The Principle of Exemption (Bara’ah), The Proofs of Exemption, Second Proof
Session Eighty-One
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”, Second Topic: Examination of the Exclusivity or Non-Exclusivity of “ma” to Particular Doubts, Paths for Generalizing to Particular and Ruling-directed Doubts, The Fifth Path, Detailed Examination of the Generalization Paths, Examination of the First, Second, and Third Paths, Commentary on the Treatise on Rights, The Levels of Fasting: The First Level, The Second Level
January 28, 2026
Summary of the Previous Session
We mentioned that in contrast to the opinion of the exclusivity of the Hadith of Lifting to particular doubts, one view is that the Hadith of Lifting also encompasses ruling-directed doubts. One theory is the theory of exclusivity, and the other is the theory of generalization. Of course, each of these theories has its proponents. Yesterday, we presented three paths among the paths of proving the generalization of the Hadith of Lifting to ruling-directed doubts. In a brief examination, we said that these three paths are open to objection, and the truth in explaining the generalization of the Hadith of Lifting to ruling-directed doubts is the very one Muhaqqiq Ha’iri explained. Therefore, including the path of Muhaqqiq Ha’iri, so far four paths have been mentioned to prove the generalization.
The Fifth Path
Another path was also mentioned by Muhaqqiq Isfahani, which in a sense can be said they relied upon. If we take this path into consideration as well, it will be five paths in total.
We shall state this path which Muhaqqiq Isfahani explained; of course, we shall no longer enter into its detailed discussion, because this path has been objected to by some of the prominent scholars. The author of Muntaqa al-Usul has raised several objections to this path, and if we were to address them too, the discussion would become very lengthy.
The summary of what he (Muhaqqiq Isfahani) stated is that what is meant by the relative pronoun ma in the Hadith of Lifting is the action itself, namely the external subject matter, but the subject is not that very hesitant external entity itself. “ma la ya’lamun” is in the meaning of, for example, a liquid whose being wine or water is unknown, but they consider a general conventional title in the conventional world; of course, this point has an explanation as to what is meant by this general conventional title and how we consider this general conventional title to be the identifier of that action and subject, rather than making the subject the external subject itself. In any case, in total, these five paths have been mentioned for the generalization of the Hadith of Lifting to ruling-directed doubts. Of course, this fifth path is also not free of objection.
Detailed Examination of the Generalization Paths
Today, also, to emphasize and reinforce the path Muhaqqiq Ha’iri stated, we will conduct a further examination of the three paths mentioned yesterday, to make it clear that most of these paths stated for the generalization of the Hadith of Lifting to ruling-directed doubts are open to objection.
Examination of the First Path
One of the aspects stated yesterday was that what is meant by ma in “ma la ya’lamun” is the action itself; but not the action as itself, but rather bima annahu (inasmuch as it is) characterized by a description; meaning they did not intend the essence of the external action, but rather the action bima annahu obligatory or forbidden, with a derivative title (‘unwan ishtigaqi). Therefore, “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun” means that action which you do not know is lifted, meaning “the action is lifted” (rufi’a al-fi’l), i.e., “the action is lifted bima annahu forbidden” or “the action is lifted bima annahu obligatory”; the unknown action characterized by prohibition or characterized by obligatoriness is lifted. This expression is broader than the unknown action itself or its ruling being unknown; therefore, it also encompasses ruling-directed doubts.
This path, besides that general objection we raised yesterday (which we said is contrary to the utilized meaning of ma and its attribution is open to objection, which was also criticized from the perspective of Muhaqqiq Ha’iri’s path), specifically, this path itself which Muhaqqiq Isfahani mentioned was objected to by him. He raised two objections to this path.
This meaning is incompatible with the other phrases of the narration; meaning we cannot interpret “ma-dturru ‘alayh” or “ma-stukrihu ‘alayh” with this view; because the relative pronoun ma in “ma-dturru ‘alayh” is in the meaning of the lifting of the action which is constrained. Is this lifting of the action which is constrained lifted “bima annahu action” or “bima annahu forbidden or obligatory?” In fact, he has raised a refutation against this path: if we consider the action with a derivative title, this is not compatible with the other phrases of the narration; because there we cannot say that this is removed with these titles.
