A Reply to the Maqasidists
The Concept of the Theory of Maqasid and a Discussion of Its Authority
Translated from the Arabic: الرد على المقاصديين


[Page 1]

A Reply to the Maqasidists

Chapter One
The Concept of Objectives and Their Authority

This chapter includes three sections:


[Page 2]

The first section: The concept of objectives (maqasid), and why they are upheld.
The second section: Evidence from those who advocate for the objective of public interest (maslaha) and its refutation.
The third section: The concept of objectives (maqasid) according to al-Shatibi.


[Page 3]

Section One

The Concept of Objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia), and Why They Were Established?


[Page 4]

Introduction
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) continued to receive revelation from his Lord, Exalted is He, and he would inform his companions (may Allah be pleased with them) about it, and they would receive it from him with listening and obedience. Sometimes they would be astonished, as when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke to them about a cow that speaks, and they were amazed and said: "A cow that speaks?" He said: "I believe in this, I and Abu Bakr and Umar"(1). At other times, they would become angry, as when the Quraysh were upset about giving the people of Najd and leaving them(2), or they would hesitate at times, such as their hesitation in slaughtering and shaving after the story of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah(3). However, despite all of this, the command of Allah does not change due to their astonishment, nor their anger, nor their hesitation (may Allah be pleased with them), even though such occurrences were rare and not the norm. In the end, everyone submits to the command of Allah, Exalted is He.
There is no report of them saying what those with sickness in their hearts said: "What did Allah intend by this as an example?"(4), nor did they ask Him, Exalted is He, why did You do this? And Allah, Exalted is He, said: "He is not to be questioned about what He does"(5). The matter remained in this state until, after several centuries and the passing of the best early generations, some began to ask this question: What did Allah, Exalted is He, intend by legislating this ruling? And why did Allah, Exalted is He, decree this ruling? Then they looked into the branches of the Sharia. If
__________
(1) Al-Bukhari (Muhammad ibn Ismail), Sahih al-Bukhari, Dar Tawq al-Najat, 1st ed., 1422 AH, Hadith No. (3663).
(2) The same reference, Hadith No. (3344).
(3) The same reference, Hadith No. (2731).
(4) Surah Al-Muddathir, verse 31.
(5) Surah Al-Anbiya, verse 23.


[Page 5]

They found that Allah, Exalted is He, mentioned a reason for legislating this ruling or that, and they extended this to other rulings, until they made His intention, Exalted is He, necessarily consistent in everything they believed resembled this ruling among the rulings. And when authentic texts from the Sunnah contradicted what they arrived at, they rejected those texts on the pretext that they were of ambiguous indication, and they prioritized what they called the intention of the legislator. Allah, Exalted is He, said regarding the prohibited things, “And do not say about Allah that which you do not know” { وَأَن تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ }(6). They prioritize what they call the intention of the legislator over the legal ruling because that is established for them through induction, and induction for them is definitive, so the definitive takes precedence over the ambiguous, which is the hadith of the individual narrators. Thus, this was proclaimed and seized by some contemporary scholars, some of whom are well-intentioned, and some of whom are ill-intentioned, seeking to undermine the texts, and indeed to dismantle the entire Sharia.
This is because they deduced general objectives, claiming things like “removing hardship” and “wherever there is benefit, there is the legislation of Allah.” They took these principles and similar ones, and they applied them to the legal texts, nullifying and tearing apart their words and meanings. Then they began to compare that to what is good and bad for a servant, so they made it obligatory upon Allah, Exalted is He, what they made obligatory upon the servant, and they prohibited Him from what they prohibited for the servant, calling that justice and wisdom, while their intellects are incapable of comprehending His wisdom and justice(7). They sometimes refer to this as benefit and at other times as preference.
(The term “objectives” began to resonate in various scientific, economic, and political circles, adopting the legal objectives.)
__________
(6) Surah Al-A'raf, verse 33
(7) Ibn Taymiyyah (Ahmad ibn Abdul-Halim), Majmu' al-Fatawa, King Fahd Complex, Medina, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, no edition, 1416 AH - 1995 CE, vol. 8, p. 91.


[Page 6]

A means to undermine the principles of religion, as if there is a discord between the objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia) and the texts(8). The realm of Islamic economics has been affected by the dust of these ideas, and some have ventured into issues of Islamic economic and financial jurisprudence, attempting to manipulate them, bending the evidence to their will by using the principle of "its contradiction to the objectives of the legislator." However, Allah has mentioned a purpose or goal for this ruling or that one only in rare instances. Rather, He, Exalted is He, said, “And Allah knows, while you do not know” {وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنْتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ}(9), and He said, “And if the truth had followed their desires, the heavens and the earth and whoever is in them would have been corrupted” {وَلَوِ اتَّبَعَ الحَقُّ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ لَفَسَدَتِ السَّمَوَاتُ وَالأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهِنَّ}(10).
And for the reasons mentioned, this research was an attempt to offer advice in clarifying the rulings of the Sharia from the dust of these attempts. The first section was dedicated to explaining the concept and authority of these objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia), and may Allah, the Exalted, grant success.
The concept of the objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia) among those who advocate for it, and why they have said so?
In this section, I attempt to shed light on the concept of the objectives of the Sharia among those who advocate for it, as it is essential before embarking on the discussion of the authority of the objectives to define their essence, and the definition chosen by the researcher.
__________
(8) Al-Khalili (Aflah ibn Ahmad), Fath al-Dhara'ih: Its Evidence and Regulations, Islamic Economy and Finance Encyclopedia website, section on the Economic Objectives of the Sharia.
(9) Surah Al-Baqarah, verse: 216.
(10) Surah Al-Mu'minun, verse: 71.


[Page 7]

This is the definition adopted by the majority of contemporary scholars in their reasoning, and thus it will be the one relied upon in this discussion, God willing.
First - The concept of objectives (maqasid) according to those who affirm them:
The researcher will limit himself to one comprehensive definition, which is "what the Legislator intended to achieve through the rulings or a group of them"(11).
The one who proposed this definition pointed out its benefit in being both comprehensive and restrictive, as he defined it by "what the Legislator intended to achieve" so that everything intended by the Legislator in legislation is included in the definition, whether it pertains to the interests of the obligated individuals or not, such as trials. He did not say "its achievement for the people," but rather "its achievement" alone, so that the definition encompasses what was intended by the legislation to be achieved for them, such as interests and trials, or what is to be achieved from them, such as compliance and understanding. The term "rulings" refers to the very texts that contain the obligations(12).
It is clear from this definition, which is close to al-Shatibi's definition of the types of objectives and derived from it, that what the Legislator intended to achieve can be of four types: it may either contain a benefit for the servant, and this benefit may be a worldly benefit or a purely otherworldly benefit, as al-Shatibi himself explained when discussing the objectives, or it may be a trial from Allah, Exalted is He, and this trial may be contrary to what the servant perceives as beneficial or
__________
(11) Taha (Hamdi Subh), Objectives and Goals, Islamic Economy and Finance Encyclopedia website, Section on the Objectives of Sharia Economically; and see al-Shatibi (Ibrahim ibn Musa ibn Muhammad), al-Muwafaqat, Dar Ibn Affan, 1st ed., 1417 AH, 1997 CE, vol. 2, p. 7.
(12) Objectives and Goals, the previous reference.


