The Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah), The Proofs of Exemption, Second Proof: Narrations, First Narration
Session Eighty-Four
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, 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, Continuation of the Statement of Muhaqqiq Iraqi, Examination of the Response of Muhaqqiq Iraqi to Muhaqqiq Na’ini, The First Objection, The Second Objection, Imam Khomeini’s Response to Muhaqqiq Na’ini and Its Examination, The First Objection, The Second Objection
February 2, 2026
Summary of the Previous Session
The discussion was on the third topic of the discussions related to the relative pronoun ma in the Hadith of Lifting. It was stated that a question is raised: Does the Hadith of Lifting also encompass omissions (taruk) and negative matters (umur ‘adamiyyah) or not? For example, does “ma-dturru ilayh” (that which they are constrained to) or “ma-stukrihu ‘alayh” (that which they are coerced into) also apply to omissions, such that, for instance, the omission of an action out of necessity or the omission of an obligation due to coercion is lifted or not?
As you observed, Muhaqqiq Na’ini stated that the Hadith of Lifting does not encompass negative matters and omissions. Subsequently, on a related note, he added that the opinion of some—to the effect that forgotten parts in prayer are lifted by virtue of the Hadith of Lifting—is incorrect; because the Hadith of Lifting cannot lift the part-nature (juz’iyyah) of the forgotten part. Instead, they say: we correct this prayer without the part by means of “la tu’ad” (do not repeat).
We mentioned that responses have been presented to the view of Muhaqqiq Na’ini. One of these responses was presented by Muhaqqiq Iraqi. The summary of his response is that the lifting of the nine matters, since it relates to the legislative world (‘alam al-tashri’), means the lifting of the subject-matter status (mawdu’iyyah) of these matters for the religious ruling. Since both positive matters can be placed as the subject of a religious ruling and negative matters (omissions), their lifting means they will no longer be the subject of a religious ruling. Therefore, in the example raised by Mr. Na’ini, if a person is forced to omit drinking the water of the Euphrates (which was the object of his vow), this omission is no longer placed as the subject of a religious ruling. Consequently, neither does a prohibition occur nor does an expiation (kaffarah) attach to it; because if it is not the subject of a religious ruling, it is naturally negative by virtue of the non-existence of its subject (salibah bi-intifa’ al-mawdu’), and neither has a forbidden act occurred nor is an expiation established.
Continuation of the Statement of Muhaqqiq Iraqi
Of course, the late Muhaqqiq Iraqi stated a point in continuation. He believes that the Hadith of Lifting can remove the forgotten part (al-juz’ al-mansi); meaning in the same sense explained previously. In other words, the Hadith of Lifting applies with respect to the forgotten part, contrary to the view of Muhaqqiq Na’ini.
However, another topic raised here is: if the forgetfulness disappears, meaning that after completing the prayer, the person remembers that he forgot the surah and did not perform it, does the Hadith of Lifting place the prayer lacking the surah in the same position as the prayer possessing the surah or not? This discussion differs from the previous one. If a specific part (such as the surah) is forgotten and this forgetfulness remains and does not disappear, the Hadith of Lifting removes that omitted and forgotten part in the aforementioned sense. However, after the disappearance of the forgetfulness, the Hadith of Lifting will no longer have the efficiency it possessed under the assumption of the persistence of forgetfulness. Therefore, in this case, what ruling is established if, after completing the prayer, it is revealed to the person that he performed the prayer without the surah? Must he repeat (i’adah) the prayer, or does the performed prayer itself suffice?
He believes that the prayer lacking the surah does not replace the prayer possessing the surah. Therefore, according to the rule, this prayer must be performed, because ultimately there was a criterion (milak) and benefit (maslahah) for the prayer possessing the surah which was not fulfilled. In this case, the Hadith of Lifting no longer says that the surah still does not possess part-nature (juz’iyyah). As long as the person was in the state of forgetfulness, the Hadith of Lifting could say that the surah does not possess juz’iyyah for the prayer in the state of forgetfulness; but when the forgetfulness disappeared, the benefit that was secured in the shadow of performing the part is lost and must be fulfilled. According to the rule, it is so.
