Preliminaries, Preliminary Nine: The Precedence of Presumptive Proofs over the Practical Principles

Session Twenty-Four

Preliminaries, Preliminary Nine: The Precedence of Presumptive Proofs over the Practical Principles, The Criterion for Prioritizing Presumptive Proofs, The Second View: Entry, The Essence of the Third Formulation, Critique of the Third Formulation, The Discourse of al-Muhaqqiq al-Na’ini, Commentary on the Treatise on Rights, The Effects of Performing Prayer at Its Earliest Time, 5. Prevention of Immersion in the World, 6. Safety from Worldly Torment, 7. Warding off the Evil of Satan at the Moment of Death

October 14, 2025

The Discourse of al-Muhaqqiq al-Na’ini

The third formulation for the entry (wurud) of the proofs of the presumptive proofs over the proofs of the practical principles was outlined, alongside the objections raised against this formulation. After outlining the third formulation, al-Muhaqqiq al-Na’ini states: fundamentally, the realization of entry is impossible in the case of presumptive proofs (amarat) in relation to the practical principles (al-usul al-amaliyyah). After outlining three formulations for entry, he states that the possibility of entry is fundamentally negated. We cannot argue that presumptive proofs enter the practical principles. Thus, he targets the very root of entry and declares it impossible. What, then, is his claim? Why does he state that it is impossible?

In his view, if one proof is to enter another, two conditions must be realized:

1. The entering proof must eliminate the subject of the entered proof. Of course, this occurs by devotional designation and legal effort (bi-l-‘inayati wa-l-ta’abbud). It is not an existential exclusion (khuruj takwini), but a real subject-based exclusion (khuruj mawdu’i) achieved devotionally. This characteristic is universally accepted; everyone, like the late Sheikh, maintains that the entering proof eliminates the subject of the entered proof.

2. The second characteristic, which is not explicitly mentioned in the statements of the late Sheikh, is that the elimination of the subject of the entered proof must be achieved by the entering proof itself, not by the implication of its content (la bi-l-iltizami bi-l-mu’adda). In other words, the elimination of the subject must be achieved by the devotional designation (ta’abbud), not by the establishing of the devotively designated (thubut al-muta’abbad bih). To explain:

We must clarify this second characteristic to make al-Muhaqqiq al-Na’ini’s objective clear. This is because the claim of the impossibility of entry in the case of presumptive proofs in relation to the practical principles is built primarily upon this second characteristic. Al-Muhaqqiq al-Na’ini states: this characteristic is absent here, and therefore, the realization of entry is fundamentally impossible.

I will provide an example to clarify the difference between the elimination being achieved by the devotional designation itself or by the establishing of the devotively designated. If we state, for example, that the Friday prayer is made obligatory by means of istishab (the presumption of continuity)—meaning we possessed certainty that the Friday prayer was obligatory during the era of the Imams’ presence, and currently, during the era of Occultation, we doubt whether the Friday prayer is obligatory or not—we apply istishab to the obligatoriness of the Friday prayer.

Now, suppose a presumptive proof is established indicating that the Friday prayer is not obligatory; for example, a report from Zurarah reaches us stating that the Friday prayer is not obligatory during the era of Occultation. Here, the subject of the proof of the principle is not eliminated by the proof of the presumptive proof itself. This is because the import of the proof of the presumptive proof, or the proof of the authority of the solitary report, is that “the solitary report is authoritative” (al-khabar al-wahid hujjah). This is the proposition derived from the proofs of the authority of the solitary report.

The practical principle, on its part, required that the Friday prayer be obligatory; that is, we established the obligatoriness of the Friday prayer by means of istishab. Currently, “the solitary report is authoritative” does not eliminate the subject of the proof of the principle. This is because that subject consisted of the doubtful Friday prayer, and we built upon our prior certainty, declaring the Friday prayer to be obligatory. However, the proof of the presumptive proof binds us devotionally to the report and establishes the report as authoritative. But does “the solitary report is authoritative” eliminate the subject of the principle? It has nothing to do with that subject. It does not eliminate that subject.

Then, what is it that eliminates the subject? It is the establishing of the devotively designated; what does this mean? It means the non-obligatoriness of the Friday prayer, which is the content (mu’adda) of the report. This content is what eliminates istishab as a practical principle. By the mere proof of devotional designation—meaning the solitary report is authoritative—the subject of the proof of the principle (which is the doubtful obligatoriness of the Friday prayer) is not eliminated. We must take a step further and state: now that the solitary report has been made authoritative, and Zurarah states that the Friday prayer is not obligatory during the era of Occultation, we are bound devotionally to the non-obligatoriness of the Friday prayer.

