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

Session Sixty-Eight

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 Seventh Evidence: The Second Formulation, Shahid Sadr’s Objection to the Second Formulation, Examination of the Seventh Evidence

January 11, 2026

Summary of the Previous Session

One of the matters examined in the Hadith of Lifting is whether the word raf’ (lifting) in the hadith means apparent or actual lifting.

We mentioned that the opinions and views in this regard vary. One of the opinions was that lifting here is apparent lifting; evidences and proofs indicating that what is meant is apparent lifting were stated. Up to this point, we have mentioned six evidences and proofs for this matter, and these evidences were examined one by one. Objections were raised against many of them, but some of these evidences were accepted in a general way.

If you recall, we previously stated that those who believe the lifting in the Hadith of Lifting is actual, one of their proofs is that apparent lifting requires a figurative framing and a surplus conceptual load (mu’nah za’idah); therefore, in order to avoid bearing this essential surplus load, we must interpret it as actual lifting. For this surplus load, we also stated that two explanations have been presented:

We mentioned the first explanation along with Shahid Sadr’s response to it, which was in fact the sixth evidence. The sixth proof that this lifting is not actual but rather apparent is the response that Shahid Sadr presented to the first explanation of those who believe the lifting here is actual. They stated that if the lifting is to be apparent, it requires a surplus load, which consists of the focus (masabb) of the hadith becoming different, disrupting the unity of context (wahdat al-siyaq) and the focus of the hadith; therefore, to prevent this problem, actual lifting must be intended. Shahid Sadr gave a response which we presented as the sixth evidence, and of course, we also examined it.

The Seventh Evidence: The Second Formulation

Another explanation has also been mentioned for why what is meant by lifting here is apparent lifting, which we shall designate as the seventh evidence. That explanation is that fundamentally, if the word raf’ in “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun” is to be interpreted as apparent lifting, it is contrary to the apparent meaning (khilaf al-zahir). When there is no clue or evidence accompanying “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun”, it must be interpreted in its original meaning; raf’ has zuhur in actual lifting because any word, if used without a clue, is interpreted in its actual type, and “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun” according to the nature of this sentence means that what you do not know is actually removed. For this is in fact a description, and its described object is the ruling; “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun” means the ruling that you do not know is removed.

However, if you do not take raf’ in this meaning, you are in fact forced to say that some of the aspects of the ruling are removed, not the ruling itself. If it is interpreted as the apparent ruling, and that it is apparently removed, you are forced to interpret it as some of the aspects of the ruling, not the ruling itself, and this is contrary to the apparent meaning and is incorrect. If you want to derive this meaning from the narration, you are in fact imposing a meaning on the narration. But if we interpret this as actual lifting, there is no longer any surplus load or contradiction of the apparent meaning involved. Additionally, imposing an apparent nature on lifting requires a clue, and without a clue, this meaning cannot be derived from lifting, and no such clue exists here.

This is in fact the second formulation of the surplus load and figurative framing mentioned by those who claim that what is meant by lifting in the Hadith of Lifting is its actual meaning.

Shahid Sadr’s Response to the Second Formulation

Shahid Sadr has also given an answer to this formulation, which we can indeed, with some difficulty (takalluf), consider as the seventh evidence and proof for the apparent nature of the lifting.

He states: It is true that if we consider only the Hadith of “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun”, the word raf’ is interpreted in its actual meaning; meaning we must say that lifting here is in the meaning of the lifting of the actual ruling. However, we are forced to commit this contradiction of the apparent meaning because interpreting it as actual lifting has a corrupt consequence (tali fasid); the corrupt consequence is that rulings would become exclusive to the knowledgeable (‘alim).

When you say “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun”, it means that in reality, whoever has no knowledge of the ruling, that ruling is lifted from them. This means that rulings become exclusive to the knowledgeable, and no actual ruling encompasses non-knowledgeable individuals, or in other words, the ignorant or those who doubt the ruling; rather, it becomes exclusive to those who have knowledge of the rulings, and this is problematic.

Therefore, in order to repel such a corrupt consequence and avoid falling into this constraint, we must say that lifting here is not actual lifting, and we are forced to interpret it contrary to its apparent meaning. Thus, “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun” means that either the apparent ruling or some of the aspects of the ruling have been lifted, and this is inevitable for escaping the constraint we referred to. This is in fact the point that Shahid Sadr stated in response to the second formulation.

Examination of the Seventh Evidence

Now, how is this considered the seventh evidence for the apparent nature of the lifting?

Those who claimed that this lifting is actual stated that if the lifting were to be apparent, it would be contrary to the apparent meaning of this sentence. Shahid Sadr states in response: It is true that it is contrary to the apparent meaning, but this is inevitable (labudda minhu), and this itself is sufficient for us not to interpret it as actual lifting; because it has a corrupt consequence to which we cannot commit.

First: What Shahid Sadr has stated is more of a negation of the lifting being actual than a proof of its being apparent; because these are two separate issues that we also mentioned previously. Shahid Sadr raises this discussion from two aspects: one positive and the other negative. The negative aspect is that this lifting is not actual, and the positive aspect is that this lifting is apparent. What he stated in response to the second formulation is directed more toward the negative aspect, but it is not very clear that his statement necessarily proves the apparent nature of the lifting. Thus, this explanation does not prove the apparent nature of the lifting very much, but rather mostly negates the ruling being actual.

Second: The question is, what is the apparent ruling that is lifted here according to his view? Is that apparent ruling something other than the obligatoriness of precaution, or is it that very obligatoriness of precaution? When he says that the apparent ruling is lifted, the apparent ruling here must be the obligatoriness of precaution. The same objection we previously raised regarding the obligatoriness of precaution in the sixth evidence is raised here as well: if it is to be this obligatoriness of precaution, what is the objection to it?