Question: …
Professor: At that time, it was subject to the Hadith of Lifting… This is his opinion. Currently, we do not intend to evaluate his statement here. He states that according to the rule, the situation is so… We have narrations, and the rule of “Do not repeat” (La Tu’ad) itself requires the non-necessity of repeating… No, afterwards… We also have the rule of passing-by (qa’idat al-tajawuz). Whether it encompasses this case or not is another discussion. But the assumption is that after performing the deed, he remembered it, and his forgetfulness disappeared.
Summary of the Discussion
Up to this point, the late Na’ini claimed that the Hadith of Lifting does not encompass negative matters and is exclusive to positive matters, and therefore, if a part of an obligation is omitted due to forgetfulness, the Hadith of Lifting has no role there at all. Then he stated: some believe that by means of the Hadith of Lifting, the juz’iyyah of the forgotten part is removed, whereas this has nothing to do with the Lawgiver.
In response, Muhaqqiq Iraqi stated that the Hadith of Lifting encompasses negative matters and omissions. You also observed his explanation. Regarding the prayer performed without the surah, he also stated: here, too, the Hadith of Lifting applies and removes the juz’iyyah of the part under the assumption of forgetfulness; meaning it is as if it fundamentally no longer possesses juz’iyyah. You have heard the arguments of these two prominent scholars. Now, we want to evaluate whether the response of Muhaqqiq Iraqi to the late Na’ini is correct or not.
Examination of Muhaqqiq Iraqi’s Response to Muhaqqiq Na’ini
Two objections are directed at the response of Muhaqqiq Iraqi here.
The First Objection
This meaning is contrary to the apparent meaning of the hadith. The meaning that Muhaqqiq Iraqi mentioned for the Hadith of Lifting in response to the late Na’ini is not complete and is contrary to the apparent meaning of the Hadith of Lifting. He stated: “rufi’a ma-stukrihu ‘alayh”; meaning the “lifting” of that which they are coerced into from being the subject matter (mawdu’iyyah) for a religious ruling. For example, a person is constrained or coerced into drinking wine, so he drinks wine out of necessity. When we say that constrained drinking of wine is lifted, it means drinking wine under the assumption of necessity is lifted from being placed as the subject for the ruling of prohibition. However, this is contrary to the apparent meaning; “rufi’a ma-dturru ilayh” means the lifting of that thing itself, not characterized by being the subject for a religious ruling. The apparent meaning is that this description itself is lifted. However, since the description itself cannot literally be lifted, something must be implied as omitted (taqdir), and therefore lifting is literally attributed to that omitted element and figuratively to that action. Therefore, that Muhaqqiq Iraqi presented such a meaning for the Hadith of Lifting to encompass negative matters is contrary to the apparent meaning. This is the first objection directed at Muhaqqiq Iraqi.
The Second Objection
The requirement of this statement of Muhaqqiq Iraqi is a form of contradiction and a combination of two points whose combination is impossible.
On the one hand, he stated that the lifting in this hadith is claimed (iddi’a’i). Claimed lifting stands in contrast to actual lifting. Claimed lifting, meaning figurative in the event of the figurative nature of lifting, definitely requires a legitimizing factor (musahhih). Therefore, according to his explanation of the reality of lifting and its claimed nature, and consequently, its figurative nature and need for a legitimizing factor, there is no share of reality here, and therefore the lifting is figurative.
Then he says: the lifting of “ma-dturru ilayh” means the lifting of “ma-dturru ilayh” from being the subject matter for religious rulings, and it is known that the lifting of a thing from being the subject matter for religious rulings is literal, not figurative.
Therefore, he considers the attribution of lifting to these matters to be claimed and figurative on the grounds that he says we need a legitimizing factor. Lifting is legislative; it is not actual lifting. Legislative lifting stands in contrast to actual lifting. Therefore, the lifting becomes figurative. On the other hand, however, in order to make this encompass negative matters, they have presented an interpretation according to which the lifting becomes literal; because we no longer need to imply an omitted element. If something is to be excluded from being the subject matter for a religious ruling, it is only possible at the hands of the Lawgiver. The Lawgiver, who had placed drinking wine as the subject for prohibition and the legal punishment (hadd), says by virtue of the Hadith of Lifting: drinking wine, if it is out of coercion and necessity, is no longer the subject for prohibition and the legal punishment. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that legislating and placing as the subject for a ruling, as well as its lifting, is in the hands of the Lawgiver, when we attribute lifting to these matters, here there is no longer room to claim it is figurative, but rather it is literal: the lifting of drinking wine from being the subject matter for prohibition is literal.