It is the commitment to this content and the establishing of the devotively designated that eliminates the subject of istishab. This non-obligatoriness of the Friday prayer eliminates that obligatoriness which was suspected in the doubtful Friday prayer. Therefore, the proof itself, in isolation, does not cause the elimination of the subject of the entered proof.

However, in some instances, the subject is eliminated by the proof itself, and there is no need for this subsequent step. For example, in the case of rational practical principles, such as rational exemption. The import of rational exemption is that punishment without prior clarification (al-‘iqab bila bayan) is ugly. If a proof arrives and validates the solitary report for us, stating “the solitary report is a proof/clarification” (al-khabar al-wahid bayan), here, by the mere establishment of this devotional designation, the subject of the proof of rational exemption is eliminated. This is because that proof stated “punishment without prior clarification is ugly,” and this proof states “the solitary report is a clarification.” Thus, without committing to the content of the proof, the proof itself eliminates the subject of that proof.

Therefore, he states that the proofs of the presumptive proofs enter the rational practical principles, but they do not enter the textual (Shar’i) practical principles, and it is fundamentally impossible for them to enter. This is because in entry, two characteristics are required for one proof to enter another. If one of them is absent, entry is negated. The first characteristic, which we noted is universally accepted and accepted by the Sheikh as well, is that the entering proof must eliminate the subject of the entered proof.

The second is that the elimination of the subject of the entered proof must be by this devotional designation itself, not by commitment to the devotively designated, nor by the establishing of the devotively designated, nor by accepting the content of the proof of devotional designation. Fundamentally, the very establishment of the proof must cause the elimination of the subject, without requiring commitment and devotional submission to the content of that proof for the subject of the entered proof to be eliminated.

Therefore, regarding presumptive proofs, he states that we cannot argue that presumptive proofs enter the textual practical principles. This is because, while it is true that with the establishment of the proof of devotional designation, the subject of the entered proof is eliminated, this in isolation is insufficient. Both the proof of devotional designation must be present, and we must commit to the devotively designated and the content of that proof.

Thus, a difference exists between the establishment of the proof and the establishing of the content of that proof. It was explained that in “the solitary report is a clarification,” we can assert that when this proof itself is established, without committing to its substance, and without stating what its ruling is, it eliminates the subject of the proof of the ugliness of punishment without prior clarification. Therefore, it enters it here. However, if the elimination of the subject of the entered proof is dependent upon our accepting the content of the presumptive proof and the report and committing to it, this is no longer entry.

Therefore, he states that, fundamentally, the presumptive proofs do not possess the possibility of entry in relation to the textual practical principles.

Student Inquiry: …

Teacher Response: Yes, he claims they govern (hakim). He is fundamentally stating that there is no possibility of entry. He negates the possibility of entry and prepares the ground to argue for government. The late Sheikh himself also states they govern. Al-Muhaqqiq al-Na’ini also states they govern.

This is the claim he has made at the conclusion of the discussion on the three formulations of entry, completely negating the possibility of entry.

Now, we must examine the concept of government subsequently, and see whether this statement is correct or not.

Commentary on the Treatise on Rights

In the previous session, we discussed the right of prayer and the effects of performing prayer at its earliest time (salat awwal al-waqt); specifically, what importance performing prayer at its earliest time possesses, and what worldly and otherworldly effects are associated with it.

The Effects of Performing Prayer at Its Earliest Time

In the previous session, we lacked the opportunity to refer to all of these effects. We outlined several effects, and it is appropriate to outline a few others.

Another effect of performing prayer at its earliest time is the prevention of immersion in the world. It is remarkable how performing prayer at its earliest time prevents a person from drowning in worldly pleasures. Imam Sajjad (peace be upon him), in another luminous statement of his, referred to this point himself, declaring: “Whoever attends to the prescribed times of prayer does not complete the pleasure of this world” (man ihtamma bi-mawaqiti al-salati lam yastakmil ladhdhata al-dunya).

He states: someone who attends to the times of prayer does not complete the pleasure of this world—meaning they do not experience worldly pleasures in their entirety. What does this mean? Someone who is watchful over performing prayer at its earliest time and attends to the times of prayer does not complete the pleasure of the world.

