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

Session Fifty-Four

The Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah) – Evidence for Exemption – First Proof: The Book – The Third Verse – Evaluation of the Third Verse – First Objection and Its Response – Second Objection – Commentary on the Treatise on Rights (Risalat al-Huquq) – The Right of Fasting (Saum) – Brief Exposition

December 10, 2025

The Third Verse

The third verse cited to prove the Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah) is:

“And Allah would not let a people go astray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of all things.” [Quran 9:115]

The meaning of this verse is: “Never will Allah, the Exalted, cause a people to go astray after He has guided them, unless He has clarified for them that which brings them piety (or that which they must avoid), for Allah is Knower of all things.”

The phrase “And Allah would not…” (wa ma kana Allahu…) refers to the established divine custom (al-sunnah al-ilahiyyah) that Allah never causes a people to go astray after He has provided them with the means of guidance (such as sending messengers and revealing scriptures). According to the proponent of this argument, “causing to go astray” (al-idlal) means “punishing” (al-ta’dhib). Therefore, Allah, the Exalted, does not punish any people after He has guided them, unless He has provided and clarified for them the means and requirements of piety (taqwa).

The phrase “what they should avoid” (ma yattaqun) refers to what they must perform or avoid, because piety (taqwa) means abstaining from disobedience and obeying divine commands and prohibitions. Thus, the custom of Allah, the Exalted, operates in this manner.

This is the summary of the argument using this verse, in light of the aforementioned points: Allah, the Exalted, does not punish anyone unless He has clarified for them the requirements of piety and His commands and prohibitions. This is exactly analogous to the verse, “And We would never punish until We sent a messenger” [Quran 17:15], which states: “We do not punish any people unless We have sent a messenger and announced the obligation.” The verse under discussion is of the exact same scale and indicates this very rule; it states that the custom of Allah is not to punish any people unless He has clarified His commands and prohibitions for them. Therefore, without clarification, announcement, or the instruction reaching the people, no one will be punished, and this is the very meaning of the Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah). This is, in essence, the substance of the argument using this verse.

Consequently, several key points must be observed:

The phrase “And Allah would not…” (wa ma kana Allahu) points to a fixed and immutable divine custom; Allah has never acted in such a manner.
“To let them go astray” (liyudillahum) means “to punish them” (liyu’adhibahum).
“What they should avoid” (ma yattaqun) refers to “what brings about piety”—namely, the commands and prohibitions through the obedience of which piety is attained.

With this explanation, no difference is observed between this verse and the first verse. Just as the first verse indicated the Principle of Exemption, this verse similarly indicates it.

Evaluation of the Third Verse

The late Sheikh al-Ansari (may Allah have mercy on him), in the same manner that he objected to the first verse, has objected here as well, stating that this verse pertains to past nations. Concerning the verse, “And We would never punish until We sent a messenger”, the late Sheikh al-Ansari—if you recall—objected that this verse is not suitable for deducing [the Principle of Exemption]. This is because, firstly, it concerns past nations, and secondly, it speaks of worldly punishment. Allah states: “We did not afflict past nations with worldly punishment unless We had sent messengers and clarified the requirements of piety for them.” Hence, this verse is not suitable for proving [the Principle of Exemption].

This objection actually consists of two distinct objections; that is, the late Sheikh objected from two angles:

That the subject is worldly punishment (al-‘adhab al-dunyawi).
That it pertains to past nations, rather than intending to state a general rule here.

In that same section, he stated that, in light of these two points, this verse is informative (ikhbari) rather than prescriptive/performative (insha’i). For it to indicate the Principle of Exemption, it must be in the legislative/prescriptive context (maqam al-insha’), as though He is enacting a law. However, when it is in the informative context (maqam al-ikhbar), meaning He is merely informing us of how He dealt with past nations, it is no longer suitable for proving the [Principle of] Exemption.