Of course, this objection is not very important and this refutation can be answered; because it can be said that here, too, what is lifted is that very action bima annahu forbidden. It wants to say that if a constrained action arises, it is lifted characterized by prohibition. This poses no problem.
Muhaqqiq Isfahani stated: that derivative title which is lifted in this hadith does not exist in the external world; because derivatives (mushtaqqat) do not essentially exist in the external world. Derivation is always abstracted and obtained from a source (mabda’) and an essence (dhat). For example, when you say “knowledgeable” (‘alim), this is a derivative title that arises from the characterization of an essence named human and a source named knowledge, which itself is in the external world. However, apart from the source and the essence, this derivative title does not exist in the external world. “Knowledgeable” is derived from these two things: from the essence and from the source.
On this basis, here if we say what is meant by the relative pronoun ma is the action “bima annahu forbidden,” this has no existence in the external world. What exists in the external world is, on the one hand, the action itself, and on the other, the ruling. The ruling also has a reality which is either prohibition or obligatoriness. Then, you derive the action bima annahu forbidden or obligatory from the external action and from the reality of the ruling, which is the source of the derivation of the action to this ruling. This means that this derivative title itself does not exist in the external world.
After it has become clear that the derivative title does not exist in the external world, we must see what becomes of the ignorance of it; because it says: “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun”. Ma also is in the meaning of the action “bima annahu forbidden.” Therefore, based on the hadith, if this derivative title and the action bima annahu forbidden is unknown, then it is lifted. Therefore, the action bima annahu forbidden is lifted if it is unknown. However, can ignorance attach to a derivative title or not? Ignorance is either of the essence or of the source, not the derivative title. He believes that what does not essentially exist does not essentially become the object of ignorance either. Yes, the human can have ignorance regarding what exists accidentally, but his ignorance is also accidental; like knowledge itself, when “knowledgeable” is a derivative title obtained from observing the essence and the source, in the case of ignorance it is also like this. He says: what does not become the object of knowledge does not become the object of ignorance either.
He states: “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun” has zuhur in that to which ignorance essentially attaches, not that to which ignorance accidentally attaches. “ma la ya’lamun” means “the action which they do not know in reality” (al-fi’lu al-ladhi la ya’lamunaho la haqiqatan); not that which “they do not know accidentally” (la ya’lamunaho ‘aradan); the Hadith of Lifting has zuhur in that what is essentially unknown is removed, not what is accidentally unknown. Therefore, the action bima annahu forbidden cannot be what is meant by the relative pronoun ma. The relative pronoun ma in reality attaches to what essentially exists.
Question: …
Professor: He objects to this path. Muhaqqiq Isfahani himself also believes in the generalization of the Hadith of Lifting to ruling-directed doubts, but he objects to this path, stating that with this path we cannot prove the generalization.
This is the objection he raises against this path.
Examination of the Second Path
The other path mentioned for generalization was that what is meant by ma in “ma la ya’lamun” is action, but action is sometimes intended in itself (bi-nafsihi), and at other times by its description (bi-wasfihi). On this basis, “ma la ya’lamun” means “the action which they do not know” (al-fi’lu al-ladhi la ya’lamunahu). However, this is broader than your not knowing it in itself—that, for example, it is of the category of drinking wine or drinking water—or your not knowing it by its description—that, for example, its ruling is prohibition or permissibility.
This path’s objection is also that “ma la ya’lamun” has zuhur in what is unknown in itself. When it is said “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun”, it means “lifted is the thing they do not know” (rufi’a al-shay’u al-ladhi la ya’lamunahu). This zuhur is zuhur in that you do not know it itself. That we want to say what is intended is “they do not know its ruling” (la ya’lamuna hukmahu) is contrary to the apparent meaning. Truly, this is not derived from the narration. Therefore, this path is also an incorrect path.
Examination of the Third Path
The third path we mentioned yesterday was the very path we said the late Mr. Akhund also mentioned; and that in “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun”, what is meant by ma is the ruling and duty itself, except that the unknown and undecided ruling and duty varies in terms of the causes of ignorance. Sometimes the cause of ignorance of the ruling is the lack of text, sometimes it is the ambiguity of the text, sometimes it is the conflict of two texts—these three cases are the very three cases of ruling-directed doubt—and sometimes also the source of doubt and hesitation in the ruling is a mistake in external matters, which is the very particular doubts. Therefore, “rufi’a ma la ya’lamun” means that the unknown ruling and duty is lifted, regardless of whether the source of ignorance relates to the text or to the external world. Consequently, it encompasses both ruling-directed and particular doubts.
