Preliminaries, Preliminary Seven: The Restriction of the Domains of the Practical Principles

Session Nine

Preliminaries, Preliminary Seven: The Restriction of the Domains of the Practical Principles, The Third View, Commentary on the Treatise on Rights, 2. Practical Humility, Methods of Attaining Humility in Prayer

September 24, 2025

Summary of the Previous Session

In the seventh preliminary, the discussion centered on the restriction of the practical principles to four. We noted that one view—which is the view of the late Akhund [al-Khurasani] in Kifayah—maintains that the restriction of the practical principles to these four is inductive, meaning that the discovery of a new practical principle remains possible through induction. What has been compiled through induction thus far are these four principles alongside the principle of purity (asl al-taharah). However, they raised an objection: why is the principle of purity not discussed in the science of Usul?

The Akhund proposed that this is either because there is no dispute regarding it, and it has not been subject to rejection or endorsement (hence no dispute exists), unlike the four practical principles, which have been subject to dispute from various perspectives.

The second response was that the rule or principle of purity is restricted to the chapter of purity, whereas the four principles run across all chapters of jurisprudence. This response was perhaps not accepted by the late Akhund himself, which is why he indicated its deficiency with the expression fa-fahm (“so understand”). The deficiency lies in the fact that the criterion for an issue to be considered among the issues of Usul and to be discussed within the science applies to the principle of purity as well, even if it is restricted to a single chapter. Running across all chapters of jurisprudence is not a requirement for this criterion.

A third response has also been mentioned, to which the late Akhund also referred, but it is not highly significant.

The core point is that there is general agreement that the level of dispute regarding the rule of purity is less than that of the other practical principles. While this does not mean it is literally undisputed, it means that the degree of dispute and divergence in various aspects present in the other practical principles does not exist here.

Thus, the second view was that the restriction is rational.

The Third View

The third view (which we can accept as a distinct view from the previous two, albeit with a degree of leniency) maintains that the restriction of these principles is inductive with respect to the principles themselves, but rational with respect to their domains and applications. This view was also proposed by the late al-Muhaqqiq al-Khoei. What does it mean to say that this restriction is inductive regarding the principles themselves and rational regarding their applications?

That it is inductive regarding the principles themselves means that we can conceive of another principle other than these four practical principles in certain cases of doubt. For instance, in the case of doubt regarding the obligation and the rotation of the matter between obligation and permissibility (ibahah), the Lawgiver could command recommendability (istihbab). For example, He could declare: “If you doubt between obligation and permissibility, build upon recommendability” (idha shakakta bayna al-wujubi wa-l-ibahati fa-bni ‘ala al-istihbab).

Or, for example, in the rotation of the matter between prohibition (hurmah) and permissibility, He could declare: “If you doubt between prohibition and permissibility, build upon detestability” (idha shakakta bayna al-hurmati wa-l-ibahati fa-bni ‘ala al-karahah). Building upon recommendability or detestability is conceivable in these doubts. If we were to derive something like this from the evidence, the number of practical principles would naturally become five or six. Thus, a principle called the principle of recommendability (asalat al-istihbab) or the principle of detestability (asalat al-karahah) is conceivable within its respective domain—namely, in doubt between obligation and permissibility, or doubt between prohibition and permissibility.

Thus, the meaning of the restriction being inductive with respect to the principles themselves is clear.

However, with respect to the domains and applications, the restriction is rational. This is because the domains of the practical principles, according to most formulations, are structured based on negation and affirmation. This is the very criterion for a rational restriction. For a restriction and division to be rational, the division must proceed from the beginning in such a way that the matter is perpetually between negation and affirmation. For example, we say: humans are either black or they are not black. Those who are not black are either, for instance, white-skinned or they are not white-skinned. No matter how far the division continues, it remains on the axis of negation and affirmation, such that a third alternative is fundamentally inconceivable.

For example, the late Sheikh stated: doubt either possesses a previous state and the Lawgiver has considered it, or it does not possess a previous state or it has not been considered. The existence and non-existence of a previous state is structured based on negation and affirmation. In the second stage, he states: if it does not possess a previous state, either precaution is possible in it or it is not. This too is structured based on negation and affirmation.

