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

Session Fifty-Six

The Principle of Exemption, The Proofs of Exemption, First Proof: The Book, The Fourth Verse, Examination of the Fourth Verse, First, Second, and Third Objections and Their Analysis

December 14, 2025

Summary of the Previous Session

In the examination of The Proofs of Exemption, three verses have been cited so far. These three verses were examined. The first and third verses indicate Exemption, but the second verse lacks such indication.

The Fourth Verse

The fourth verse is Verse 145 of Surah Al-An’am. Sheikh Ansari has cited it in his book Al-Rasa’il. Additionally, Mirza-ye Qomi has mentioned the argumentation based on this verse in Al-Qawanin, and of course, it has been objected to by some prominent scholars. The verse is as follows:

“Say, ‘I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or spilled blood or the flesh of swine – for indeed, it is impure – or it be impious [of disobedience in] dedication to other than Allah. But whoever is forced by necessity, neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.’”

In this verse, Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, instructs the Noble Prophet (PBUH) on how to debate and respond to the Jews.

Indeed, the Jews had forbidden certain matters for themselves and had engaged in unauthorized legislation (tashri’); they had categorized things that Allah had not forbidden as prohibitions (muharramat). Allah commands the Prophet to answer them as follows: “Say, ‘I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden…’”; meaning: I do not find anything as prohibited within what has been revealed to me. This means that what you have made forbidden is not among the prohibitions revealed to me. Thus, he is seemingly raising an objection against them as to why they forbid certain things for themselves and abstain from certain matters.

The argumentation is based on the beginning (sadr) of this verse, which is: “Say, ‘I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden…’” “I do not find” (la ajidu) means “I do not find,” and the non-finding (‘adam al-wijdan) of a prohibition—which, according to this verse, naturally occurs after the Prophet’s search—means: when Allah has not forbidden something, why do you forbid it? From the verse, it is deduced that if we search in a given case and find no prohibition, that thing is not forbidden, and at the very least, the effects of prohibition (athār al-hurmah) cannot be applied to it. And this is the very meaning of Exemption. What indeed is the meaning of Exemption? Exemption means that where we deem a prohibition possible, we rule on the absence of prohibition; meaning that we declare this matter is currently not forbidden for us until a proof for its prohibition is established.

Accordingly, the verse indicates Exemption; for it states: “I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden”; [meaning] I did not find it among the prohibitions. Thus, if we do not find something as forbidden, naturally, within the scope in which we were required to search, no prohibition is established. That the Prophet said “I do not find” in another scope is of a different form, and this is of no importance; what is crucial is that once non-finding (‘adam al-wijdan) is realized, no prohibition is established anymore, and this is the very essence of Exemption.

Examination of the Fourth Verse

Several objections have been raised against the argumentation based on this verse. The late Sheikh Ansari himself raised two objections, and others who have written glosses (hawashi) on Al-Rasa’il or discussed it on relevant occasions in other books have also presented these objections. We shall now quote and examine these objections one by one to determine whether the verse holds indicative value (dalalah) or not.

The First Objection

The first objection is that the verse does not possess an apparent meaning (zuhur) in this regard, but rather merely points to or suggests (ish’ar) it. If it had zuhur in this meaning, we could rely on it; however, it has an ish’ar indicating that in a case where something is not found to be forbidden, we must not deem it forbidden. And ish’ar can never be accepted as a proof (dalil). The zuhur of a verse can be accepted, but ish’ar is at a lower grade than zuhur. Indeed, it is weak and cannot be accepted. Of course, the late Sheikh himself cites a statement by Fadhil al-Tuni, who said: “There is an ish’ar in the verse that the permissibility (ibahah) of things is intuitively rooted in reason (markuzah fi al-‘aql) prior to revelation (al-shar’).” This means the verse suggests that the permissibility of things is a rational intuitive grasp (irtikaz ‘aqli) prior to the sacred law; that is, the primary principle regarding things according to reason is permissibility; before the sacred law declares anything, the rational intuition dictates permissibility unless it is excluded by a proof—meaning that the Lawgiver declares its prohibition (hurmah).

The Response to the First Objection

This objection may well be answered; because the explanation provided by the proponent to formulate the argumentation (taqrib al-istidlal) goes beyond a mere ish’ar. It states: “Say, ‘I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it…’” Say to them: “I do not find any prohibition among what has been revealed to me of those things you have forbidden for yourselves.” When it says “I do not find” (la ajidu) and consequently it is not forbidden, this constitutes zuhur, not merely ish’ar; meaning that the zuhur of this verse regarding Exemption is truly no less than some of the previous verses. Hence, the late Sheikh himself has actually stated: Sallamna dalalataha (Even if we assume its indicative value). This suggests that the ground is prepared for retracting the first objection.

