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

Session Fifty-Three

The Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah) – Evidence for Exemption – First Proof: The Book – The Second Verse – Evaluation of the Second Verse – Objection to the Lack of Indication of the Verse on Exemption – Response

December 9, 2025

Objection

It was previously stated that the verse, “Allah does not burden any soul beyond its capacity” [Quran 2:286], does not indicate the Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah). The objections to utilizing this verse as evidence were discussed in detail, culminating in the conclusion that this verse cannot establish the Principle of Exemption in cases of doubt regarding a religious obligation (al-shakk fi-l-taklif).

The objection raised here is that, by citing a narration from Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), some seek to prove that this verse indeed indicates Bara’ah. According to this tradition, Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) resorted to this verse to establish Bara’ah. The question is: how can it be claimed that the verse lacks such an indication when Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) relied on it for the issue of exemption? The text of the narration is as follows:

“Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Ubayd, from Yunus, from Hammad, from ‘Abdullah (peace be upon him): I said to Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam al-Sadiq] (pbuh): ‘May Allah keep you well! Has there been placed (ju’ila) among the people an instrument/means by which they can attain cognition (al-ma’rifah)?'”

If [the verb] is read in the passive voice (ju’ila), it carries this meaning; and if read in the active voice (ja’ala), it means: “Has Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, placed paths and means through which people can attain cognition?”

“He said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘Are they then obligated with cognition?’ He said: ‘No.'”

The Imam stated: “No,” meaning people have not been obligated with cognition. Then His Eminence said:

“‘Clarification is upon Allah’ (‘ala Allahi al-bayan),”

meaning that if Allah desires people to attain cognition, He must clarify it, and such a clarification has not occurred. Following this, the Imam recited these two verses:

“Allah does not burden any soul except [with] what He has given it” [Quran 65:7] and “Allah does not burden any soul beyond its capacity” [Quran 2:286].

Thus, the objection posits that the Imam (peace be upon him) stated that people are not obligated with cognition, because if they were, Allah would have clarified it. Since He has not clarified it, no such obligation is directed at human beings. Following this, he recited the verse, “Allah does not burden any soul except [with] what He has given it”. This demonstrates that “what He has given it” (ma ataha) means “revelation and clarification,” since the Imam previously stated, “Clarification is upon Allah,” and subsequently cited the verse, “Allah does not burden any soul except [with] what He has given it”.

It is as if the question-and-answer sequence corresponds perfectly with the components of this verse. The question was whether or not people are obligated with cognition; hence, the discussion concerns obligation (taklif). The Imam replied in the negative because Allah has not clarified it. This corresponds precisely with the verse, “Allah does not burden any soul except [with] what He has given it”, wherein the antecedent of the exception (al-mustathna minh) refers to obligation (taklif), and “what He has given it” (ma ataha), by contextual indication of the phrase “Clarification is upon Allah”, means the notification and clarification of the obligation. This clearly indicates Bara’ah. In other words, among the various interpretations proposed for this verse, the very interpretation cited by the proponent to deduce Bara’ah is present in this narration. With this in mind, how can it be argued that this verse does not indicate the Principle of Exemption?

Response

We must now examine whether this objection is valid or not.

The late Sheikh [al-Ansari] has offered an interpretation of this narration that differs from the one presented by the objector. To conduct a precise evaluation of the narration’s indication, it is necessary to outline the potential interpretations within it, and then assess which of these interpretations is acceptable and whether the objector’s claim is correct.

One interpretation is that “cognition” (ma’rifah) refers to the cognition of Allah, the Blessed and Exalted—namely, the knowledge of the Divine Essence and Attributes. Based on this interpretation, the meaning of the narration is clear: are people obligated to attain cognition of the Essence and Attributes of Allah? The Imam replies: “No; clarification is upon Allah.” This phrase, “clarification is upon Allah” (‘ala Allahi al-bayan), is itself open to two meanings:

1. One possibility is that it means we cannot fundamentally attain cognition of the Essence and Attributes of Allah unless He Himself clarifies it. In this case, the statement describes an objective reality, and there is no hypothetical or assumed premise involved. The question is: are people obligated to know Allah? The Imam replies: “No; clarification is upon Allah.” We do not possess the capacity for cognition unless Allah clarifies it; until Allah clarifies it, we cannot know Him; if He clarifies it, then we will know Him. This phrase is directed at negating the capacity for cognition of God without divine clarification.

If this meaning is intended—that is, if cognition refers to the cognition of the Essence and Attributes, and clarification refers to real and actual clarification—then the meaning of the narration would be: unless Allah bestows the capacity to cognize His Essence and Attributes, He does not obligate anyone to cognize Him. This meaning is compatible with the second or third interpretation discussed previously. There, we noted that the relative pronoun “what” (ma) refers to action, and “what He has given it” (ma ataha) means “what He has enabled it to do” (aqdaraha). Based on this interpretation, Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, states in this verse: “Allah does not obligate anyone with a task unless He grants them the power to perform it.”

This interpretation has no bearing on the objector’s claim; rather, it reinforces the interpretation we previously proposed for the verse. The citation of the verse, “Allah does not burden any soul beyond its capacity” [Quran 2:286], serves as a contextual clue and supporting evidence for this meaning. The apparent wording of the narration also supports this interpretation.