Question:

Professor: If a sentence or statement is informative and not in the legislative/prescriptive context, we cannot extract a law or ruling from it. For example, suppose Allah narrates a story about Prophet Joseph. Clearly, that context is not one of prescribing a law. In this case, we cannot derive a legal ruling from it. However, sometimes a speaker informs, but this information is in the legislative/prescriptive context. For instance, an Infallible might state in response: “He does such-and-such.” He is informing, but because it is an answer to a question, he is, in reality, enacting a ruling. Sometimes a statement is entirely prescriptive (insha’i). Other times, a statement is informative but operates in a prescriptive context. And sometimes, it is purely informative and is not in a prescriptive context at all.

You have observed this verse, which has been cited to prove Exemption and has also been subjected to objection. Can we say that this verse indicates the claim or not?

A precise investigation of this verse reveals that several potential interpretations exist. These interpretations primarily center on the word “to let go astray” (liyudilla). This segment is the main locus of debate, as the phrase “And Allah would not…” (ma kana Allahu) does not require much discussion. This phrase contains a past-tense verb and apparently indicates a specific time. However, as we stated regarding the first verse, this verb is stripped of its temporal tense (munsalikh ‘an al-zaman). There are also contextual clues for this temporal detachment. When He says “And Allah would not…”, He is, in truth, referring to a custom, method, and law, indicating that Allah has never been like this; meaning, He was not like this from the beginning, nor will He be until the end.

Therefore, regarding the phrase “And Allah would not…”, which is a pillar of the argument, the late Sheikh’s view is incorrect. He argued that “ma kana Allahu” is a past-tense phrase and thus pertains to past times and former nations. The response to this objection is clear; the same response we provided for the first verse applies here as well.

Regarding “what they should avoid” (ma yattaqun), its meaning is also clear: that which is the cause and source of piety. This means that Allah does not punish—or in the phrasing of the verse, let go astray—any people without clarifying the causes of disobedience and obedience, and without clarifying the means of obedience and abstention from disobedience. This was also a pillar of the argument and presents no difficulty.

The primary debate concerns the second pillar of the argument. The proponent of the argument stated that “to let go astray” (liyudilla) means “to punish” (liyu’adhibahu). However, as has been noted, other interpretations can also be conceived for this term.

One possibility is that “to let go astray” (liyudilla) means “to judge them as astray” (liyahkuma bi-dalalatihim) or “to place them among those who are astray” (liyaj’alahum min al-dallin). That is: Allah does not categorize any people among the astray “until He makes clear to them what they should avoid.”

According to this interpretation, the meaning of the verse is that Allah does not place any nation among the astray, nor does He judge them as astray, except after He has sent messengers and revealed scriptures, and they have disregarded the call of the messengers and the message of the scriptures. Only then does Allah place them among the astray. In this case, being placed among the astray is itself a worldly punishment. This is similar to what we recite in the prayer: “Not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray” [Quran 1:7]; “O Allah, guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor,” and then we say, “not of those with whom You are angry and who are considered among the astray.”

The mere fact that an individual or group is placed among the astray is a punishment and chastisement, and it is clear that this misguidance is punitive (idlal kaifari), not primary (idlal ibtida’i). This is because Allah never misguides anyone initially. The verse, “He causes to err whom He wills and guides whom He wills” [Quran 16:93], does not refer to primary misguidance. It is impossible for Allah to misguide anyone initially; this is fundamentally incompatible with the philosophy of creation and other theological principles. I do not wish to enter into this discussion now. In any case, there are contextual clues that refute this primary meaning. Any form of misguidance (idlal) that is attributed to Allah is punitive.

Accordingly, the meaning of the verse becomes that Allah, the Exalted, does not place any nation among the astray unless He has first revealed messengers and scriptures, and then, following their opposition, they are placed among the astray. If this is the meaning, this verse is no longer connected to the Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah). This is one potential interpretation.

There are two other interpretations here that we must evaluate. We must see which of these three interpretations—excluding the one stated by the proponent of the argument—is more compatible with the apparent meaning of the verse, and whether we can provide supporting evidence for it or not.

Commentary on the Treatise on Rights

The Imam (peace be upon him) addresses the third right; namely, the right of fasting (saum):

“And as for the right of fasting, it is that you know it is a veil that Allah has placed over your tongue, your hearing, your sight, your private parts, and your stomach.”

First, we will offer a brief explanation of this passage, as is our custom, and then we will address its key points.

