knowledge that reforms your heart. This indicates that there are categories of knowledge that possess value and nobility; awareness and knowing, in general, is a form of nobility, but among awarenesses and knowledges, the most obligatory knowledge is that which brings the heart, soul, and very being of a person to righteousness and reveals its corruption—the knowledge that shows the righteousness and corruption of a person’s heart. If knowledge reveals a person’s righteousness and corruption, it is evidently the most obligatory awareness. “And the most praiseworthy knowledge in the end is that which increases your immediate action,” meaning the action related to this world. If knowledge adds to your action, it is the most praiseworthy knowledge. Thus, in this segment of the narration, Imam al-Kazim (peace be upon him) speaks of the most fitting knowledge, the most obligatory knowledge, and the most praiseworthy knowledge. He also mentions the most obligatory action.

This serves as a prelude to the conclusion where he states: “So do not occupy yourself with knowledge whose ignorance does not harm you, and do not neglect knowledge whose abandonment increases your ignorance.” Thus, do not occupy yourself with knowledge whose ignorance does not harm you; not knowing it causes you no harm. Likewise, beware of knowledge whose not knowing adds to your ignorance. Neither engage in non-beneficial knowledge nor pursue knowledge that increases your ignorance.

Now, the question arises: How can knowledge add to a person’s ignorance? From Imam al-Kazim’s statement (peace be upon him), it becomes clear that knowledges are of three categories: beneficial knowledge, harmful knowledge, and neutral knowledge.

Some knowledges are harmful; this is a matter of discussion as to how knowledge can be harmful. Awareness and knowing remove a person from ignorance; how can a person who emerges from ignorance remain in ignorance at the same time? Some knowledges are not inherently or essentially harmful, but they are harmful for certain individuals; this itself is a category that requires discussion—that sometimes knowledge is inherently beneficial, but in the vessel into which it is poured, it turns into poison. When you pour the best food, the best medicine, or the cure into an unhealthy vessel, it quickly spoils; some knowledges are not inherently harmful, but in certain vessels, they become something that causes harm. Developing capacity for certain awarenesses is important; the reason the Imams (peace be upon them) observed classification in expressing knowledge and did not convey some profound matters to certain companions was the fear that it might lead them to deviation and misguidance. Observing classification in conveying knowledge to their companions was a principle among the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them); for example, Imam al-Sadiq’s (peace be upon him) interaction with Muhammad ibn Muslim or Zirrara and others differs greatly.

Some knowledges are inherently harmful, regardless of the vessel into which they are poured; both of these must be avoided. Knowledge that causes ignorance of the truth and distance from the origin of this world, knowledge that harms one’s own state or that of others and serves no purpose other than causing damage—this is harmful knowledge.

Some knowledges are neutral; these are the knowledges regarding which Imam al-Kazim (peace be upon him) stated that not knowing them causes no harm to a person. Yes! Sometimes knowing them is a virtue; but in times when one must choose between acquiring necessary knowledge and awarenesses that are essential for a person and awarenesses whose knowing is not necessary and whose ignorance causes no harm or loss, certainly one’s time should be spent on the former category. Today, we are all afflicted with using cyberspace and acquiring awarenesses that are sometimes even harmful. I do not mean to say that all content in cyberspace is like this; being aware of one’s surroundings and events is a necessary matter and should be so; but spending one’s time wandering and idling in cyberspace instead of pursuing necessary and beneficial knowledge—even if no harm ensues from it—is prohibited. This is especially so when we have numerous topics and issues that we must know for our own righteousness and that of our society; for preventing the corruption of ourselves and our society.