Therefore, this understanding of the narration is contingent upon several points:

That “cognition” refers to the cognition of the Essence and Attributes of Allah, and the question is directed at this cognition.
That “Clarification is upon Allah” describes an objective reality; meaning that if Allah had wished to obligate people to attain cognition of Him, He would have had to clarify it, because without divine clarification, we do not possess the capacity for such cognition.

As noted, this interpretation has supporting evidence and context, and the verse no longer carries the apparent meaning claimed by the objector.

2. Alternatively, if the question refers to whether Allah has obligated people to attain cognition of the Divine Proofs (hujaj) (rather than the Essence and Attributes of Allah), the matter differs. Of course, this refers to detailed cognition (al-ma’rifah al-tafsiliyyah), because general cognition (al-ma’rifah al-ijmaliyyah) encompasses everyone and is self-evident.

The apparent wording of the narration indicates that the question is not about general cognition—asking whether servants are obligated to have general cognition or not—but rather asks about detailed cognition: “Are they then obligated with cognition?”; meaning, are they obligated with detailed cognition regarding the Divine Proofs? The Imam replies: “No; clarification is upon Allah.” If we interpret this phrase to mean that if an obligation existed, it would have to be clarified—meaning that obligation is contingent upon clarification (“if they were obligated, He would have clarified it”); because it has not been clarified, there is no obligation to have detailed cognition of the Imams or the Divine Proofs.

This interpretation appears closer to the objector’s claim. In other words, to accept the objector’s view, we must assume two premises:

First: that the object of cognition is a feasible matter (such as the detailed cognition of the Divine Proofs), because detailed cognition of the Divine Proofs is, in brief, attainable. Nonetheless, the Imam states that people do not have such an obligation, because if they did, it would have been clarified, and since it has not been clarified, it is understood that no such obligation exists. In this case, that “clarification” becomes a hypothetical premise: if it existed, He would have clarified it. When the Imam says, “Clarification is upon Allah,” it means they are not obligated with cognition, and clarification is the responsibility of Allah. The implied meaning is: “If they were obligated with cognition,” He would have clarified it. “Clarification is upon Allah.” Since He has not clarified it, they are not obligated with cognition. This is the intended formulation.
Second: that the phrase “Clarification is upon Allah” must be understood to mean that if there were an obligation, it would have been clarified.

However, there is no contextual evidence supporting either the first or the second point; on the contrary, the contextual evidence points in the opposite direction. What does this mean? It means that neither does “cognition” apparently refer to the cognition of the Divine Proofs, nor does “Clarification is upon Allah” carry the meaning proposed by you and the objector.

Question:

Teacher: That is general cognition; it is higher than that. Who is the Imam? The text says: “knowing his right” (‘arifan bi-haqqih)… What are the characteristics of this Imam? What is his personality?… If you wish to argue that if the intended meaning is not detailed cognition (which it is not), but rather general cognition, what conclusion do you want to draw?… This is precisely why he is negating it…

The objector wishes to argue that under this assumption, we can rely on this narration as a proof for Bara’ah. However, we have neither contextual evidence that “cognition” here refers to the cognition of the Divine Proofs, nor do we have contextual evidence that “Clarification is upon Allah” refers to that hypothetical assumption—i.e., that if Allah had wished to obligate us, He would have clarified it… We must clarify two issues here:

What is the object of cognition? Is it the Essence and Attributes, or is it the Divine Proofs? Within this discussion, the distinction between general and detailed cognition arises.
Does “clarification” in this verse refer to the reality of the matter? That is, in any case, if cognition of God were required, He would have to clarify it, because we lack the capacity without His clarification. If this is the meaning, it does not serve the objector’s purpose.

Now, which of these two points do you wish to challenge? Do you wish to challenge the first point or the second?… regardless of whether the objector’s statement is correct or not… Why?… Can general cognition even be intended here? No. Why? We are compelled to say that this cognition is detailed, not general. If general cognition were intended, first, the phrase “Clarification is upon Allah” would not need to be said, and second, since the inquirer already accepts the Divine Proofs (hujaj), it would be meaningless to ask about the necessity of general cognition. This is not a question this inquirer would ask… It would be like asking about self-evident truths; asking: “Are people obligated to recognize Your representatives?” Well, obviously, they must recognize them in a general sense. This does not require a question. This is not something to ask about, nor would the Imam reply, “Clarification is upon Allah.” That would mean the inquirer is asking about obvious matters and the Imam is stating something self-evident; is that even plausible?… Do you accept the first point?…

We say: general cognition does not require a question; it is self-evident. The inquirer asks: “Sir, must I recognize your representative or not?” while himself saying “your representative.” Well, this is a clear and self-evident matter. And then the reply is: “No, Allah must clarify.” Well, this is obvious. Does it even require a question? It is entirely clear. Do you still disagree?……

As for your statement that “this discussion concerns beliefs (‘aqa’id)”: well, what is the issue with Allah obligating us to have cognition of His Proofs?… The objector might say: “Sir, one of the obligations of Allah…” When the issue of obligation (taklif) is raised, its ruling… on what basis should we differentiate between these? We are speaking of the principle of obligation… Firstly, the recognition of the Divine Proofs is not among the fundamentals (usul). It is also among the ancillaries (furu’). No, the detailed aspect of it is also among the ancillaries… What does this mean? It means: whatever has not been clarified… “Clarification is upon Allah.” Here, the objector himself says: if it is not clarified, there is no obligation. Well, the proponent of Bara’ah also says: in cases where the obligation is not clarified, we have no obligation, and thus the Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah) is established…