[Page 8]

A worldly interest that returns to him, the author also stated that the Sharia (law) has objectives (maqasid) for the servants, which are for the servants to understand the texts of this Sharia and to act according to them to the best of their ability. Al-Shatibi added that all those obligated (mukallafun) fall under it, meaning as determined by Allah, not according to whims, as explained by Professor Abdullah Daraz. It is noted from this definition that it encompasses everything that Allah intended to be achieved through the rulings, and the intention may simply be a test. Allah, Exalted is He, said, “That He may test you which of you is best in deed” { لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ أَيُّكُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلاً } (13). According to this definition, there is no need to justify the rulings and link them all to what is called the interest of the servant, as the ruling may simply be intended for testing, as previously mentioned. Of course, this is not the aim of most who use the term objectives (maqasid); therefore, the author stated that many have limited its definition to being “what the legislator intended to achieve through the rulings for the servants from interests.” Consequently, they said that everything the legislator intended to achieve through the rulings is in the interest of the servant, and that the primary objective of legislation is the interest of the servant.
Al-Shatibi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, "The purpose of establishing the laws is for the interests of the servants in both this world and the Hereafter, and this is a claim that must be substantiated with proof of its validity and invalidity, and this is not the place for that." (14).
And may Allah have mercy on al-Shatibi, for he described this introduction as a given, and this means that there is no disagreement regarding it. Nevertheless, he felt the need to state, "And this is a claim that must be substantiated with proof, whether it is valid or invalid, and this is not the concern of given matters." Then I do not know what he meant by his statement: "And this is not the appropriate place for that," even though this is the most suitable place for it.(15)
__________
(13) Surah Al-Mulk, verse 2.
(14) Al-Shatibi (Ibrahim ibn Musa ibn Muhammad), Al-Muwafaqat, Dar Ibn Afan, 1st ed., 1417 AH - 1997 CE, vol. 2, p. 9.
(15) Al-Raisuni (Ahmad), The Theory of Objectives of the Sharia (Maqasid al-Sharia) According to Imam al-Shatibi, Dar Al-Ilmiyah for Islamic Books, 1412 AH, 1992 CE, Vol. 1, p. 186.


[Page 9]

Perhaps al-Shatibi's statement and his summarization of the evidence for the issue led those after him to accept this matter as a given. Consequently, they examined the actions of the servants, and whatever they perceived as beneficial, they claimed that it was from the Law of Allah. They varied between being expansive and restrictive in this regard, as the researcher will clarify, if Allah wills. For al-Shatibi, when he used the term "benefit (maslaha)," he meant— as I will explain in the third section— the benefit for the servant in this world and the Hereafter, and not what they intended by it being everything that the servant believed to be beneficial.
Secondly— why did these people speak of what is called the objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia)?
To simplify, why did they say that what Allah, Exalted is He, intended with His legislation of rulings is what His servants see as beneficial for them?
The answer to this question is based on two premises that lead to this conclusion:
First: They said that the concepts of good and evil are only for the intellect. Thus, whatever the intellect perceives as good is good, and whatever it sees as beneficial is the benefit. If the intellect acknowledges that something is a benefit and the textual evidence contradicts that, the intellect takes precedence, and the text is interpreted or deemed weak. This is the doctrine of the Mu'tazila(16).
Second: That Allah, Exalted is He, does not command except what is good in our minds, for the actions of Allah are rationally justified. We examined the Sharia to extract a purpose or intention behind the Sharia and found that this is the benefit of the servant. Therefore, the intention of Allah, Exalted is He, in all His commands is the benefit of the servant, and the intellect must first perceive it as good. The Mu'tazila consistently applied this doctrine in beliefs, acts of worship, and all branches of the Sharia.
Some limited their focus to the realm of actions, excluding beliefs and acts of worship. They examined the texts of the Sharia, whether they were established by conjecture or indication, and whatever contradicted that from their perspective of it being beneficial was rejected.
__________
(16) Rabi'a (Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman), The Science of the Objectives of the Sharia, Islamic Economy and Finance Encyclopedia website.


[Page 10]

The text is cold, and among these is al-Tufi the Hanbali(17). The contemporary proponents of the objectives (maqasid) followed him with varying degrees, and they will be the subject of critique, if Allah wills.
Al-Tufi formulated his theory in the early eighth century, and Dr. Muhammad Abu Zahra said about him: "He was a Shiite." The summary of his theory is as follows:
1- The intellect is capable of discerning benefits and harms except in acts of worship, as they are the rights of the legislator.
2- Benefit is a legal proof independent of the text and does not rely on the testimony of the texts for its validity.
3- Abandoning the text is permissible if the intellect perceives a benefit in opposing it, provided that the text is uncertain in its authenticity or meaning(18).
As for the third group - the Malikis and those who agreed with them - they narrowed the scope further. Some of them relied on the notion that the intellect can determine what is good and bad, and that it can perceive benefits in matters of transactions but not in acts of worship. However, the Ash'arites among them held that the determination of good and bad belongs solely to the Sharia, yet they also acknowledged what is known as public interest (maslaha mursala). However, this public interest is not a legal proof in and of itself; rather, the Sharia must testify to the category of this interest, even if it does not testify to its specific instance. If the Sharia does not testify to its category, it is considered an invalid interest and is not permissible.
__________
(17) He is al-Rabi' ibn Sulayman ibn Abdul Karim ibn Said, known as Najm al-Din al-Tufi, from the village of Tuf in the region of Iraq. He was a Hanbali jurist who was accused of Shi'ism and even heresy. He has around forty-two works in the Qur'an, the fundamentals of religion, jurisprudence, and its principles, among his works are Al-Iksir in the Principles of Tafsir and Mi'raj al-Wusul in Usul al-Fiqh. He passed away in the year 716 AH.
(18) See al-Shanqiti (Ahmad ibn Mahmoud ibn Abdul Wahhab), The Appropriate Description of the Law of Judgment, published by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Islamic University of Medina, 1st edition, 1415 AH, pp. 349-350.


