Textual Evidence supporting Freedom when there is doubt

So far we have discussed what the rational principle should be, if there is a ruling on which you have a genuine doubt i.e. whether it rationally makes sense to:

1. Observe precaution (Syed Sadr's view)
2. Be free to do anything (Ayatullah Khui's view)

This was a purely theoretical exercise, assuming there was no textual evidence pointing to another option....however, in reality there is textual evidence that the proponents of both points of view above, agree on - and that textual evidence points to the fact that you do not need to observe precaution but you are actually free to do anything.

We will first look at the Qur`anic evidence for this, then move onto narrations. This is a very long discussion, but it shows the importance given to this part of usul al-fiqh.


Firstly, the verse is Surah Talaq (65), verse 7:

“Allah does not task any soul except [according to] what He has given it.”
(لا يكلف الله نفسا إلا ما آتاها)

This verse is in the context of discussing the issue of a husband’s duty to pay for the wife’s expenses when he divorces her e.g. when she is pregnant, he has to continue paying for her expenses until she gives birth and if she breastfeeds the baby, then the payment should continue until the end of the breastfreeding. The question that is raised, is what is the level of this payment? Does it depend on the wealth of the husband? The point is that the amount depends on what the person is able to pay. The complete verse is as follows:

"Let the affluent man spend out of his affluence, and let he whose provision has been tightened spend out of what Allah has given him. Allah does not task any soul except [according to] what He has given it. Allah will bring about ease after hardship." (65:8)

According to Shaykh Ansari’s work – Al-Rasa`il, the word ما in the verse above (translated as “[according to] what”), introduces a relative phrase, and the question we have to answer is the meaning of “what”. There are three possibilities for the meaning of "what":

1. Money/wealth/property i.e. the verse means that Allah does not task any soul with paying money, other than to the extent to which he is able to pay. This understanding of the verse is possible due to the verse’s presence in the context of paying for a wife’s subsistence.

2. Action i.e. Allah does not "task" any soul with an action other than if he/she is able to do that action. This understanding is possible due to the term “task” mentioned in the translation, as that term (task) is only used with actions.

These two explanations of the verse do not result in the implication of the legal baraa`a. However, the third possibility does:

3. Duty i.e. Allah does not task any soul with a duty except when the duty has come to the individual. And it is clear that “coming to the individual” requires knowledge of the duty by the individual. The meaning thus becomes: Allah does not task any individual with a duty except when he has made it known to the individual, and without making it known, there is no duty.

However, the problem occurs: how do we confirm the final possibility when it is possible that one of the first two are correct. Shaykh Ansari uses the principle of Itlaq (i.e. absolute meaning). He says that as there are no indicators that the meaning is specific to one of the first two meanings, it must incorporate all of them.

However, of course there are counter arguments to this point of view, which we can discuss in the next blog!