The Second Objection

There is a difference between us and the Prophet. In the case of the Prophet, the non-finding (‘adam al-wijdan) in the true sense is a proof of the absence of prohibition (‘adam al-tahrim); because Allah directly and through revelation (wahy) conveyed all prohibitions, obligations, and decrees to the Prophet. Revelation descended upon the Prophet’s heart; when the Prophet finds no prohibition within the corpus of divine revelation, it means that a prohibition truly does not exist. Had it existed, it would have been in the revelation. In that context, the possibility of non-arrival (‘adam al-wusul) or destruction by ill-wishers and the like holds no meaning. However, in our case, the matter is not so. Non-finding (‘adam al-wijdan) on our part cannot be a proof of the absence of prohibition; because we know with certainty that some of the legal rulings (ahkam shar’iyyah) and teachings have not reached us. The oppressors, the caliphs, the Abbasids, and the Umayyads prevented the dissemination of the traditions (ahadith) of the Infallible Household [of the Prophet] (Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them). Consequently, these rulings did not reach us at all. Thus, our non-finding is not a proof of the non-existence of the ruling. In other words, for the Prophet, ‘adam al-wijdan indicates ‘adam al-wujud (non-finding indicates non-existence); but for us, ‘adam al-wijdan does not indicate ‘adam al-wujud. Therefore, one cannot argue on the basis of this verse.

The Response to the Second Objection

In response to this objection, it is argued: according to this verse, the Prophet of Allah is debating (yuhajj) with the Jews, and Allah is instructing him on the method of debating them: “Say: ‘I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden…’” When he debates them, he has a purpose. The Prophet’s purpose is that “you too must be like this.” He does not merely want to say, “I am not like this; I did not find it, so the ruling does not exist.” He wants to say, “When you too do not find these things among the prohibitions, you may act accordingly.” This is the meaning of Exemption, i.e., the apparent negation of prohibition (nafy al-hurmah bi-hasab al-zahir). Therefore, since the Prophet is in the position of debating the Jews, he wants to tell them: “When you do not find something, you too should say it is not forbidden, apparently.” Go look into your own sacred law (shari’ah) to see if this thing has been forbidden, whereas it has not been forbidden. In other words, if the verse were not in the position of teaching the Prophet how to debate the Jews, this objection might have been valid. However, since the verse is in that position, it means that for them as well, ‘adam al-wijdan can be a proof of ‘adam al-wujud. It says: “Go search your sacred law to see if these things have been forbidden. Since they have not, then there is no problem.”

Question: …

Teacher: But he is debating… He says: “I did not find: ‘Say: I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden.’” He does not say: “Because I did not find it, you go and commit it.” He says: “I did not find it.” He is debating them. What does this mean? It means: “You go and search, you will not find anything.” … Our Prophet is debating the Jews. … What does it mean when he is debating? No, he wants to say: “I did not find it; you go, and if you find it…” When he is debating, it means: “I did not find it. You go; if you find it, act accordingly; if you do not, then why are you making it forbidden?” … That is another objection… Well, that is exactly what I am saying. The objection of unauthorized legislation (tashri’) is a different objection; we will get to it. An objection has been raised here, which was also stated by the late Seyyed. The late Seyyed’s objection is: “Sir, this verse is actually refuting tashri’, precisely what you are saying. It has absolutely nothing to do with Exemption. That is another objection that we will get to.” Here, we are responding to the words of the Sheikh. The late Sheikh says: “Sir, non-finding (‘adam al-wijdan) for the Prophet differs from non-finding for them. For them, la yadullu ‘ala ‘adam al-wujud (it does not indicate non-existence), whereas for the Prophet, yadullu ‘ala ‘adam al-wujud (it indicates non-existence); because we suffer from the fact that many rulings existed but did not reach us. The Prophet was not like this.” This is his objection.

In response, it is said that the Prophet does not say this for himself—such that we might say that because the Prophet’s ‘adam al-wijdan indicates ‘adam al-wujud, no prohibition is involved—rather, the Prophet is saying this in debate with them; he is debating them. When he debates, what does it mean? It means: “You too go and search, you will not find anything.” Thus, for them too, non-finding indicates [non-]existence (‘adam al-wijdan yadullu ‘ala [‘adam] al-wujud).