[Page 11]

its consideration(19). In this regard, the Maliki theory differs from that of al-Tufi, as al-Tufi did not require the Sharia to testify to the nature of this interest (maslaha), but considered the annulled interest sufficient to prioritize it over the texts.
They have adopted this view because, upon examining the texts of the Sharia, it becomes clear that the Sharia takes into account some interests of the servants. This induction leads to certainty, and al-Shatibi held this view. Accordingly, if a definitive interest (maslaha) contradicts a hadith of singular transmission (ahad), which is considered speculative by them, whether this hadith is general in wording or specific, they prioritize the interest on the grounds that this hadith is of uncertain authenticity, while the interest is definitive; thus, the definitive takes precedence over the speculative. If the text is of certain authenticity, as it is established by the Qur'an or by a mutawatir (consecutively transmitted) hadith, but it is of uncertain implication due to being general, for example, and the general is considered speculative in implication by the Malikis, then it is permissible to specify it by the interest at that point. (4)
However, some contemporary scholars who adopted the concept of public interest (maslaha) did not consider what al-Shatibi looked at regarding the condition that this interest must have evidence supporting its validity. Rather, they acted upon the rejected interests, as will become clear, God willing.
Examples that clarify the schools of thought:
First: The school of the Mu'tazila:
When it seemed repugnant to their minds that Allah would create the actions of the servants and then punish them, it necessitated for them attributing injustice to Allah, Exalted is He. Therefore, they resorted to demolishing, denying, and interpreting the definitive texts, so they interpreted.
__________
(19) (4) See al-Shatibi, al-Muwafaqat, previous reference,


[Page 12]

The verses: such as {And Allah created you and what you do}(20), and the hadiths like "and you believe in destiny, both good and bad"(21) and others, because the affirmation of destiny (qadar) for them and the affirmation of the creation of the actions of the servants, in their view, leads to attributing injustice to Allah, Exalted is He, which is not acceptable in our minds. Therefore, the Mu'tazila first asserted the reasoning behind the actions of Allah and that the actions of Allah must have a cause, and this cause, in their view, necessitates that Allah legislate these rulings, and these rulings are understood by reason to be good and the opposite of them to be bad from the outset. These rulings must, without a doubt, be in the interest of the servant, and reason is capable of discerning their goodness and the badness of their opposites even before the arrival of the Sharia. Therefore, in their view, the one who commits a sin before the arrival of the Sharia is held accountable because his reason is capable of discerning good and bad even if the Sharia does not address it.
Ibn Hazm responded to this group that claims that Allah does not act or intend anything except what is best for the servant, saying in "Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa' wa al-Nahl" (3/29):
Abu Muhammad said: As for those who advocate for the better among the Mu'tazila, they have stopped here and said, "We do not know the meaning of misguidance, nor the meaning of sealing upon their hearts, nor the sealing upon them." Some of them said that the meaning of this is that Allah, Exalted is He, has called them misguided and judged that they are misguided. Others said that the meaning of "He misled them" is that He destroyed them, as you say, "I lost my camel." And all of this is mere claims without evidence.
Abu Muhammad said, "We did not find any original interpretation for them in the words of Allah, Exalted is He, recounting about Moses (peace be upon him) that he said, {It is only a trial by which You lead astray whom You will}."
__________
(20) Surah As-Saffat, verse: 96.
(21) Muslim (Ibn al-Hajjaj Abu al-Hasan al-Qushayri), Sahih Muslim, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, no date, hadith number 8.


[Page 13]

Abu Muhammad said, "This is indeed misguidance, and it is that they are driven by stubbornness and blindness to adhere to a principle that has become corrupt and to imitate those among their ancestors who have no good in them, while claiming that they do not know what misguidance and sealing mean."

Abu Muhammad said, "The majority of the Mu'tazila have gone astray in a section of predestination (qadar) far removed from the truth. They all said, except for Darar ibn Amr, Hafs al-Fard, and Bishr ibn al-Mu'tamir, and a few who followed them, that there is nothing with Allah, Exalted is He, that is better than what He has given to all people, whether they are disbelievers or believers, nor is there guidance with Him that is better than what He has guided the disbeliever and the believer with; this is equal. And that He is not capable of anything that is better than what He has done for the disbelievers and the believers. Then these people differed; their majority said that He, Exalted is He, is capable of similar acts of goodness without end, while the lesser among them, who are the worshippers and those who agree with them, said this is false because it is not permissible for Allah, Exalted is He, to leave anything He is capable of in terms of goodness due to His actions for the goodness of others. Their argument in this disbelief that they have brought forth is that if He had something better or more excellent than what He has done for the people and withheld it from them, He would be miserly and unjust towards them. And if He were to give something of His grace to some people and not to others, He would be favoring one group over another and unjust, and favoritism is oppression. And if He had what the disbelievers could believe in when He gave it to them and then withheld it from them, He would be unjust towards them to the utmost degree. They said, 'And we know that if a person were to possess great wealth that he does not need and a poor neighbor of his, to whom charity is permissible, were to ask him for a dirham to sustain himself, and he knows his poverty and that he could save his life with it, and he withholds it from him, it would not be for any reason other than that he is miserly. They said, 'If he knew that by giving him the dirham it would ease for him the burdens he has to carry, and he withheld it from him, he would be miserly and unjust.'"


[Page 14]

What meaning and what righteousness is there in the creation of Iblis and the devils, and in granting them the power to mislead people, from the wisdom that is known among us? By necessity, we know that whoever sets traps for people in the roads and places thorns in their paths is indeed a blameworthy fool in our view. And Allah, Exalted is He, created all that we have mentioned with their acknowledgment, and He is the Wise, the All-Knowing. Then we find that He, Exalted is He, bore witness to those who pledged allegiance under the tree, that He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquility upon them. Then He caused some of them to die quickly who were in charge of the affairs of the Muslims, and weakened some of them, and over them ruled Ziyad and al-Hajjaj and the rebels of the Khawarij. So what benefit is there in this for al-Hajjaj and for Qatari or for the rest of the Muslims if the Mu'tazila had understood? But the truth is our statement, which is that all of this is justice from Allah, truth, and wisdom, and destruction and ruin and misguidance for the tyrannical al-Hajjaj and Qatari and their likes. Allah, Exalted is He, intended thereby their destruction in the Hereafter, and we seek refuge with Allah from being forsaken. Then we ask them, what do you say if Allah, Mighty and Majestic, commands the flogging of the free woman for adultery and the flogging of the slave woman half of that? Is this not favoritism towards the slave woman? And when Allah, Mighty and Majestic, grants a people abundant wealth, and they act corruptly with it, while depriving others, is this not the very essence of favoritism and injustice against their corrupt principle? In the case of one who prevents his poor neighbor, unless they expel their claim, they will resort to the statement of those who mentioned that it is obligatory to treat people equally in wealth and women. In general, the people deny the resemblance and disbelieve in whoever likens Allah, Exalted is He, to His creation. Yet we do not know anyone more resembling Allah, Exalted is He, to His creation than they do. They impose the ruling upon Him and apply commands and prohibitions to Him, and they liken Him to His creation in what is good and what is evil. Then they contradicted their principles, as from their statement that what is good among us in one way or another, we do not distance it from the Creator, Exalted is He. And we find among us those who favor their servants over others, making one of them in charge of his wealth and family, and a guardian for his child, and he accepts him for this from his childhood by teaching him reading and writing.


