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

Session Eighty-Two

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, A Review of the Discussions on the Hadith of Lifting So Far and the Remaining Discussions, 2. The Relative Pronoun “ma”, Third Topic: Examination of the Exclusivity of the Hadith of Lifting to Positive Matters and Its Inclusion of Negative Matters, The Statement of Muhaqqiq Na’ini, The First Scenario, The Second Scenario

January 31, 2026

A Review of the Discussions on the Hadith of Lifting So Far and the Remaining Discussions

Our discussion on the Hadith of Lifting has reached the point that this hadith indicates Exemption and can be utilized for the argumentation of the proponents of Exemption in ruling-directed doubts (shubhat hukmiyyah). Of course, the discussion on this hadith has not yet ended. At the beginning, it was stated that the parts of this hadith must be carefully clarified, especially the phrase “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun” (lifted is that which they do not know). Certain points were presented regarding the meaning of “lifting” (raf’), and several matters related to raf’ were referred to; we explained some points regarding the relative pronoun ma and the attribution of raf’ to ma.

The second topic, the discussion of which was lengthy, concerned the inclusion of this hadith with respect to ruling-directed doubts and whether this hadith encompasses both particular doubts (shubhat mawdu’iyyah) and ruling-directed doubts. In this regard, views, opinions, and proofs were raised, and the conclusion was that this hadith encompasses both types of doubt.

A few other topics also remain, some of which relate to this very discussion on Exemption; such as whether these descriptions, including “ma la ya’lamun”, also encompass non-obligatory rulings or not? For example, does this lifting of the unknown ruling or unknown subject only observe obligations and prohibitions, or does it also encompass recommendatory rulings (mustahabbat)? Likewise, does the Hadith of Lifting and the descriptions contained within it also encompass negative rulings and negative matters or not? As an example, if omission (tark) becomes the object of coercion, is it also lifted? Discussions of this kind are raised, all of which fit in some way within the framework of this discussion of ours. Ultimately, if we believe in Exemption and consider this hadith to encompass recommendatory rulings, naturally Exemption can lift even the unknown recommendatory ruling or the unknown recommendatory subject matter. Or, for example, does that which we do not know encompass action, or does it also cover omission? Likewise, this imtinan (granting a favor) which is raised in the Hadith of Lifting, and it is said that the hadith was introduced in the position of imtinan, is it a personal or a generic imtinan? These are points that must now be examined.

In addition to these, we also have a discussion regarding the other phrases of the hadith; such as “lifted is error” (rufi’a al-khata’) or “that which they commit by error” (ma akhta’u ‘alayh) or “lifted is forgetfulness” (rufi’a al-nisyan), as to what is meant by them? Or what is meant by “omens” (al-tiyarah), “whisperings in contemplating creation” (al-waswasah fi al-tafakkur fi al-khalq), and “envy” (al-hasad)?

Therefore, up to this point, our discussion on the Hadith of Lifting has still been focused on the phrase “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun” and the clarification and explanation of its dimensions. Note that sometimes the discussion becomes highly complex, and this path becomes lost for some. We still continue the discussion in the section related to this phrase and the clarification of its various dimensions. Two or three other discussions remain in this section, all of which relate to the various dimensions and aspects of the hadith—meaning the phrase “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun”—and can be said to determine its scope. After that, we shall have a discussion regarding the other phrases of this hadith, which will, God willing, be mentioned. When this discussion ends, we shall proceed to the next topic. The discussion on the Hadith of Lifting has so far been raised as the first narration in the argumentation to prove Exemption.

Third Topic: Examination of the Exclusivity of the Hadith of Lifting to Positive Matters and Its Inclusion of Negative Matters

The third topic that we address in continuation of the previous discussions is this: Are the descriptions mentioned in the Hadith of Lifting exclusive to positive matters (umur wujudiyyah) or do they also encompass negative matters (umur ‘adamiyyah)? Note what is meant by inclusion with respect to negative matters. To clarify the point, an example is mentioned. This discussion is among the discussions that entail many jurisprudential fruits and is highly rich.

For example, suppose a person has vowed (nadhar) to drink from the water of the Euphrates, an example which the late Na’ini himself has also explained. Considering that drinking the water of the Euphrates, according to some traditions, has a preference (rujhan), his vow is validly established and naturally “fulfill your vows” (awfu bi-al-nudhur) makes fulfilling this vow obligatory. If he does not act upon this vow, from the gate of opposing the vow, he has committed a forbidden deed which also entails expiation (kaffarah). Therefore, opposing the vow has both a legislative prohibition and establishes the expiation.

Now, we suppose a person forces the vower to omit the drinking and restrains him from drinking the water of the Euphrates and forces him to omit it (he has become coerced into omission [mukrah bi-tark]). The question is: Does the Hadith of Lifting encompass such a person or not? Does this hadith also encompass omissions (taruk) and negative matters or not? Thus far, we said that if coercion (ikrah) occurs regarding an action, the effects of that coerced action are lifted. However, if coercion occurs regarding omission, does the Hadith of Lifting lift its effects as well? Similarly, the issue is also raised regarding necessity (idtirar). Sometimes necessity arises regarding the omission of a deed; does the Hadith of Lifting also remove the effects of the necessary omission? Even in “ma la ya’lamun”, in some cases the omission itself may be unknown and unrevealed. In “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun”, our assumption is that this phrase is broader, encompassing both external actions and legislative rulings; it encompasses both particular doubts and ruling-directed doubts. Now the discussion is on whether “ma la ya’lamun” is sometimes an action and sometimes an omission. We want to examine whether lifting also applies with respect to omission or not.