This path also has a lot of discussion. We also referred to it in a way previously. Like if we say here what is meant by ma is the ruling, can we consider the lifted object in the other phrases to be the ruling? If we consider it to be the ruling, how is the attribution?
Commentary on the Treatise on Rights
We mentioned that the right of fasting, according to the statement of Imam Sajjad (PBUH), is that you know, gain recognition, and gain understanding of what the reality of fasting is: “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.”
We said the most important right of any worship is recognition of the reality of that worship. According to this statement, the reality of fasting consists of a veil that falls upon human organs and limbs. This also refers to those things that can be nullifying (mubtil or mufattir); meaning they invalidate the fast. The stomach relates to food and drink, and the private parts relate to pleasures. If you consider all the nullifiers together as well, they mainly focus on food, drink, and also pleasures; namely those ten or eleven cases he named.
However, in the case of the tongue, hearing, and sight, he pays attention and alerts to a matter beyond the nullifiers of fasting.
The Levels of Fasting
In fact, in my opinion, this sentence refers to two levels among the levels of fasting, although there is also a higher level.
The First Level: Abstaining from food, drink, and what is attached to them, meaning the private parts and the stomach: “a veil that Allah has placed over your private parts and your stomach.”
A higher level that goes beyond the physical organs and limbs and in fact refers to the heart and the soul is the veil that must be placed over the tongue, hearing, and eye.
In the nullifiers, you nowhere have that, for example, looking at a non-mahram person invalidates the fast; nowhere is such a thing mentioned, or telling a lie invalidates the fast—yes, attributing a lie to Allah and the Prophet invalidates the fast—but at least these are not mentioned as conditions of validity. Or, for example, hearing a backbiting, or hearing the voice of a non-mahram woman with its conditions—these are not mentioned among the nullifiers.
Therefore, if he mentions fasting as a veil over these three organs, it means taking a step deeper into this worship. So that fasting is not only restricted to the appearance of the matter; fasting should not be restricted only to abstaining from food and drink and these things. He wants to say that this fasting must penetrate the human soul, mind, and heart. If fasting is to take effect in a deeper level—meaning on the heart, soul, mind, and human self—it must place a checkpoint and so-called control on these gateways of mental imports. Tongue, hearing, sight—these are both imports and exports. Previously I referred to this: these are in fact the gateways and starting points of the human heart and soul’s imports and exports. What things enter the mind, what things exit. Exports are performed with the tongue; meaning what is inside us, whether it is a thought, an idea, malice, hatred, or love, whatever it is, bitter and sweet.
Now, sometimes a person has hypocrisy, double-facedness, and controls very much to preserve appearances so that an incorrect word does not leave his tongue, but his inner self is corrupt. The hypocrite’s account is separate.
However, naturally, the tongue is the way and path of expressing desires, thoughts, ideas, hopes, and inclinations. This can also be both bitter and sweet, both positive and negative. He says: this must be controlled; fasting is a veil over the tongue, meaning it must prevent exports; it should not export everything, not say every word, not sting, not make sarcasm, not cause hurt.
Hearing and sight—ears and eyes—control these too. These are for mental imports. If there is no veil over hearing and sight, the soul becomes polluted. The polluted soul cannot attain the reality of fasting either. “That you may become righteous” is mentioned as the goal of fasting, which does not emerge with the abandonment of hearing and sight; it is only thirst and hunger. However, the reality and inner self of fasting is not realized. For its realization, the human must not hear backbiting, his eye must not go everywhere, and he must be careful not to look at everything. The problem of many of us is indeed that we do not understand the reality.
This “a veil that Allah has placed over your tongue, your hearing, your sight, your private parts, and your stomach” is correct, most people observe those two during the days of the month of Ramadan, even that itself is unknown how, it is half-baked, doubtful wealth, God forbid, forbidden wealth, he fasts, [yet] he cheats people. However, if the veil over these three organs is not observed, the depth of fasting and the reality of fasting does not emerge; meaning its effects and blessings are not attained.