[Page 15]

And he makes the other one a rider for his mount and a collector of dung for his garden and a cleaner for his yard, and he chooses him for that from his youth. Likewise, the female slaves, he makes one of them the place for his garment and a caretaker for his child, and he makes the second one a servant to the first in cooking and washing. This is just, by the consensus of all Muslims, and they did not deny that the Creator, Exalted is He, may favor whom He wills among His servants with what He loves of preference.
And we say to them also, whatever is better for everyone, especially for the people of the Fire, is that Allah, Exalted is He, creates us all in Paradise as He did with the angels and the houris, or what He has done with us by creating us in this world and exposing us to trials in it and to eternal life in the Fire. (Abu Muhammad said) They insisted on this, so some of them said that Paradise has not yet been created. We said to them, suppose that the matter is as you say, then it would be better for everyone that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, hastens its creation, and then creates us in it, or delays our creation.
until He creates it, then He creates us from it. Or did He create him for us where He created us? If they are unable to comprehend their Lord, they make Him one with limited power and similar to His creation, and they nullify His divinity, making Him confined and weak. And this is pure disbelief. Moreover, the denial of the question also leads them to think that He would make us like the angels and that He would make us all prophets, as He did with Jesus and John (peace be upon them) and all the other prophets (peace and blessings be upon them). Some of them said, "Our ignorance of the aspect of benefit in this does not take this matter out of wisdom." We said to them, "Be satisfied with this very point." For who told you that our ignorance of the aspect of benefit and wisdom in Allah, Exalted is He, creating His servants' actions and in His commanding the disbeliever and the sinner to do what they cannot bear, then punishing them for that, is what takes it out of wisdom? And there is no escape for them from this. (Abu Muhammad said) And as for...


[Page 16]

We do not accept this, but rather what we are ignorant of; however, we affirm that all that Allah, Exalted is He, does is indeed wisdom and justice. Whoever wishes to subject His actions to the wisdom and justice known to us has indeed deviated and likened Allah, Exalted is He, to His creation, for the wisdom and justice known to us are solely obedience to Allah, Exalted is He. There is no wisdom or justice other than that which He has commanded us, whatever it may be. As for Allah, Exalted is He, there is no obedience to anyone over Him; thus, it is invalid for His actions to be in accordance with the commands of the servants who are ordered, created, and accountable for what they do. Rather, His actions, Exalted is He, are in accordance with might, power, dominion, grandeur, and submission to Him, and He is not to be questioned about what He does, nor is there any more to say, as He, Exalted is He, has said: "And he has failed who opposes what Allah, Exalted is He, has said." Despite all this, they have not escaped the necessity of returning to the obligation of distortion and folly regarding their principles about their Lord, Exalted is He. Their theologians said: "If we were created in Paradise, we would not know the extent of the blessing upon us therein, and we would also not be deserving of that blessing due to any action we performed." And admitting us into Paradise after our deserving it would be more complete in blessing and more profound in pleasure. Also, if we were created in Paradise, it would be necessary to threaten us regarding what is prohibited to us, and Paradise is not a place of threats. Furthermore, Allah, Exalted is He, knew that some of them would disbelieve, so it would be necessary for them to exit Paradise. (Abu Muhammad said) This is all that they could muster of foolishness, and all of this returns to them by the power of Allah, Exalted is He, and His strength and assistance to us. We say, and with Allah, Exalted is He, is success. As for their statement: "If we were created in Paradise, we would not know the extent of the blessing upon us therein," we say, and with Allah, Exalted is He, we are supported: Could Allah, Exalted is He, not create us therein and create within us the strength and nature by which we would know the extent of the blessing upon us therein more than we know it after entering it on the Day of Resurrection? Or was He incapable of that? If they say He was incapable of that, they have incapacitated their Lord, Exalted is He, and made His power finite.


[Page 17]

He is capable of our matter and not capable of anything else, and this can only be due to an internal condition or a finite power. This is pure disbelief, and even if they say that Allah is capable of that, they acknowledge that He, Exalted is He, did not do what is best for them and that what is with Him is better than what He has done to them. Also, if they intended by that that pleasure follows hardship and toil with greater joy and more profound delight, they must negate the blessings of Paradise entirely, because its bliss is not at all mixed with pain or toil, and every pain after the experience of it is forgotten, as the poet said... "The young man was never concerned when he was clothed."
And it has never been the case that when He bestows something...
It is necessary, based on this principle, that Allah, Exalted is He, specifies for the people of Paradise what is in it, so that their existence of pleasure may be renewed. This is a departure from Islam, and it also necessitates that the prophets and the righteous enter the Fire and then be brought out of it to Paradise, thus multiplying the pleasure and joy many times over. They will be told, "We used to be like the angels and the houris." If they were aware of the extent of the bliss and pleasure they are in, then we were like that as well. And if they were unaware of the extent of the pleasure and bliss they are in, then why did He not grant them this benefit? And for what reason did He deny them this virtue that He granted us, while they are the people of His obedience that has not been tainted by disobedience? If they say that the angels and the houris have witnessed the punishment of the disbelievers in the Fire, and thus they have a position of intimidation, we say to them: Is favoritism and injustice not that He exposes a people to destruction and keeps them until they disbelieve, so they remain eternally in the Fire to serve as a warning to another people created in Paradise and eternal comfort? Is this not the essence of injustice? This is what we have established based on the principles of the Mu'tazila. And like the one who says among the tyrants, "The third is killed in the righteousness of the two-thirds." Is there any greater absurdity and folly than the absurdity of one who says to another, "Here, let me strike you with whips, throw you from a mountain, slap you on the back of your neck, and pull your hair"?


[Page 18]

And I walk you on a path full of thorns without comfort in that and without benefit, but to give you after that a great kingdom. And perhaps during my striking you, you may suffer harm and fall into a foul pit from which you will never emerge. So what benefit is there for one with reason in this case, especially when he is capable of granting him that kingdom without exposing him to any of this calamity? This is the attribute of Allah, Exalted is He, according to the Mu'tazila; they do not deserve to describe themselves by describing Allah, Exalted is He, with justice and wisdom. (Abu Muhammad said) And as for us, we say if Allah, Exalted is He, informed us that He does all this with His own hand, we would not deny it, and we would know that it is from Him, Exalted is He, truth, justice, and wisdom.