However, the axis of division—both in the second and third stages according to two formulations of the late Sheikh—was that doubt is either in the obligation itself or in the object of obligation (al-shakk fi-l-mukallaf bih). Is this also governed by negation and affirmation? This would only be rational if we could not conceive of a third alternative beside the obligation itself and the object of obligation. Can we conceive of one or not?

Question: Doubt in the core obligation and the genus of the obligation.

Professor: Yes, that falls within the scope of doubt in the obligation itself… ultimately, it belongs either to the category of doubt in the obligation itself or to the category of doubt in the object of obligation. That is, if the doubt is in the core obligation (which is clear), and if the doubt is in the type of obligation, this also ultimately returns to the doubt in the object of obligation. It does not exit these two. Thus, rationally, perhaps no third alternative can be conceived beside doubt in the obligation itself and doubt in the object of obligation… it falls either under conjecture or under certainty. Whether precaution is possible or not is also governed by negation and affirmation.

Therefore, generally speaking, whichever of the late Sheikh’s three formulations we consider, the restriction of the practical principles to these four becomes rational. If we accept the formulation of Imam Khomeini, that too is structured from the outset based on negation and affirmation. Thus, its restriction becomes rational. Therefore, the restriction of the practical principles to these four, with respect to their domains, is rational.

Question: Whichever axis we consider, it is governed by a rational negation and affirmation; however, this negation and affirmation can continue indefinitely. Therefore, within doubt in the obligation itself and doubt in the object of obligation, this division can be continued.

Professor: We say that each principle is rational with respect to its own domain… the Lawgiver does not dictate these states that we experience… in all cases where the restriction among categories is rational, the division can be continued. … The phrasing is: the restriction of the practical principles to these four is rational with respect to their domains. I say… allow me… this is not inspection and division (sabr wa taqsim)… no, we did not proceed through the method of inspection and division so as to close the path and prevent any further continuation. In other cases of rational division, you have the possibility of continuing the division; the path is not closed. But do you claim that it is not rational?.. The criterion of a rational division is not whether it can be continued or not, but rather the rotation between negation and affirmation in each division. We are discussing the domains of the practical principles… I stated that this does not prevent it from being rational. Your assumption is that no other possibility of division must exist. We say no; the criterion for a division being rational is that it is governed by negation and affirmation. Our assumption is that here, these principles are situated within these domains. We possess no other principle that we would place within its respective domain.

Commentary on the Treatise on Rights

We noted that Imam Sajjad (peace be upon him), in explaining the right of prayer, stated that two rights are established for you, and subsequently declared: “So when you know that, you should stand in it in the position of one who is humble, abased, desiring, dreading, hoping, the wretched, the entreating, the one glorifying the One before whom he stands with stillness and casting down of the gaze, and humility of the limbs, and lowering of the wing, and excellent secret conversation with Him in himself, and pleading to Him to release his neck which his errors have encompassed and his sins have consumed; and there is no power except by Allah.”

Now that you know this, understand that you must possess both heartfelt and internal humility, and humility of the limbs and physical organs—both internal (jawanih) and physical (jawarih).

2. Practical Humility

We have explained heartfelt humility and its manifestations in the words of Imam Sajjad (peace be upon him). We outlined the elements of heartfelt humility according to the statements of the Imam in these passages. Subsequently, the Imam refers to the humility of the limbs and physical organs. One cannot neglect the outward etiquette and the physical state of humility in prayer. That too is part of the recommendations of Imam Sajjad (peace be upon him). He states: “with stillness and casting down of the gaze, and humility of the limbs, and lowering of the wing.”

He has employed four terms:

1. “with stillness” (bi-l-sukun): Stillness relates to the physical limbs. These four are the elements of physical humility. Stillness means that during prayer, the physical limbs of the person do not move. They do not move their hands, feet, face, or even their eyes from side to side. Stillness—the lack of movement in all of one’s limbs during prayer—is an element of physical humility.