The path we are on—pursuing Islamic and religious sciences—the responsibility placed upon us, the sciences we study in the seminaries, regardless of the ranking of sciences and their priorities, in general, are among those capable of benefiting humanity and society. This does not mean that whoever learns these sciences necessarily becomes a beneficial person. If this very knowledge is poured into an unhealthy vessel, it becomes a veil, and its harm is worse than that of those who have no knowledge. God has granted us this opportunity and provided this environment for us to learn beneficial knowledge; but with learning, we create the prerequisite in ourselves, yet we must also remove the obstacles. These are the most obligatory and fitting knowledges; the most praiseworthy knowledges; because they are knowledges that reveal our righteousness and corruption. What better than learning something that directs our soul and spirit toward righteousness, elevation, progress, and perfection, and prevents its fall? This is beneficial knowledge. God has provided this opportunity and environment for us, but unfortunately, we do not appreciate this opportunity and blessing; I mean myself, of course. In the next lesson, I will narrate a tradition about opportunities and how missing them leads to regret and remorse. Eventually, these days and times will pass; but may the time not come, God forbid, when we regret why we did not use the opportunity of youth, health, and well-being, and instead occupied ourselves with things that are corrupting or in which there is no righteousness or corruption for us. Why do we not spend our time and energy on these sciences? Of course, problems and difficulties are many; these all have their place, but this responsibility—both individual and social—is very heavy upon us. May God, God willing, through the blessings of the Infallible Awliya (peace be upon them), through the blessings of the sacred breaths spent in these seminaries by those who passed their lives here, and as we sit at the vast table of the efforts and endeavors of several hundred years, grant us the success to make use of this opportunity. What we benefit from today is the product of the sacrifices, efforts, and struggles of great scholars who, in harsh and grueling conditions, amid dangers and threats to life and property, did not abandon this grave mission and kept this torch aflame until today. This should make us aware of this responsibility. We beseech God that at the beginning of this academic year, He grant us the success for greater benefit from these lessons and discussions, that their effects manifest in our actions and be impactful; that we recognize righteousness and corruption and apply them in life. God willing, may we not disappoint the sacred existence of the Remnant of Allah, the Greatest (may Allah hasten his reappearance); at the very least, if we do not create pride, may we not, God forbid, become a source of shame and disgrace. Let us keep in mind the satisfaction of that exalted presence and sacred being, and see what action from us can truly please that noble heart; if we take even a small step or minor movement in this path, be assured that the graces, attentions, and supplications of that presence will encompass us manifold.

A Reference to the Previous Discussion

Our discussion was in the chapter “On the Agents of the Contract”; we covered three issues. The last issue we discussed last year was regarding the guardianship of the father and paternal grandfather over the marriage of a mature virgin; we discussed this in detail. The agents of the contract are those who have guardianship over the marriage contract; the first among them is the father and paternal grandfather. We discussed over whom they have guardianship and over whom they do not, until we reached the mature adult woman. In issue four, it speaks of the condition for the guardianship of the father and paternal grandfather over those considered under guardianship, whether a mature adult woman or a minor.

Issue 4

“For the validity of the marriage contracted by the father and paternal grandfather and its binding nature, it is conditioned that no harm ensue from it.” For the validity and binding nature of the marriage contracted by the father and paternal grandfather—or in other words, their guardianship—it is conditioned upon no harm ensuing. The contract concluded by the father or paternal grandfather must not cause harm to the one under guardianship. “Otherwise, the contract is non-binding, like that of a stranger, whose validity depends on the ratification of the minor after puberty.” If a father contracts a marriage for his mature virgin daughter or even a minor and it involves harm, this contract is non-binding; like if a stranger contracts for another. A contract for a girl by a stranger is subject to ratification by that girl. For example, if a father, for personal motives and while it involves harm, contracts a marriage for his minor child, it is subject to ratification until that child reaches puberty and then ratifies it. “Rather, the more cautious view is to consider the benefit.” The obligatory precaution is to consider the benefit.