Then we ask them, what benefit is there for the sinners in making some of their movements and stillness major sins for which they deserve the Fire, while making some of their movements and stillness minor sins that are forgiven? It would have been better to make them all minor sins that are forgiven. And it would have been better to make them all minor sins that are forgiven.

Abu Muhammad said, and Allah, Exalted is He, has stated in the Qur'an many verses that do not allow for interpretation regarding the denial of those who perform miracles from their Lord, Exalted is He, and it is impossible for them to have any verse or Sunnah to rely upon at all. Among them is His saying, {Indeed, it is only a trial by which You lead astray whom You will and guide whom You will}. Was it not better for Him to have a better origin than a trial by which some of His creation are led astray? Far is Allah from this disbelief and this inability.

And He, Exalted is He, said, {And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind}. Oh, how I wish to know what benefit there is for them in being created for Hell. We seek refuge with Allah from this benefit.

And He, Exalted is He, said, {And protect them from evil deeds, and he whom You protect from evil deeds that Day - you have certainly given him mercy}. So it is established that He, Exalted is He, is the One who protects from evil deeds, and the one whom He has shown mercy is the one whom He protected from evil deeds because...


[Page 19]

Whoever is not protected from evils, then he will not be shown mercy, and there is no doubt that whoever is protected from evils has been treated better than one who is not protected from them. This is alongside His saying, Exalted is He, {And if We had willed, We would have given every soul its guidance} {And if your Lord had willed, all who are on earth would have believed together}. And no one who has even a slight soundness of mind or a trace of modesty in his face can doubt that this was better for the disbelievers than admitting them to the Fire by not granting them that guidance, even if they claim, as they say, that they will enter Paradise without deserving it.
And Allah, Exalted is He, said: {And let not those who disbelieve think that Our granting them respite is better for themselves. Indeed, We grant them respite only that they may increase in sin, and for them is a humiliating punishment.} And Allah, Exalted is He, said: {Do they think that We extend to them wealth and children as a reward? We hasten for them only in good things. But they do not perceive.} And Allah, Exalted is He, said: {We will gradually lead them to destruction from where they do not perceive.}
Abu Muhammad said: "This is the ultimate clarification that Allah, Exalted is He, intended with them and acted with them in a way that leads to the corruption of their religions and their destruction, which is the opposite of righteousness. Otherwise, what benefit is there for them in being lured to the lands from which they do not know, and in being given respite so that they may increase in sin? And the Almighty's statement that all of this which He has done is not a hastening for them towards good, thus nullifying the claim of these doomed ones entirely. And all praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds."
And He, Exalted is He, said, {Indeed, We are capable of replacing them with better than them} and in this is sufficient.
To facilitate the response to this group and its followers, we will simplify the topic by providing an example. For instance, the harm of people's poverty and the monopolization of wealth by some is a reason for legislation, or the motivation for legislation, or the cause of legislation. The researcher believes it is sufficient to refer to it as the motivation, because the rational cause necessitates the occurrence of something.


[Page 20]

necessary, and nothing is binding upon Allah except Himself (since they also call the statement that there is a motive for a ruling “giving a reason”). In any case, there was a motive for legislating the ruling that the spoils (fay’) must be divided: (“What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger from the people of the towns belongs to Allah and the Messenger, and to the near of kin, the orphans, the poor and the wayfarer, so that it may not be a thing circulating among the rich among you”). This legislation of the ruling has an end, aim, purpose or wisdom — all words they use to mean one thing — and the purpose here is (“so that it may not be a thing circulating among the rich”). A practical example: a person’s anger (a motive, cause or reason, depending on how they differ in terminology) leads to taking revenge, and this act of revenge has an (aim, purpose or wisdom), which is the feeling of ease in the soul. Here the scholars differed into three schools. The first school is that of the Mu‘tazila, which is


[Page 21]

Indeed, every ruling has a cause for its legislation, and this cause necessitates that Allah legislate certain good rulings. It is essential in our minds to realize a purpose, which is the welfare of the servant. These rulings are binding upon us even before the arrival of the Sharia. The second group believes that there are causes and motivations for legislating the rulings, but these motivations do not necessitate that Allah must legislate these rulings; rather, Allah legislated them purely out of His grace. These rulings have goals or purposes, and all these purposes are for the benefit of the servant. However, the intellect comprehends this in general, while understanding the benefit, wisdom, or purpose in each specific ruling is a matter that is difficult for the intellect. Therefore, the matter is constrained by the existence of the Sharia, and there is no obligation except after its arrival, as Allah, Exalted is He, says: "And We would not punish until We had sent a messenger." Among those who hold this view are Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim. The third group believes that it is not permissible to say that there is a cause or motivation that led Allah to legislate this ruling unless He Himself stated that.


[Page 22]

So we pause at this point, and these rulings are judged as good only by the Sharia, and it is not correct to say that there is an objective from Allah unless He, Exalted is He, states that. We must not speak about Allah what we do not know. Ibn Hazm and those who agreed with him held this view; however, a fourth, strange school emerged that is different from these scholars, which is the view of al-Tufi, the Hanbali. Many contemporary scholars of objectives (maqasid) relied on this view, whether intentionally or unintentionally, which is that Allah has a general purpose and objective, which is to eliminate harm and achieve benefit, and this is known through reason in transactions, not in acts of worship. Thus, texts are abrogated in transactions if they contradict what people see as beneficial. However, the Malikis do not abrogate texts for this reason unless the Sharia supports their type from more than one perspective, and thus they elevate it to the level of certainty, so that the speculative texts are abrogated or interpreted accordingly.
Ibn al-Najjar said (898 - 972 AH = 1492 - 1564 CE)


[Page 23]

A Hanbali jurist from Egypt. One of the judges.
Mukhtasar al-Tahrir, Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir (1/ 312)
"And His action, Exalted is He, is not for a reason or wisdom" in the statement "Many of our companions and some of the Malikis and Shafi'is have chosen this." And this was said by the Dhahiri school, the Ash'ari school, and the Jahmi school.
The second opinion is that they are for a reason and wisdom. This was chosen by al-Tufi, and Sheikh Taqi al-Din, and Ibn al-Qayyim, and Ibn Qadi al-Jabal. And it was reported from the consensus of the Salaf, and it is the doctrine of the Shi'a and the Mu'tazila, but the Mu'tazila say that righteousness is obligatory. And they have two opinions regarding what is more righteous.
And those who oppose them say that they are for a reason, not according to the methodology of the Mu'tazila.
And a group has permitted both matters. Sheikh Taqi al-Din said: For the people of the Sunnah regarding the reasoning behind the actions of Allah, Exalted is He, and His rulings, there are two opinions, and the majority are on the reasoning.)) Ibn al-Najjar (898 - 972 AH = 1492 - 1564 CE)