2. “and casting down of the gaze” (wa-l-itraq): This means head-bowing and casting down of the gaze; a state of shame and head-bowing. Head-bowing does not necessarily mean that the head must be lowered. If it were so, they would say “bending of the head” (inhina’ al-ra’s) or staring at the ground. They say al-itraq. Al-itraq is a state of head-bowing and humility.

When someone stands before another, even if their head is not lowered, that state of head-bowing may appear in their physical demeanor. They say that during prayer, a person’s physical demeanor must be one of head-bowing and humility. It should not be with chest puffed out… ultimately, that state of humility must be visible.

1. “and humility of the limbs” (wa khushu’ al-atraf): The submissiveness of the limbs and physical organs. This is distinct from stillness. It is true that it is accompanied by head-bowing, but it differs from it. It is the lowered and humble state of the limbs.

2. “and lowering of the wing” (wa lin al-janah): The state of modesty and humility while standing in prayer.

Thus, the Imam (peace be upon him) introduced internal humility with specific descriptions (he did not merely say “be humble in your hearts and limbs” in a general sense); he clarified and explained what we mean by being humble in heart and what state you should possess. When we say be in this manner in your limbs, what is meant.

This is one of the most important issues that must be attended to in prayer. That is, after the Imam stated those two rights, the first thing he explicitly stated and cautioned about was heartfelt and behavioral humility—both internal and physical. It is highly important that the worshipper possess a state of humility both in their heart and in their physical limbs.

Methods of Attaining Humility in Prayer

How can we cultivate this state within ourselves? It is not the case that someone can direct their life in another direction in other moments and yet be able to cultivate this state of heartfelt and physical humility in prayer. This requires constant practice, training, and vigilance.

Several methods exist for cultivating this state in prayer, the most important of which are outlined below:

The first way for a person to cultivate this state within themselves is knowledge (ma’rifah). This means attending to those two rights mentioned at the beginning. It means knowing what the prayer is and in whose presence we stand. That is, the majesty and power of Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, and in contrast, our own insignificance and nothingness. This very knowledge, awareness, and glorification of Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, helps us to be humble.

Right now, if you face someone whom you admire (depending on who it is—at times someone admires a scientist, and at other times someone admires an actor) without knowing them, no state of humility will arise within you. But if you know them, and they tell you who they are—for instance, that they are the leading specialist of a certain field in the world—this very knowledge and awareness automatically creates a state of humility within you. Thus, the first way is recognition and knowledge.

The second way and factor that helps create the state of humility is the presence of heart (hudur al-qalb) in prayer. Knowledge is a prior matter and, so to speak, requires time. We must possess presence of heart in prayer. If our minds and senses wander here and there during prayer, naturally this cannot create that state of humility. The state of humility in the limbs and in the heart of a person is attained when we know what position we occupy. The presence of heart in prayer brings about that humility.

The third way and factor is that a person must be vigilant not to be heedless of the remembrance of God. This relates to the other moments of our lives. If we are to be heedless of the remembrance of God from morning until evening, thinking of desires and carnal pleasures, inevitably this state will not arise for us during prayer. That is, in fact, certain prior preparations must exist for us to be able to possess that heartfelt humility during prayer.

In a Hadith Qudsi, it is stated: “Indeed, I only accept the prayer of one who humbles himself before My majesty, restrains himself from desires for My sake, passes his day in My remembrance, and does not act arrogantly toward My creation.”

Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, states: I accept the prayer from one who is humble and modest before My greatness, and “restrains himself from desires for My sake”—exercising self-restraint in the face of desires—and “passes his day in My remembrance”—spending his day in My remembrance—and “does not act arrogantly toward My creation”—possessing no arrogance, pride, or self-superiority toward My creation and others.

One of the matters that helps a person to cultivate physical and internal humility is piety (taqwa). Piety must be present throughout our lives: performing the obligations and avoiding the prohibitions. Obviously, prayer with humility does not manifest from someone who does not possess piety. Guardedness (wara’), piety, and vigilance over oneself help to create this state.