The Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah), The Proofs of Exemption, The First Proof

Session Forty-Seven

The Principle of Exemption from Obligation (Bara’ah), The Proofs of Exemption, The First Proof: The Book, The First Verse: The First Objection, Analysis of the First Objection, The Second Objection, Analysis of the Second Objection, The Third Objection

December 1, 2025

The Proofs of Exemption

The four proofs have been utilized to establish the Principle of Exemption from Obligation (Bara’ah).

The First Proof: The Book

“Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] himself, and whoever goes astray only goes astray against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.” [Sura al-Isra’, Verse 15]

The witness in this matter lies in the latter part of the verse, which states: “And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.” Sending messengers (ba’th al-rusul) is a metaphor for the clarification of obligation. Therefore, it is as if Almighty God is declaring: We do not punish anyone until We clarify the obligation. Naturally, a person who has attained knowledge and certainty regarding the obligation on their own is excluded from the scope of this verse. That is, the statement that We do not punish anyone until We clarify the obligation does not encompass one who on their own acquires certainty regarding the obligation. Therefore, if a person acquires certainty, they are held accountable, even if no messenger has been sent to them or no obligation has been formally communicated.

This is identical to the rational rule of “the ugliness of punishment without prior clarification” (qubh al-‘iqab bila bayan), with the difference that the sacred law has articulated it. The meaning of exemption is also this: as long as no clarification regarding the obligation reaches us, there is no punishment or retribution. Consequently, where we possess no clarification, no obligation is directed toward us, and we are not held accountable or punished for that obligation.

Analysis of the First Verse

Several objections have been raised against utilizing this verse to establish the Principle of Exemption from Obligation (Bara’ah). Some were proposed prior to the era of Sheikh al-Ansari, while others were formulated by the Sheikh himself and his direct or indirect students. We will now outline some of these objections and analyze whether they are valid against the argumentation based on this verse or not.

The first objection is the one al-Muhaqqiq al-Ansari raised in Fara’id al-Usul. He states: this verse is fundamentally in the position of reporting on past nations, intending to convey that in the past, We never punished any nation without sending messengers. If the verse is in the position of reporting on the state of past nations, it can no longer be utilized to execute exemption in cases of doubt regarding the obligation.

If we interpret the auxiliary verb “kunna” in the verse to denote past tense, this objection is valid; meaning the verse indicates that in the past, We did not punish any nation without sending a messenger. However, if “kunna” is stripped of temporal reference (which is indeed the apparent meaning of the verse), the objective is to state that Our sublime position and custom have never from the beginning been to perform such an act; this method is established from eternity past to the present and until the Day of Resurrection.

A parallel customary expression is when someone is asked: “Why do you continue to favor so-and-so with your kindness despite the fact that he never expresses any gratitude for your favors?” The response given is: “We have never been accustomed to the gratitude of others.” The meaning of this statement is not that we were thus in the past, but rather that our method, plan, and conduct have always been such; it is our sublime position and custom. In custom, this expression carries absolutely no reference to the past tense. Here, the case is identical. “And never would We” (ma kunna mu’adhdhibin) means that We have never been, are not, and will never be in a position to punish anyone without sending a messenger.

Student Inquiry: Yes, some have derived this very conclusion based on this expression, stating: “kunna” is a past-tense verb and its meaning is “we were thus,” and therefore it has no connection to our discussion.

Teacher Response: This is while parallel expressions are employed in the Holy Quran, where whenever Almighty God speaks of His Essence with such expressions, He in truth wishes to state that the holy Essence of the Lord is eternally thus. Ultimately, if a matter is of this degree of constancy, it cannot be established at one time and absent at another. For example, in Sura al-Anfal, Verse 33, God declares: “But Allah would not punish them while you are among them, nor would Allah punish them while they seek forgiveness” (wa ma kana Allahu li-yu’adhibahum wa anta fihim wa ma kana Allahu mu’adhhibahum wa hum yastaghfirun). Here too, the past-tense form (“kana”) is employed, but certainly the past tense is not intended. Many of God’s attributes are expressed with this same auxiliary “kana”, such as “Allah has ever been Knowing and Wise” (kana Allahu ‘aliman hakima). The meaning is not that God was Knowing and Wise only in the past, but rather that He is eternally thus.

The verse is fundamentally directed at worldly torments, not otherworldly ones. This is because it reports that in the past, We did not punish nations except after sending messengers, clarifying the obligation, and their subsequent opposition to that obligation. Whenever this occurred, We punished them; otherwise, We did not. This punishment pertains to this world and has no relation to the punishment of the Hereafter. However, the discussion of the Principle of Exemption from Obligation (Bara’ah) pertains to the Hereafter and the Day of Resurrection. When we assert that if the possibility of an obligation exists and one violates that suspected obligation while no clarification has been communicated, this does not entail retribution, we mean that, in effect, there is no obligation. Thus, the discussion of exemption relates to otherworldly retribution and is directed at punishment in the Hereafter.

This objection is also invalid. This is because:

First: It is understood from the verse that it encompasses both worldly and otherworldly punishments. The indicator of this is the preceding and subsequent verses.

The preceding verse (Sura al-Isra’, Verses 13 and 14) states: “And [for] every person We have fastened his fate to his neck, and We will produce for him on the Day of Resurrection a record which he will encounter spread open. [It will be said], ‘Read your record. Sufficient is yourself against you this Day as accountant.'” This verse is clearly related to the Day of Resurrection and speaks of otherworldly punishment.