A Hanbali jurist from Egypt. One of the judges.
Mukhtasar al-Tahrir, Sharh al-Kawkab al-Munir (1/ 312)


[Page 24]

And His action, Exalted is He, is not for a reason or wisdom. This is the view chosen by many of our companions and some of the Malikis and Shafi'is. It was also stated by the Zahiris, the Ash'aris, and the Jahmiyyah.
The second opinion is that they are for a reason and wisdom. This was chosen by al-Tufi, and Sheikh Taqi al-Din, and Ibn al-Qayyim, and Ibn Qadi al-Jabal. It was reported from the consensus of the predecessors, and it is the doctrine of the Shi'a and the Mu'tazila, but the Mu'tazila assert the necessity of righteousness. They have two opinions regarding what is more righteous.
Those who oppose them say that they are for a reason, but not according to the methodology of the Mu'tazila.
A group has permitted both matters. Sheikh Taqi al-Din said: Among the Ahl al-Sunnah, there are two opinions regarding the reasoning behind the actions and rulings of Allah, Exalted is He, and most are on the side of reasoning.


[Page 25]

Zanjani (573 - 656 AH = 1177 - 1258 CE)

Mahmoud ibn Ahmad ibn Mahmoud ibn Bakhtiyar, Abu al-Manaqib Shihab al-Din Zanjani: a linguist and one of the jurists of the Shafi'i school. He was from Zanjan (near Azerbaijan). He discusses deriving branches from the roots (p. 38)
“Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) and the majority of the people of the Sunnah held that purity and impurity, as well as all other legal meanings such as servitude, ownership, emancipation, and freedom, and all other legal rulings like whether a place is pure or impure, and whether a person is free or a slave, are not attributes of the entities to which they are ascribed. Rather, Allah established them as a matter of control and worship without any reasoning behind them. There is no one to overturn His decree or to question His judgment; He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned. Our limited opinions, weak minds, and deficient thoughts cannot reach an understanding of their realities and what pertains to them in terms of the interests of the servants. Thus, that is achieved implicitly and as a consequence, not as a primary aim, since the interest (maslaha) is not obligatory to be realized in His judgment.
He argued in this regard that if Allah, Exalted is He, can punish the disbeliever for his disbelief and the immoral for his immorality, and there is no interest for anyone in that, then it is permissible for Him to legislate laws even if they involve harm and there is no interest for anyone in them. For this reason, Allah, Exalted is He, has tasked humans with what is beyond their capacity, as He said: {So bring ten chapters like it, fabricated} {So bring a chapter like it}. And He said to the angels: {Inform Me of the names of these if you are truthful}. All of this is a tasking for humans.”


[Page 26]

What is beyond His capacity is a harm in which there is no benefit, and the secret of this principle is that Allah, Exalted is He, is the Owner of the kingdom and the Creator of creation. They argued in this regard by using the analogy of the witness to the unseen based on the principle of good and evil. They claimed that the legislation of the ruling is not for the sake of benefit; it is mere frivolity and foolishness, and frivolity is considered ugly in reason. It is like a wise man undertaking to measure water from one sea to another; it is indeed ugly for him to do so, and he deserves blame for it.
And when this principle is established, we say that al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) saw that worship (ta'abud) in rulings is the foundation, and the possibility of worship (ta'abud) predominates, and he built its issues in the branches upon it.
Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him) believed that reasoning (ta'lil) is the foundation, and he based his issues in the branches on it.
To clarify the doctrine of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim and those who agree with them, I will quote his statement.
Ibn al-Qayyim said, and he is among those who assert that reason perceives good and evil before the law, and among those who advocate for reasoning.
In the Key to the Abode of Happiness, there is a statement that undermines the position of the proponents of the objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia): "Indeed, the ultimate capacity of reason is to grasp in general the goodness of what the Sharia has detailed, or its evil. Thus, reason comprehends it as a whole, while the Sharia provides the details. This is similar to how reason understands the goodness of justice. As for whether this specific action is just or unjust, this is something that reason is incapable of comprehending in every action and contract. Likewise, it is unable to comprehend the goodness or evil of every action."


[Page 27]

The laws come to detail and clarify that. What the clear intellect perceives from that, the laws come to affirm it. What is good at one time may be bad at another time, and if the intellect does not discern the time of its goodness from the time of its badness, the laws come to command it at the time of its goodness and to prohibit it at the time of its badness. Likewise, an action may contain both benefit and harm, and the intellect cannot determine whether its harm outweighs its benefit. The intellect then pauses on that. The laws come to clarify this, commanding the greater benefit and prohibiting the greater harm. Similarly, an action may be beneficial for one person and harmful for another. The intellect does not perceive that. The laws come to clarify it, commanding it for the one for whom it is beneficial and prohibiting it for the one for whom it is harmful. Likewise, an action may appear harmful on the surface, but within it is a great benefit that the intellect cannot perceive, and it can only be known through the law: like jihad and killing in the cause of Allah. An action may appear beneficial on the surface, but within it is a great harm that the intellect cannot perceive.


[Page 28]

to the intellect, and the laws come to clarify what is contained within it of the prevailing benefit and harm. This is despite the fact that what the intellect is unable to grasp regarding the goodness and badness of actions is not less than what it can comprehend. Thus, the need for messengers is essential. In fact, it is above all needs. The world is in greater need of them than anything else, the messengers, may Allah's blessings be upon them all."

It is noteworthy that after al-Raisuni elaborated on the idea that reasoning is the true doctrine and took Ibn al-Qayyim's words on reasoning to great heights, he was surprised to find that Ibn al-Qayyim does not mean exactly what he has interpreted, that human intellect is completely independent in grasping benefit as al-Raisuni wants to assert, thereby negating the texts. Rather, Ibn al-Qayyim often attributed the matter to the incapacity of the intellect to perceive goodness and badness, justice and injustice in detailed issues. Thus, the argument based on Ibn al-Qayyim's words returned to the original point.


[Page 29]

upon it, because by “giving reasons” he meant that actions have a reason, and that reason is the benefit of the servants, and the benefit of the servants is, in most cases, not grasped except through the Shari‘a. So there is no need here to cite the words of Ibn al-Qayyim, because the matter returns to what we say: that all the rulings of the Shari‘a are in themselves wisdom, justice and ease — not by our measures but by the measure of the Shari‘a. This is the school of those who affirm giving reasons, except al-Tufi. So there is no need to argue that the majority say that rulings have reasons, because they mean something other than what he means, as Ibn al-Qayyim explained.