His statement “Whoever attends to the prescribed times of prayer” has one potential interpretation where ‘prescribed times’ is general. Under this interpretation, he has not specifically spoken of performing prayer at its earliest time; “the prescribed times of prayer” means the morning prayer has a time, the noon prayer has a time, and the sunset and night prayers have a time. However, the best of times is its earliest time, followed by the subsequent ranks. That the Imam states: let him attend to the prescribed times of prayer, means let him be watchful that his prayer does not exit its time, emphasizing that you must not allow your prayers to become lapsed (qada).

Another interpretation is that this refers to those specific times—namely, the best of times and the earliest of times. The expression “does not complete the pleasure of this world” is incompatible with interpreting ‘prescribed times’ as all times. The Imam’s objective is not merely that you perform the prayer within its time and not allow it to lapse. If it were that, they would not say “does not complete the pleasure of this world”; that is far superior to this. That would constitute disobedience to God, and the effect of failing to observe and attend to these times is far greater than these expressions. Because in that case, not only is the pleasure of the world incomplete for him, but numerous consequences and complications would follow.

Therefore, it appears that the expression “does not complete the pleasure of this world” is more compatible with interpreting “the prescribed times of prayer” as its earliest time. Thus, the Imam states: someone who is attentive to performing prayer at its earliest time does not drown in worldly pleasures, does not sink into them, and does not fall into misguidance. That is, as soon as heedlessness is about to overtake him, he is watchful to perform his prayer at its earliest time. This prayer performed at its earliest time prepares him more to avoid sin and disobedience, rendering him receptive to obedience and compliance.

This is no small matter. Performing prayer at its earliest time prevents a person’s heedlessness. We often think that spiritual wayfaring (sayr wa suluk) and traveling the path of knowledge must be accomplished by means of specific recitations, forty-day seclusions (chillah-neshini), and the like. I do not negate those, but the most important tasks consist of this very performing of prayer at its earliest time. That God has placed certain effects and blessings within performing prayer at its earliest time is a reality of its own. Performing prayer at its earliest time naturally possesses those effects and blessings, but one of the most important effects of performing prayer at its earliest time is the spiritual elevation of the person.

The world, the realm of matter, and nature, along with everything that surrounds us, constantly distract us from the remembrance of God. The more our attention is directed toward these manifestations, the more we sink into this swamp, and separating ourselves from it is a highly difficult task. To prevent this from occurring, one of the best ways is performing prayer at its earliest time—of course, a prayer performed with its proper etiquette.

One observes some individuals who have abandoned performing prayer at its earliest time, and indeed unfortunately sometimes prayer itself, yet seek to reach those elevated ranks through recitations, forty-day seclusions, and participating in mourning assemblies (hey’at) and chest-beating. Those have their proper place; they are complementary to these tasks, complementing the spiritual elevation and ascent of the person, but they cannot substitute for prayer and performing prayer at its earliest time. The core is performing prayer at its earliest time. This prevents heedlessness. That a person does not become heedless is the first step in moving toward the elevated divine goals.

According to certain narrations, performing prayer at its earliest time brings safety for the worshipper from worldly torments. This is an ontological effect (athar-e-wad’i). In a narration from the Prophet, it is transmitted: “When God sends down a calamity from the heavens, those who carry the Quran, the guardians of the sun—meaning those who protect the times of prayer—and those who populate the mosques are spared from it” (idha anzala Allahu ‘ahatan min al-sama’i ‘ufiya minha hamalat al-qur’ani wa-ru’at al-shamsi—ay al-hafizuna li-awqati al-salawati—wa-‘ummar al-masajid). They state that those who guard and protect the times of prayer, alongside the carriers of the Quran, are immune to celestial afflictions, and these calamities do not reach them.

Another effect mentioned here is warding off the evil of Satan and enabling the recitation of the two testimonies of faith (shahadatayn) during the moment of death. Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) states: “The Angel of Death wards off Satan from the guardian of the prayer, and prompts him to recite the testimony that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, in that momentous state” (malak al-mawti yadfa’u al-shaytana ‘un al-muhafizi ‘ala al-salati, wa-yulaqqinuhu shahadata an la ilaha illa Allah wa-anna Muhammadan rasulu Allah, fi tilka al-halati al-‘azimah).

The Angel of Death wards off Satan from the worshipper who is vigilant over prayer at its earliest time, and prompts him to recite the testimony of faith so that he can utter the testimonies at the moment of death, in that momentous state.

Other effects have also been mentioned, but due to the lack of time, we will limit ourselves to this extent.