The Statement of Muhaqqiq Na’ini

Here, especially the late Na’ini, who raised this discussion in more detail, says that the Hadith of Lifting does not apply in the case of omission (tark). He then presents explanations and also mentions evidences for this claim.

The summary of his claim is that the function of the Hadith of Lifting is to place the existing as non-existent, not to place the non-existent as existing; because “lifting” (raf’) is in contrast to “enactment” (wad’). “Enactment” means placing the non-existent in the position of the existing. When someone enacts something (whether in the ontological world or in the domain of convention and legislation), he removes what is not there or legislates a ruling; fundamentally, “enactment” is in the meaning of placing the non-existent in the position of the existing. “Lifting,” by virtue of the clue of opposition to “enactment,” has the reverse meaning; meaning placing the existing in the position of the non-existent. It places the existing in the position of the non-existent.

In this very example mentioned: if someone has vowed to drink from the water of the Euphrates and then they force him to omit it (he becomes coerced or constrained to omit it), here the Hadith of Lifting cannot say: you who have not drunk from this water, I place you in the position of someone who has drunk from this water. It cannot place the non-existent in the position of the existing.

Subsequently, the late Muhaqqiq Na’ini connects this discussion to the issue of forgetfulness of a chapter (surah) or a part of the parts of prayer. The main claim is that fundamentally the Hadith of Lifting does not apply here. The reason why this discussion is mainly raised on this occasion is the fruit that is found especially in some parts of composite acts of worship (al-‘ibadat al-murakkabah); because it is possible that an act of worship is performed, but forgetfulness occurs regarding a part of it, or even the person is coerced into omitting a part or constrained to omitting a part.

Now it is discussed: if someone, for example, performs the prayer without the surah due to forgetfulness or necessity of omitting that part, can the Hadith of Lifting be effective here and have efficiency or not? What is its effect?

Question: …

Professor: Currently, we are merely in the position of transmitting the statement of Muhaqqiq Na’ini… The issue from another angle is whether an effect results from this omission or not? From this perspective that the Hadith of Lifting… The discussion here is that that person had vowed to drink from the water of the Euphrates and currently has not drunk. Ultimately, opposition to the vow has occurred. We abstract this opposition and agreement… What you are saying, meaning the omission of the obligatory which is forbidden…

The late Na’ini further states: If someone performs the prayer and forgets the surah as a part of the prayer, here the Hadith of Lifting cannot apply. Because sometimes we examine it with respect to the part itself, and at other times with respect to the composite;

The First Scenario

In the first scenario, it has no efficiency because:

First: Lifting means that something must be removed. “Lifting” requires a subject and an object; the omission of something is not a part so that it would be the object of lifting. The prayer was performed without the surah. The prayer itself is one thing; this is a composite in which a part was left out, but that part itself, that forgotten surah, is fundamentally nothing so that lifting would attach to it. This is with respect to the part itself and the forgotten part.

Therefore, Muhaqqiq Na’ini states: as if the Hadith of Lifting here either wants to be effective and have influence with respect to the forgotten part, or with respect to the composite lacking this part. It is not outside of these two scenarios. The part itself cannot be subject to lifting for two reasons, so that we would say the Hadith of Lifting has its effect with respect to the forgotten part: because first, lifting requires a subject and an object, and the forgotten part is in reality nothing, the omission of something is nothing.

Second: Suppose this person had brought this part in the worship; for example, had performed the surah in the prayer. If the Hadith of Lifting wanted to take effect, with respect to this part, what effect did it want to have? We would have to say this person’s prayer was valid; had he performed the part, with respect to this part, the prayer was valid, now that he has not performed the part, if lifting is to take effect here, we must say it lifts the validity, and this is contrary to what is intended. The meaning of this statement is that this worship becomes invalid. If validity is to be removed with the Hadith of Lifting, this is a frustration of purpose and contrary to what is intended; because the effect of the surah (had it been there) was validity. Now that the Hadith of Lifting comes, therefore it must remove this effect; meaning say it is not valid, and this is contrary to imtinan. Fundamentally, the Hadith of Lifting was introduced in the position of imtinan, if the Hadith of Lifting is to encompass these omitted parts, whether due to forgetfulness, necessity, or coercion, this is contrary to imtinan and contrary to what is intended.

In addition, fundamentally validity and invalidity (al-sihhah wa al-fasad) have nothing to do with the Lawgiver; this is a ruling of reason. When our reason sees the commanded object (al-ma’mur bih) and the performed object (al-ma’ti bih)—that which was commanded and that which the duty-bound performed—if it sees correspondence between these, it rules on validity. Reason says this is valid. If it does not see correspondence between these, it rules on invalidity. Therefore, the issue of validity and invalidity is not the ruling of the Lawgiver; rather, its matter is in the hands of reason. Therefore, the Hadith of Lifting cannot be effective according to the part.

The Second Scenario

However, with respect to the whole—meaning we say the Hadith of Lifting has influence and efficiency with respect to this collection, this composite lacking the part. In this case, if it is to have this efficiency, with respect to the meaning of “lifting,” it must place the non-existent in the position of the existing; meaning say the composite lacking the part is like the composite possessing the part. This is in the meaning of placing the non-existent in the position of the existing, whereas the Hadith of Lifting has the reverse meaning. We said the function of “lifting” is to place the existing in the position of the non-existent, not to place the non-existent in the position of the existing.

Therefore, the Hadith of Lifting can have efficiency and capability neither with respect to the missing part (the omitted part) nor with respect to the composite without the part. Therefore, the Hadith of Lifting has no effect or role with respect to omission and negative matters. This is the essence of Muhaqqiq Na’ini’s claim. On this occasion, he continues the discussion that objections have also been raised here, which tomorrow, God willing, we shall pursue.