It is striking that al-Raisuni, after elaborating on al-Shatibi’s school in affirming the objectives of the Shari‘a and that they all revolve around the benefits of the servants, quoted the following words of his:
As it appears in al-Raisuni’s book (The Theory of Objectives according to Imam al-Shatibi) (p. 204), he said:
“And al-Shatibi himself — who stated, explicitly and implicitly, that there are those who disagree on the question — we find also stating that there is a consensus on giving reasons, although his wording carries some reserve. He says: “There is consensus that the Lawgiver intends benefits by the obligations, in general”4 and he also says: “The Lawgiver laid down the Shari‘a on the basis of taking benefits into account, by agreement”5))

He was surprised by the following words of al-Shatibi, which he also quoted: ((That a benefit is a benefit intended by the ruling, and a harm likewise, is specific to the Lawgiver, with no room for the intellect in it, based on the principle of denying rational judgments of good and bad. So if the Lawgiver legislated the ruling for some benefit, He is the one who set it as a benefit. Otherwise it would have been possible — rationally — that


[Page 30]

Do not be like that. For all things, in relation to their original state, are equal; there is no judgment from reason regarding their goodness or badness. Thus, the existence of an interest (maslaha) as an interest is from the legislator, such that reason affirms it and the soul finds peace in it"3)) and he says ("The interests that pertain to the conditions of the servant are known in their true essence only by their Creator and Legislator, and the servant has no knowledge of them except from certain aspects"4.))

Thus, the inference from al-Shatibi's words collapses fundamentally, as he means by improvement and disapproval and interest all that Allah has decreed to be so, not according to human whims. Therefore, the inference from the words of al-Shatibi and Ibn al-Qayyim is entirely misplaced, as is the opinion of the majority attributed to them regarding the reasoning based on interest.

Secondly: Examples of the position of al-Tufi:
Najm al-Din al-Tufi did not wish, during his lengthy exposition, to present a single example of the conflict between text and a genuine interest(22).

Thirdly: An example from the position of the Malikis and those who agree with them:
For example: It is noted that the trustee in Islamic law is not liable, and there is a hadith regarding this from Amr ibn Shu'ayb from his father from his grandfather that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "There is no liability upon a trustee." Narrated by al-Daraqutni, and the hadith's chain of transmission is
__________
(22) (Juraisha) Ali Muhammad, The Sent Interest: An Attempt to Elaborate and a Perspective on It, Islamic University, Medina 1397 AH - 1977 CE – p. 39.


[Page 31]

Weak(23) and authenticated by al-Albani through his chains(24). If there is a worker whom people trust with their belongings, such as a weaver or a cobbler, they are not liable for what is lost in their hands except in cases of transgression, because the original principle is non-transgression. His oath suffices for the hadith ("But the oath is upon the one who claims")(25).
However, the Malikis viewed this differently, stating that the public interest (maslaha) necessitates holding these craftsmen liable, asserting that the original principle is their transgression. The public interest is a general interest, while the interest of these craftsmen is a private interest. It has been established through the examination of the texts of the Sharia that the general interest takes precedence over the private interest. This examination leads to certainty and is derived from texts such as "Prohibiting the resident from selling to the nomad"(26). Here, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prioritized the interest of the people of the market, which is a general interest, over the interest of the nomad, which is a private interest. Similarly, the prohibition of intercepting caravans and the prohibition of hoarding—all these evidences, along with others not mentioned—indicate that prioritizing the general interest over the private interest is intended by the legislator. None of these evidences indicate this matter in isolation, but this intention is derived from the totality of these texts and those rulings(27).
__________
(23) Al-Rubai (Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn Yusuf), Fath al-Ghaffar: The Comprehensive Rulings of Our Chosen Prophet, Dar Alam al-Fawaid, 1st ed., 1427 AH, vol. 3, p. 1273; al-Daraqutni (Ali ibn Umar), Sunan al-Daraqutni, Dar al-Risalah, Beirut, Lebanon, 1st ed., 1424 AH - 2004 CE, hadith (2961).
(24) Al-Albani (Muhammad Nasir al-Din), Irwa al-Ghalil in the Verification of Hadiths of Manar al-Sabeel, Islamic Office, 2nd ed., 1405 AH - 1985 CE, vol. 5, p. 385.
(25) Narrated by al-Bukhari (2514) and Muslim (1711).
(26) Al-Bukhari (2140), Muslim (1413).
(27) Hassan (Hussein Hamid), The Theory of Public Interest in Islamic Jurisprudence, Al-Mutanabi Library, 1981, no publisher, no date.


[Page 32]

Thus, the law has witnessed the type of cause, making the two rulings homogeneous: (the prohibition of selling to the nomad by the settled) and (the prohibition of placing the burden of loss on the owner of the commodity), because the two causes are homogeneous in that they fall under the principle of (prioritizing the public interest over the private interest), even though they differ in essence. The reason for prohibition in the first example is the same as (selling to the nomad by the settled), as it is a clear, defined description. When the sale from the settled to the nomad occurs, the prohibition is established. In the second example, the cause is (the liability of the owner of the commodity with the common laborer), so the Malikis resort in this case to abandoning the authentic hadiths due to their belief that they are of uncertain authenticity, in favor of what they call the objective of the legislator, which is prioritizing the public interest over the private interest, a matter they consider certain.
Among the examples where Imam Malik rejected authentic hadiths based on the interest-oriented objective related to financial and economic jurisprudence is:
- His rejection of the hadith "The two sellers have the option until they part" (28), because the period of option is not time-bound and may be prolonged, which constitutes gharar (uncertainty), thus contradicting the prohibition of selling gharar. They said: Even if one of them conditions an unknown duration for the option, it would be invalid by consensus. How then can a ruling established by law be valid when it is not permissible to condition it by law?(29).
They also rejected the hadith of Rafi' ibn Khadij: "We were with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) at Dhul-Hulaifah from Tihamah, and we obtained sheep and camels. The people hurried and boiled them in pots, so the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) came and ordered them to be overturned."(30).
__________
(28) Al-Bukhari (2004).
(29) Hamid, Theory of Maslaha, previous reference, .
(30) Al-Bukhari, previous reference, hadith number (2507).


