خلاصة:
In this article, first the definition of exception and its types (complete connected exception, complete disconnected exception, empty connected exception, and empty disconnected exception) are examined, and then the opinion of Shia jurists regarding the concept of restriction in exception, as well as the opinion of a number of jurists regarding the exception in the verse 'Do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [through] business by mutual consent among you' (An-Nisa/29), is analyzed. The late Sheikh Ansari considers the exception in this noble verse to be disconnected, and his view is that a disconnected exception has no semantic implication. Therefore, this verse cannot be used to prove the validity of a Makrahi contract where consent is subsequently added. In contrast, some jurists hold the view that a disconnected exception also carries semantic implication.
ملخص الجهاز:
However, some jurists have argued for the necessity of this concomitance using the verse: «لَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُمْ بَيْنَكُمْ بِالْبَاطِلِ إِلَّا أَنْ تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَنْ تَرَاضٍ مِنْكُمْ» (An-Nisa: 29) In this manner, the verse states: Consuming wealth unjustly, and the disposal and possession of each other's property without legal authorization or a Sharia-compliant reason, is forbidden, except in the case where the cause of consumption and possession is trade based on mutual consent.
As for the implication of restriction: let the explicit meaning of the verse be that exclusively, the justification for consuming and possessing the property of others is trade resulting from mutual consent, and only this type of trade is valid and brings ownership.
In this regard, most commentators and jurists have said: this is a disconnected exception (istithna' munqati') because 'trade based on mutual consent' is not the consumption of wealth unjustly, so it cannot be a connected exception (istithna' muttasil) like 'the people came to me with their donkeys'.
The late Sheikh considered the exception in the verse to be a non-empty disconnected exception, but he claimed that it does not indicate restriction; rather, according to the explanation of the commentators, the Sheikh's words carry the meaning of an interjecting "but" (lakin istidrakiya).
In this manner, if a scholar does not believe in the concept of restriction in the case of a disconnected exception, they cannot use the meaning of the verse: «لَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُمْ بَيْنَكُمْ بِالْبَاطِلِ إِلَّا أَنْ تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَنْ تَرَاضٍ مِنْكُمْ» to prove the validity of a contract of compulsion (mukrahi) that is subsequently followed by the person's consent.
(
, 
, 
)
