We have so far discussed 3 reasons why Ayatullah Khui's preference for the idea that it is "ugly" for Allah to punish someone when the ruling is doubtful (in the absence of any Quranic/hadith proof). In each of the three arguments, Shahid al-Sadr counters with his view that it is not ugly because of the right that Allah has to be obeyed. The final argument is proposed by Shaykh al-Isfahani. He splits duties into two types:
4a Those that are the foundation of other duties ( إنشائي)
4b Those that are themselves duties, which are the reason for your actions (حقيقي)
He discusses further by saying that it is these secondary duties (4b) that are the subject of the discussion. Simliar to how these duties are constrained to only those who are able to do it (i.e. it is agreed that those who are incapable are not expected to complete duties such as 4b), they are also constrained only to those who know about it, not those who are ignorant about it (i.e. knowledge of the duty is like capability of doing the action - both are prerequisites of 4b).
[This discussion is a bit complex – and is about the split into the world of theoretical wish of Allah, and the actual manifestation of that wish; Isfahani wants to consider that only those duties that are in the world of the manifestation of the wish of Allah, are considered – if you would like a longer discussion about this, please comment/discuss with me personally – it is a long discussion].
Shahid al-Sadr discusses this by again getting very technical! In summary, his view is that there are two ways of understanding 4b, one of which is correctly only relevant to the person who knows the ruling, and the other one is relevant to everyone. And with regards to the first way of understanding 4b i.e. that which is only relevant to the person who knows the ruling, it is not clear from Shaykh Isfahani, whether the person must only know that the duty is correct, or whether he might be able to know that the duty is POTENTIALLY correct. And thus Shaykh Isfahani misses the issue.
Overall, Sayyid al-Sadr says that the main arguments for the principle that it is “ugly” for Allah to punish someone for a duty that is doubtful, are not correct, and the theoretical course of action (assuming no verse to the contrary – even though there is!), is that you should use precaution when there is a doubt about your duty because Allah deserves to be obeyed, and even thinking there might be a duty, results in a punishment if not obeyed.
The reason he gives (other than the counter-arguments above), is that Allah continuously endows us with bounties and uncountable goodness, and similar to how the rational mind understands the obligation to thank him for this (without the need for any proof), this also means that it is obligatory to obey him in things you are not sure. This can be understood in another way – everything on the earth is His, as He is the Creator of everything, therefore any behaviour is using His hands and mouth…etc., and therefore you should not do something UNTIL you are sure that it is okay. (This last point is a footnote by Shaykh Ayrawani).
In summary, there are two opinions:
1. The principle that it is ugly for Allah to punish someone without making it clear to them what the correct action is; this results in you being free to do anything when you have a doubt about a duty (براءة = baraa`a)
2. The principle that Allah deserves obedience in everything, including duties on which there is a doubt; this results in you being forced to be careful (احتياط = ihtiyaat)
However, regardless of these arguments put forward by Shahid al-Sadr, the reality is that this is all predicated on the absence of any rule by Allah. When we go into the Qur`an, the actual position of Shahid al-Sadr is that براءة (baraa`a) is what is implied. In the next blog, we will briefly look at the Quranic proofs but it seems that people are not that interested in this topic, so we will move back to istidlal in a few blogs!
No comments:
Post a Comment