In reality, this issue addresses the conditioning of two matters; the Imam, following the author of al-Urwa and others, has spoken of these two conditions. The first condition is whether the guardianship of the father and paternal grandfather in the matter of marriage and the marriage contract is conditioned upon the absence of harm or not? Therefore, we must discuss whether the absence of harm is valid for the validity and binding nature of the contract of the father and paternal grandfather or not. In the second position, the discussion is whether benefit is valid or not? The existence of benefit is distinct from the absence of harm; sometimes we say the contract must not harm the girl; the absence of harm encompasses either the presence of benefit or the absence of benefit. One contracts a marriage and marries her to someone in which there is no benefit but also no harm. One level higher is that it not only has no harm but also has benefit; meaning there is benefit in this contract. For example, the person married to his daughter possesses family honor, financial means, a good occupation, good morals.

Two Positions in the Discussion

Thus, we must discuss in two positions here: 1. The validity of the absence of harm; 2. The validity of benefit. The Imam (may his soul rest in peace) has issued a fatwa on the conditioning of the first; meaning he says the absence of harm is valid; of course, under it, he raises the discussion that if this condition is absent, the contract is like the contract of a stranger and non-binding, whose validity is subject to ratification. Regarding the second condition, he has issued an obligatory precaution and not a fatwa. Thus, we must see what is the evidence for conditioning the absence of harm? Furthermore, we must see whether benefit is essentially a condition or not? Is the existence of benefit necessary or not? Why has the Imam issued an obligatory precaution here? These are the two positions we must discuss in continuation.

Sayyid’s Opinion

Since we usually also read the text of al-Urwa, I will quickly read the text of al-Urwa as well. The author of al-Urwa addresses this topic in issue five: “For the validity of the marriage contracted by the father and paternal grandfather and its binding nature, it is conditioned that no harm ensue and that the contract not be non-binding like that of a stranger,” up to here it is like the text of Tahrir; he states: For the validity and binding nature of the marriage contracted by the father and paternal grandfather, it is conditioned that there be no harm in the marriage; otherwise, the contract becomes non-binding, like a contract performed by a stranger. Here, the late Sayyid has an addition that is not in the text of Tahrir; he states: “And it is possible that it is invalid even with ratification.” The late Sayyid has raised a possibility here, that if there is harm, this contract is not valid and cannot be rectified even with ratification; meaning it will not even be a non-binding contract. The Imam himself (may his soul rest in peace), in the margin under this paragraph of the text of al-Urwa, states: “But it is weak”; he says this possibility is weak; therefore, he did not include this possibility in the text of Tahrir. Others have also objected to the late Sayyid regarding this possibility; the late Muhaqqiq Iraqi, the late Muhaqqiq Naini, these have objected to this possibility of the late Sayyid. The statement of the late Naini is: “The stronger view is sufficiency of ratification after puberty.” The expression of Muhaqqiq Iraqi is like that of the late Imam and he wrote: “And it is extremely weak,” this possibility is extremely weak. Meaning, in truth, it is an objection to the late Sayyid as to why he mentioned this possibility. The late Mr. Khui also objected to this possibility and stated: “But it is remote, and likewise the state in the following issue.”

Then the late Sayyid stated: “Rather, the more cautious view is to consider the benefit,” the more cautious is to consider the benefit. Meaning higher than the absence of harm. Not that these are two conditions; naturally, someone who says benefit is valid inevitably includes the absence of harm in it. However, some have remained at the first stage, and some say higher than this, benefit is also necessary. “Rather, the validity is questionable if there are two suitors, one more suitable than the other in terms of honor or due to the abundance of the dowry or its paucity relative to the minor, and the father chooses the less suitable one to satisfy his own desire”; the late Sayyid states that if in a case two suitors come for the girl’s marriage, but one is more suitable than the other, now either in terms of family honor or abundance of dowry or things like that, but the father chooses the other to satisfy his heart’s desire and disregards the girl’s benefit, this contract is not valid.

Today, I have presented the form of the issue, that we must discuss in two positions: 1. The validity of the absence of harm; 2. The validity of benefit.