The objection to Muhaqqiq Iraqi is that the requirement of one statement of his is that this lifting is figurative; because he explicitly says this lifting is claimed. However, the requirement of the other statement he made regarding negative matters is that the lifting is literal, and this is a contradiction. Ultimately, lifting must be either literal or figurative; it cannot be both literal and figurative.
Of course, regarding the points he made about prayer and the forgotten part, the discussion still continues because the late Na’ini raised two issues, and Muhaqqiq Iraqi answered almost both.
One, the essence of the non-inclusion of the Hadith of Lifting with respect to omissions and negative matters, which Muhaqqiq Iraqi rejected. We also rejected the statement of Muhaqqiq Iraqi and said that with this explanation, Na’ini’s statement cannot be rejected.
A discussion was also held by the late Na’ini regarding prayer with a forgotten part (juz’ mansi), stating that the Hadith of Lifting does not remove the juz’iyyah of this part, to which Muhaqqiq Iraqi also expressed an opinion.
We shall examine this section related to prayer later. For now, let us look at the essence of the late Na’ini’s statement: does it ultimately encompass omissions or not? At any rate, this response of Muhaqqiq Iraqi is of no use.
Imam Khomeini’s Response to Muhaqqiq Na’ini
This response was in fact a response that the Imam, in that first period of his Usul lectures, gave to Muhaqqiq Na’ini, which of course has also been subjected to objection by some, and furthermore, is also incompatible with some of the foundations of the Imam himself (may he rest in peace). We shall now explain why and with which foundation it is incompatible.
Imam Khomeini in fact says: as for Muhaqqiq Na’ini stating that lifting consists of placing the existing in the position of the non-existent and this does not encompass non-existence (‘adamiyyat), it does not apply to relative non-existence (‘adam mudaf). To clarify:
We have two types or two categories of non-existence: absolute non-existence (‘adam mutlaq) and relative non-existence (‘adam mudaf).
Absolute non-existence means a non-existence for which no relative term (mudaf-ilayh) is mentioned; meaning it is absolute void and non-existence. Relative non-existence means a non-existence that is added to a specific thing; for example, we say: the non-existence of air, the non-existence of light, the non-existence of water. These are all relative non-existences; because they are added to a specific thing.
The difference between relative non-existence and absolute non-existence is that absolute non-existence has no share of existence; meaning it has taken no benefit from existence. However, regarding relative non-existence, it is said that it possesses a share of existence (lahu hadhdhun min al-wujud); ultimately, the non-existence of a thing possesses a share of existence. This is a level ahead of absolute non-existence. Therefore, the non-existence of, for example, such-and-such a thing, the non-existence of Zayd, the non-existence of a command, the non-existence of light, the non-existence of air, differs from absolute void. It possesses a share of existence, whereas absolute non-existence has taken no share of existence.
On this basis, omitting drinking the water of the Euphrates possesses a share of existence in comparison to absolute omission or absolute non-existence. Since it possesses a share of existence, therefore placing the existing in the position of the non-existent applies to it as well.
Mr. Na’ini says: omission is nothing so that placing the existing in the position of the non-existent can occur. The Imam says: No. This non-existence also has an existence. Omitting the water of the Euphrates possesses existence. Therefore, placing the existing in the position of the non-existent applies to it as well.
Examination of Imam Khomeini’s Response
The First Objection
The Imam himself believes that there is no difference at all between relative non-existence and absolute non-existence. These are conceptualizations or observations of our mind; otherwise, in terms of relative non-existence, like absolute non-existence, possessing no share of existence, there is no difference between them from this perspective.
The Second Objection
In addition, this response in fact assumed that lifting is in the meaning of placing the existing in the position of the non-existent, whereas lifting is fundamentally not in this meaning; unless we say that from the gate of dialectics (jadal) and from the gate of utilizing the foundations of the proponent himself, they wanted to respond; otherwise, he himself also does not consider lifting to be in the meaning of placing the existing in the position of the non-existent. Therefore, this is also incomplete.