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

Session Sixty-Six

The Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah), The Proofs of Exemption, Second Proof: Narrations, First Narration: The Hadith of Lifting, Examination of the Indicative Value of the Hadith of Lifting, First Part: Lifting, Third Topic: Apparent or Actual Lifting?, The Sixth Evidence (The Statement of Shahid Sadr), The Negative Aspect (Refutation of the First Formulation of Actual Lifting)

December 29, 2025

Summary of the Previous Session

The discussion on the third topic, or third aspect, related to the word raf’ (lifting) in the Hadith of Lifting, was directed at this question: Is what is meant by raf’ in this hadith apparent or actual lifting? This discussion was raised because, according to some, this hadith can indicate Exemption only if what is meant by lifting is apparent lifting; and if actual lifting is intended, it will not indicate Exemption. In this regard, five evidences for the opinion of apparent lifting were mentioned and examined. Almost some or most of these evidences were objected to, but others were accepted.

The Sixth Evidence (The Statement of Shahid Sadr)

The sixth evidence or proof in establishing apparent lifting is derived from the words of the late Shahid Sadr, which we must now mention and examine.

Shahid Sadr has presented a relatively detailed explanation in this regard. In responding to those who claimed that what is meant by lifting in this hadith is actual lifting, he delivered points indicating that this lifting is apparent; however, with a different explanation.

Of course, he points out that even if we cannot derive apparent lifting from this hadith—meaning, for example, we say the hadith contains ambiguity (ijmal) and it is unclear whether the lifting is actual or apparent—still this hadith can be cited by the proponents of Exemption. This means that the indication of this hadith regarding Exemption is not exclusive to and dependent on the establishment of apparent lifting; rather, even assuming ambiguity, it indicates the claim of the proponents of Exemption. In what follows, he argues that in some scenarios, this hadith has an apparent meaning (zuhur) of apparent lifting.

These are the two main points of Shahid Sadr:

1. First, the negation of the hadith’s zuhur in actual lifting, since he stands in the position of responding to those who claim the hadith’s zuhur in actual lifting, and responds to them;

2. Second, he stands in the position of establishing the hadith’s zuhur in apparent lifting.

In other words, his statement has a negative aspect (ba’d-e salbi) and a positive aspect (ba’d-e ijabi). The point that, according to his explanation, the hadith indicates Exemption even if it is ambiguous will also be transmitted subsequently and in conclusion. For now, however, since our discussion is on the parts and the indicative value of this hadith, and what is meant by raf’ in it, and whether it has zuhur in apparent or actual lifting, we shall address this section.

The Negative Aspect

The negative aspect of Shahid Sadr’s statement, which seeks to negate the hadith’s zuhur in actual lifting, addresses the words of those who claim that the lifting here is actual. First, their claim must be clarified to us, and then we shall see how Shahid Sadr set out to refute their words.

Some have claimed that the Hadith of Lifting, regardless of external clues, in itself possesses zuhur in actual lifting. Their proof for this claim is that apparent lifting requires incorporating an additional clue or a surplus conceptual load (mu’nah za’idah), whereas actual lifting does not require such an additional load. That is, if we want this hadith to indicate apparent lifting, it is necessary to add a clue or an appendage to it so that it can be interpreted as apparent lifting; whereas actual lifting does not require this surplus load.

Now, what is this surplus load? Shahid Sadr presents two formulations (taqrir) of this surplus load and states that those who believe the Hadith of Lifting has *zuhur in actual lifting prove with one of these two formulations what additional load must be considered for the hadith to indicate apparent lifting.

The First Formulation

In the phrase “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun” (lifted is that which they do not know), we have two parts that require an object (muta’allaq):

One is “lifting” (raf’) and the other is “that which they do not know” (ma la ya’lamun). Both of these must attach to something. When we say it is lifted, it must be clear what is lifted; meaning the lifted object (marfu’) must be specified.

Second, the object of “ma la ya’lamun” must also be specified; that which we do not know must be made clear.

Therefore, both the object of lifting (meaning the lifted object) must be known as to what it is, and the object of the lack of knowledge (‘adam al-‘ilm); meaning what we do not have knowledge of.

Since this is a single sentence and has a unified context (siyaq), according to the zuhur of the hadith itself, which requires unity of context, the object of these two must also be unified. The object of lifting cannot be taken as one thing and the object of the lack of knowledge as another. In other words, the lifted object and that to which the lack of knowledge has attached must be one and the same; that which is not known and that which is lifted must be unified; otherwise, it is incompatible with the apparent meaning of the hadith. For example, if we say the object of the lack of knowledge is the actual ruling, but the lifted object is the apparent ruling, this is contrary to the unity of context that the sentence and this speech have zuhur in. If we say “ma la ya’lamun” means you do not know the actual ruling, and the lifted object is the apparent ruling, this is incorrect because it makes no sense to say that the apparent ruling has been removed where you do not know the actual ruling. Therefore, the object of these two must be one and the same; the very thing that is the lifted object must also be the object of lifting and the object of the lack of knowledge.