The first act of worship mentioned was prayer (salat), followed by pilgrimage (hajj), and this is the third. In all three cases, the discussion begins with the phrase “that you know” (an ta’lama): “it is that you know it is a veil…”

“Know that fasting is a screen and a veil that Allah, the Exalted, has drawn over your tongue, your hearing, your sight, your private parts, and your stomach.” That is, it insulates them. To put it in contemporary terms, Allah, the Exalted, through fasting, covers those bodily organs that primarily pave the way for human error with a screen and a veil. These are: the tongue, the hearing, the sight, the private parts, and the stomach (representing those human desires where the urge for satisfaction is strong, even if through unlawful means). He states that fasting is a veil drawn over these organs.

“To shield you from the Fire” (liyasturaka min al-nar); to protect you from the Fire. In reality, fasting is a barrier between man and those organs that can lead him to Hell, keeping him far from the Fire. We will explain how fasting performs this role; for now, we are providing a brief exposition.

“And thus it has come in the tradition: ‘Fasting is a shield against the Fire'” (wa hakadha ja’a fi-l-hadith: al-saumu junnatun min al-nar). Here, the Imam refers to a prophetic tradition. When the term “tradition” (al-hadith) is used absolutely in the Imam’s speech, it refers to a prophetic tradition; namely, the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Fasting is a shield against the Fire.

“So if your limbs remain tranquil within their veil, you may hope to be shielded” (fa-in sakanat atrafuka fi hijabiha rajauta an takuna mahjuban). If your limbs (meaning your hearing, sight, tongue, stomach, etc.) remain tranquil behind this veil—meaning the flames of desires associated with these organs subside—then you may hope that you are protected by this veil. What does this mean? It means you have become secure. This veil prevents the Fire from reaching you.

“But if you leave them to fluctuate within their veil and raise the edge of the veil…” (wa in anta taraktaha tadtaribu fi hijabiha wa tarfa’a janaha al-hijabi). If you leave your limbs to do as they please, failing to control them, and do not bring your sight, tongue, hearing, and stomach under your authority, but rather allow them to act as they wish, they will exhibit agitation and restlessness within their veil, and they will lift the edge of the veil. That is, they will seek to emerge from behind the veil and tear it—this veil that God, through fasting, draws between man and these organs, between man and sin.

Then, if these organs emerge from behind this veil, cast it aside, and continue with unconventional actions—meaning abnormal actions outside the prescribed limits—“then they will look upon that which is not theirs” (fa-tattali’u ila ma laysa laha), coveting that which they have no right to. When they are behind the veil, they remain unaware of certain matters, remaining ignorant of the forbidden.

However, if they cast the veil aside and become aware of that which they should not look upon—for example, if the eye seeks to look with lust—fasting restrains the eye. Now, if the eye refuses to remain behind this veil—for example, by not fasting, or even by fasting outwardly while ignoring the reality of fasting—and says: “I want to know what is happening, to see everything, to enjoy, to look with lust”—and “the strength that breaks out breaks past the limits of God-wariness (taqwa)” (wa-l-quwwatu al-kharijatu kharijatun ‘an haddi taqwa Allah); meaning, if one seeks to remove those limbs and organs from the boundary of God-wariness, “you are not secure from tearing the veil and exiting from it; and there is no power except with Allah” (lam ta’man an takhriqa al-hijaba wa takhruja minhu wa la quwwata illa billah); you are not secure from that veil being torn.

What happens if that veil is torn? He states: “and exiting from it”; one exits from that veil. What does this mean? It means the Fire will reach him. Because at the beginning he stated: “To shield you from the Fire”; this veil is what protects man from the Fire; it is an insulation that keeps man safe from the Fire. Now, if a person does not watch over their limbs, these organs will exceed their bounds, stepping past the limits of God-wariness, and they will no longer possess any immunity. If this veil is torn and they emerge from it, their end is clear: there will no longer be a veil to cover them from the Fire. “And there is no power except with Allah”; for this purpose, there is no helper but God. It is a difficult task; God must assist.

This was a brief exposition of this passage. God willing, we will explain its key points in detail in the future.