The subsequent verse (Sura al-Isra’, Verse 16) states: “And when We intend to destroy a city, We command its affluent but they defiantly disobey therein; so the word deserves [i.e., comes into effect] against it, and We destroy it with [complete] destruction.” This verse relates to worldly punishment.

The mere placement of this verse (Verse 15) between these two verses is itself an indicator that the punishment referred to in Verse 15 encompasses both worldly and otherworldly punishments, and if its generality is established, it is sufficient for the argumentation. True, if this verse were directed solely at worldly punishment, it could not be utilized in this context. However, if it is directed at otherworldly punishment or is general, then no obstacle exists for the argumentation.

Question: Yes, it is clear that the verse speaks explicitly of “accounting,” but in reality, it also refers to the consequences after the accounting. It means We are not such that you perform whatever you wish and We leave you abandoned. Ultimately, We will hold you accountable. When He states “We will hold you accountable,” although the word “punishment” is not mentioned, He in reality means We will bring you to account and subsequently punish you.

Professor: Second: Even if we concede that this verse pertains to worldly punishment, as the objector claimed, and even if we concede (sallamna) that this verse pertains solely to past nations (according to the first objection) and is directed only at worldly punishment (according to the second objection), we can nevertheless establish the Principle of Exemption from Obligation (Bara’ah) a fortiori. To explain:

Almighty God declares: We have never punished past nations in this world without clarifying the obligation for them and sending a messenger to them (since sending messengers is a metaphor for clarifying the obligation).

Now, on this basis, if Almighty God has not punished any nation in this world without sending a messenger, He will a fortiori not do so in the Hereafter; because otherworldly punishment is more severe than worldly punishment. Both in terms of quantity and quality, the severity of otherworldly punishment far exceeds worldly punishment. Therefore, if He does not punish anyone without clarifying the obligation in the case of worldly punishment—which is lighter—He will a fortiori not do so in the Hereafter—where the punishment is more severe.

Question: Is worldly punishment not more specific in this regard?

Professor: We do not say that because there is no punishment in this world absolutely, there is therefore no punishment in the Hereafter. Rather, we say that if worldly punishment—which is lighter and lesser, and is fundamentally incomparable to otherworldly punishment—does not occur without sending a messenger, then a fortiori otherworldly punishment will not occur without sending a messenger (i.e., clarifying the obligation)… This statement is also compatible with the intellect… considering that, as previously noted, the case where a person on their own reaches the comprehension and certainty of the obligation is excluded from the scope of this discussion, our assumption is therefore regarding one who on their own has no comprehension of the obligation… Here, we wish to argue based on the verse itself: thus we say a fortiori… the point is that if He does not punish in this world without clarifying the obligation, He will a fortiori not punish in the Hereafter.

Question: …

Professor: We are not concerned with the core of punishment. We do not say that because He does not punish in this world, He therefore does not punish in the Hereafter absolutely. The verse states: punishment without sending a messenger does not occur in this world. We are not concerned with the fact that perhaps in a thousand other cases, no punishment was executed… The verse states: “And never would We punish until We sent a messenger”; We do not punish anyone in this world without clarifying the obligation. We do not say that everyone who opposed the obligation was punished. We say: no punishment has occurred in this world without clarifying the obligation. As you say, thousands of oppositions may have occurred without any subsequent punishment. We are not concerned with those cases. We do not wish to say that wherever no punishment occurred in this world, no punishment will occur in the Hereafter either; rather, the substance of the verse is: without clarifying the obligation, We have punished and retributed no one. Those punishments that We sent down in this world were always preceded by the clarification of obligations and the sending of messengers.

Suppose we accept that Almighty God has not punished any nation prior to sending messengers. But does this indicate that they fundamentally did not deserve punishment either? For one can envision the assumption that they deserved punishment, but God did not punish them. In contrast, the verse indicates the Principle of Exemption from Obligation (Bara’ah) only if it negates the desert of punishment (istihbaq al-‘uqubah) generally, not merely the actual occurrence (fi’liyyah) of punishment.

Therefore, the verse “And never would We punish until We sent a messenger”—even assuming the previous claim is accepted—in reality negates only the actual occurrence of punishment from past nations without the clarification of obligation. That is, it states: We have punished no nation except after clarifying the obligation or sending a messenger to them. This act of Almighty God can be by way of divine grace (tafaddul) and forgiveness; meaning that they deserved punishment, but God did not punish them.

What we require in the chapter of exemption is to establish that without clarifying the obligation, the desert of punishment does not arise at all, not merely that someone was not actually punished, and there is a difference between the actual occurrence of punishment and the desert of punishment.

To explain: if someone commits an actual sin, this entails the desert of punishment. That is, committing an actual sin is inseparable from the desert of punishment. However, the desert of punishment is not inseparable from its actualization; a person may be disobedient, yet God forgives them. Therefore, perhaps the verse intends to state: prior to sending messengers, although the desert of punishment (stemming from opposition to the actual obligation) exists, God does not punish anyone. In this case, the proof is broader than the claim. The claim (which is the absence of the desert of punishment) is more specific, whereas the proof (which is the negation of the actual occurrence of punishment) is broader. A broader proof is insufficient to establish a more specific claim.