Now, what is the lifted object? It is the apparent ruling, because in reality here it is removing the obligatoriness of precaution; it cannot be said that the lifted object is the obligatoriness of precaution, but the lack of knowledge has attached to the actual ruling; because both must be of the same kind. Therefore, this requires that the lifting be actual lifting. If we say, for example, that the obligatoriness of precaution, which is an apparent ruling, is removed in a case where you do not know the apparent ruling, it makes no sense. Thus, we must say that the actual ruling that you do not know is actually removed. Therefore, the lifting is actual lifting.

What prevents us from considering the object of the lack of knowledge to be the actual ruling, but the object of lifting to be the essence of the ruling (dhat al-hukm)? Meaning we would say: the essence of the ruling, in a case where you do not know the actual ruling, is lifted; or we would say: in both, the object consists of the essence of the ruling; meaning that in a case where the essence of the ruling is unknown to you, the essence of the ruling is lifted.

If we say this, that unity is also preserved fi al-jumlah (to some extent). The object of lifting becomes the essence of the ruling, and the object of the lack of knowledge also becomes the actual ruling rather than the essence of the ruling; the essence of the ruling meaning the genus of the ruling, regardless of the characteristics, regardless of the specifications, regardless of the accidents; that which is shared between the actual and apparent ruling; that which exists among the types of rulings. The core of the ruling and the essence of the ruling, in a case where you do not know the actual ruling, is removed; or we would say: generally, in a case where the essence of the ruling is unknown to you, this very essence of the ruling is removed. Therefore, you can no longer prove that the lifting is actual. This is the objection that he raises against the claim of those who believe that the lifting here is actual, and he responds to it.

You who say that we can consider the object of lifting to be the essence of the ruling, what does this mean? Is what is meant a universal concept (al-mafhum al-kulli) that fundamentally has nothing to do with instances (masadiq) and does not flow and apply to instances? Meaning the essence of the ruling regardless of the instance of the apparent ruling and actual ruling? This expression is highly ambiguous, and fundamentally it makes no sense for the Lawgiver to lift such a thing. This universal concept cannot be lifted. Therefore, we can neither make the essence of the ruling the object of lifting nor the object of the lack of knowledge. Fundamentally, this is impossible; because a universal concept is something ambiguous and non-beneficial. Fundamentally, what meaning does it have for the essence of the ruling, regardless of instances, to be removed? What benefit does the removal of this universality have? What value will our knowledge of it possess? Therefore, the essence of the ruling cannot be taken in this sense; meaning an ambiguous, universal concept that does not flow into instances and individuals. This cannot be what is intended.

Even if what is meant is the ruling flowing into instances, ultimately it must be made clear which one is intended; is it the apparent ruling or the actual ruling? In both cases, there is an objection.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that, according to the first formulation, the hadith in itself (by itself) has zuhur in actual lifting. Based on this formulation, a strong internal clue, which is the unity of context (wahdat al-siyaq) and focus, dictates that this lifting is actual lifting; because the lack of knowledge has attached to the actual ruling, so the lifting must also attach to it. The object of lifting cannot be taken as the apparent ruling while the object of the lack of knowledge is the actual ruling.

This claim and clue mentioned (which is an internal clue [unity of context]) shows that we do not need to bring a clue from the outside to the effect that this lifting is actual; the hadith itself fundamentally has such a requirement.

Therefore, the hadith itself indicates actual lifting. However, if what is meant by lifting is actual lifting, this has the corrupt consequence mentioned.

But how is this additional load considered? Apparent lifting requires an additional load because it must say: “the apparent lifting of the actual ruling.” It must add the word “apparently” or “apparent” to the lifting, which is a surplus load.

Shahid Sadr’s Response to the First Formulation

He states that the lack of knowledge, whose object is that very actual ruling; this is clear: if you had doubt regarding the actual ruling or were ignorant of it, it is lifted, so the object of the lack of knowledge is the actual ruling. The lifted object is also that very actual ruling, the actual ruling is removed. Therefore, the object of lifting is the actual ruling and the object of the lack of knowledge is also the actual ruling.

Up to this point, we agree with the claimant of actual lifting; meaning the object is one and the same in both. However, the lifting is apparent; meaning that if the actual ruling is not known, that very actual ruling is apparently lifted. Therefore, what is the lifted object? It is the actual ruling. What is the object of “ma la ya’lamun”? It is that very actual ruling. Thus, the unity of context is preserved; the object is one and the same in both. But contrary to the claimants of actual lifting, we say: if the actual ruling is unknown, this very actual ruling is apparently lifted; not that this actual ruling is actually set aside. Indeed, he says: almost this very explanation is presented by the late Mr. Akhund in Al-Kifayah. The late Mr. Khoei and others have also said almost the same thing, that fundamentally the meaning of lifting is apparent, but what is the lifted object? It is the actual ruling. If you did not have knowledge of the actual ruling, it apparently removes it, not that it is erased in reality.

Question: …

Professor: Correct. The claimant of actual lifting has cited the internal clue and says this clue (unity of context) dictates that the very thing which is the object of “ma la ya’lamun” must also be the lifted object; thus the lifting becomes actual. He says: No, the object of the lack of knowledge can be the actual ruling and the lifted object can also be the actual ruling, but this lifting is apparent lifting, meaning this actual ruling is apparently lifted. Why? This point has an explanation that will be presented tomorrow.