Question: …

Teacher: It does not say “rely on my revelation,” [meaning] “within that which was revealed to me” (fima uhiya ilayya). True. However, we must join two or three points together here. “Say: ‘I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden’” is not saying: “Because I did not find it in revelation, therefore it does not exist, and you too must not do this.” No, two or three points are joined, and that conclusion is drawn. It says: “I did not find it; if you claim otherwise, you go and search, and you too will not find it. When you do not find it, why then do you say it is forbidden?” Thus, in fact, it is as though the Prophet is telling them: “If in your religion, based on your book, the words of your Prophet, and the companions of your Prophet, you do not find a prohibition, then it is not forbidden. Why do you needlessly forbid it for yourselves?” This is the point. Otherwise, he does not want to say: “Because it has been revealed to me, and it is not in the revelation, then you too must not consider it forbidden.” If it is a debate, is this the meaning of a debate?… Incidentally, regarding the Jews (and this is also recorded in history), while in the Jewish religion there were severe rulings and difficult duties, this was not the case in the Prophet’s community; the duties were lightened. That is in its own place. Despite that sacred law containing some difficult duties within itself, the Jews, for various reasons, expanded the circle of prohibitions. This concerns that very issue. They had forbidden certain things. Quite explicitly, they had forbidden certain matters for themselves, which the Prophet said were not forbidden. Therefore, in the position of debating them, he invites them to go and search for themselves, and they too will not find [any prohibition]. When it does not exist, and when you do not find any prohibition, this indicates that the prohibition does not exist.

The Third Objection

The third objection is the one raised by the late Seyyed, which is as follows: The phrase “I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden” is a metonymic expression (ta’bir kinayi). That is, instead of explicitly stating that “you have, of your own accord, forbidden things that are not forbidden,” the Prophet says: “I do not find” (la ajidu). Hence, the phrase “I do not find” is used, but his actual intention is not that “I did not find it in revelation,” but rather he wants to say: “You cannot find such a thing.” This is also common in conventional speech. If someone enters this room right now and asks you, “Is so-and-so here?” and you say, “I haven’t seen them since I got here this morning,” when you say “I haven’t seen them,” it means “there is no such person here,” meaning they are not here. If we speak this way, can it be used as an argument? He [the late Seyyed] says: No. Had he explicitly said: “You have, of your own accord, forbidden things that were not forbidden,” perhaps this meaning could have been inferred and deduced. However, he says: “I did not find [it] within the revelation,” intending by “I did not find” the metonymic meaning that “you have forbidden [these] of your own accord, [whereas] they were not forbidden.” Therefore, it has absolutely no connection to Exemption. This is meant to make them understand that you have needlessly forbidden something of your own accord while in reality it was not forbidden.

The Response to the Third Objection

This, too, just like the first objection raised by the late Sheikh, can be answered. In the first objection, the late Sheikh stated, “There is an ish’ar in it,” meaning it points to this matter, to which we replied: No, it is higher than a mere ish’ar; it is as if it has zuhur in this meaning. Now, here it is said that this is a metonymic expression. Even if we assume it is a metonymic expression—although the very claim that it is metonymic is highly debatable (awwal al-kalam)—we possess no context or evidence (qarinah) to suggest that this meaning is metonymic. He says: “I did not find it; you go and search to see if you can find it. You too will not find it.” But assuming it is indeed a metonymic meaning, it still points to a point: that you have no right to forbid something of your own accord. Forbiddenness (hurmah) and prohibition require proof and a cause; something cannot be made forbidden without reason, and this depends on a declaration by the Lawgiver (Shar’i’). If He has not declared it, it becomes clear that there is no prohibition. Therefore, even if this expression is metonymic, there is still no issue in this regard.

Question: …

Teacher: Why should it be metonymic?… It might be. It does not have… If indeed it is the explicit meaning… The Prophet cannot make such a statement. For the Prophet, ‘adam al-wijdan indicates ‘adam al-wujud… This does not say it is a metonymy for non-existence. What is it a metonymy for? It is a metonymy for: “You have forbidden this of your own accord.” That is what he is saying. He says it is a metonymy for: “Indeed, you have forbidden it of your own accord” (innama harramtumuhu min qibali anfusikum)… Our view is that no, it is not metonymic. Even if it were metonymic, it can be answered. I want to say that when the Prophet says this, even metonymically, what does he mean by it? That you have forbidden it of your own accord, [whereas] it was not forbidden… I am refuting this… No, he says “you have forbidden it of your own accord.” What does this mean? This is metonymic. It is indeed metonymic: “you have forbidden this of your own accord.” But what does “you have forbidden it of your own accord” mean? It means that in reality, the thing was not forbidden, and you made it forbidden… This is my point. The Seyyed says that when it is a metonymy for this, it does not indicate Exemption. Our submission is that it does. We say that this meaning can be derived from it…