[Page 33]

This is rejected because it is known from the Sharia (Islamic law) that one of its objectives is to "remove hardship" (raf' al-harj), and there is hardship in destroying the meat and broth. Thus, they hastened to condemn this as irrational in their view.
However, al-Nawawi said, "Know that what is commanded regarding the spilling of pots is merely the destruction of the broth itself as a punishment for them, whereas the meat itself was not destroyed; rather, it is assumed that it was collected and returned to the spoils, and it should not be thought that it was commanded to be destroyed because it belongs to the spoils, and it is prohibited to waste wealth..." And if it is said, why is it not reported that they carried the meat to the spoils, we say it is also not reported that they burned it or destroyed it, and if there is no explicit transmission regarding it, then it must be interpreted in accordance with the legal principles) (31).
The evidence of those who advocate for rational good and evil, whether they consider them to be dependent on revelation or not, and the response to them:
1- If we look at actions, we find in them qualities that the mind may perceive as good or evil... Among them is justice, which is a good act... and among them is oppression, which is an evil act.
(Response) The meaning of justice is to judge by the truth(32), and the essence of oppression is placing something in an inappropriate place(33).
If that is the case, then the truth is what Allah, Exalted is He, judges, as He says: "And Allah judges with truth"(34).
__________
(31) Al-Nawawi (Yahya ibn Sharaf), al-Minhaj Sharh Sahih Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, 2nd ed., 1392 AH, vol. 13, p. 126.
(32) Al-Farahidi (Khalil ibn Ahmad ibn Amr), Kitab al-Ayn, Dar al-Hilal, no edition, no date, vol. 2, p. 38.
(33) Al-Azdi (Muhammad al-Hasan ibn Durayd), Jumharat al-Lughah, Dar al-Ilm lil-Malayin, Beirut, 1st ed., 1987 CE, vol. 2, p. 934.
(34) Surah Ghafir: verse 20.


[Page 34]

The place where a thing must be placed is defined by Allah, Exalted is He; if it is placed in a different location, this is called oppression (zulm).
And we ask them about usury (riba): is it from justice or from oppression? If they say it is from oppression in reason, I say: usury was permissible in the early days of Islam, and the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) dealt with it for a period of time, and it was lawful for them. Was this ruling before its prohibition just or oppressive? If they say it was just, they are correct, and its being just is only due to Allah, Exalted is He, permitting it. If they say it was oppressive, then how could Allah, Exalted is He, and His Messenger approve of oppression? They ask the same question about drinking alcohol, temporary marriage (mut'a), and marrying more than four wives, but the researcher will try to limit himself to the aspect of financial transactions related only to the economic side.
The polytheists objected to their Lord with such objections; they wanted to permit an increase in money in exchange for a delay, as this is something that reason does not deny. So when they sold something and the debt of the buyer became due, the creditor would say to the debtor: "Extend the term for me, and I will increase your money." It was said to them when they did that: "This is usury and is not permissible." When they were told that, they said: "It is the same for us whether we increase at the beginning of the sale or at the time of payment."(35) They then made their famous statement: "Indeed, trade is just like usury." The two are indistinguishable in reason, but Allah responded to them by saying: "And Allah has permitted trade and prohibited usury."(36)
__________
(35) Al-Tabari (Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Yazid), Jami' al-bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an, Dar al-Risalah, 1st ed., 1420 AH 2000 CE, vol. 6, pp. 12, 13.
(36) Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 275.


[Page 35]

Al-Tabari said, "Allah, Exalted is He, said: 'The increase from the aspect of sale is not like the increase from the aspect of usury (riba), for I have made lawful sale and made usury unlawful. The command is Mine, and the creation is Mine. I decree in both as I wish and enslave them as I desire. No one among them has the right to object to My judgment or to oppose My command; rather, they must obey Me and submit to My decree.'"(37)
And they ask about the difference between someone who lends another one dinar for a month— is this permissible? From their statement, this is permissible. And they ask about someone who sells another one dinar for a month— from their statement, this is usurious delay (riba nasi'a) due to the hadith "Gold for gold must be exchanged hand to hand, equal for equal, and the same for the same."(38) It is said to them, what is the difference in reason between the two? If they say there is no difference, they acknowledge that the judgment belongs to Allah, Exalted is He, for He has ruled that the first is an act of goodness and kindness, while He has ruled that the second is prohibited usury, cursed is its consumer, and it is ugly. The two issues are very similar, but Allah does as He wills and is not questioned about what He does, and we have no choice but to submit.
Thus, there is no general principle governing the actions of Allah, Exalted is He, such that He must apply it in every branch of the Sharia and refer to the explicit and authentic texts, and all praise is due to Allah.
2- From their statement, the legislator described some actions as good before permitting them and described others as bad before forbidding them. Among this is His saying, Exalted is He: {And when they commit an immorality, they say, 'We found our forefathers doing it, and Allah has commanded us to do it.' Say, 'Indeed, Allah does not command immorality. Do you say about Allah that which you do not know?'}(39) They said: He does not command them with what is immoral in reason.
__________
(37) The previous reference, vol. 6, p. 12.
(38) The previous reference, the same hadith.
(39) Surah Al-A'raf: verse 28.


[Page 36]

And fasting, if it were only known to be a grave sin by the prohibition, would imply that the meaning of the statement is that Allah does not command what He forbids, and the grave sin here is their circumambulating the House naked"(40).
(Reply) First, it is not established that the intended meaning is the circumambulation of the House naked. Al-Baghawi said, "Ibn Abbas and Mujahid said: It is their circumambulation of the House naked, and 'Ata said: It is polytheism"(41). Al-Baydawi said, "And if they commit a grave sin: it is an act that is extreme in its ugliness, like idol worship and exposing one's nakedness during circumambulation"(42). They were prohibited from polytheism because they had been addressed about it since the religion of Ibrahim (peace be upon him), and Allah has ruled it to be a grave sin. Even if that were the intended meaning, what prevents Allah, Exalted is He, from ruling certain things to be sinful and then not commanding them? The meaning would be that Allah does not command what He has decreed to be sinful. They ask here about the ruling of one who marries his sister: is it a grave sin or not? If they say yes, it can be said: That was permissible in the Sharia of Adam (peace be upon him) and was not a grave sin at that time, but it has become a grave sin in our Sharia. Allah rules as He wills, and may Allah grant success.
3- They cited the saying of Allah, Exalted is He: “He commands them with what is good and forbids them from what is evil”(43), and the saying of Allah, Exalted is He: “And He makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil things”(44). This group went on to say that what is good was known through reason before Allah commanded it, and likewise, what is evil was known to be evil before Allah forbade it.
__________
(40) Rabi'a (Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah), Knowledge of the Objectives of the Sharia, previous reference,
(41) Al-Baghawi (Al-Husayn bin Mas'ud bin Muhammad), Ma'alim al-Tanzil in the Interpretation of the Qur'an, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, 1st ed., 1420 AH, vol. 2, p. 186.
(42) Al-Baydawi (Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Tawil), Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, no edition, 1418 AH, vol. 3, p. 15.
(43) Surah Al-A'raf, verse 157.
(44) Surah Al-A'raf, verse 157.


[Page 37]

Likewise, the good things were known before their permissibility, and similarly the bad things. Ibn Taymiyyah says, "It has been established by the address and the wisdom derived from the laws three types: the first is that the action may involve a benefit or harm, even if the Sharia did not intend it. For example, it is known that justice involves the benefit of the world, while oppression involves its corruption. This type is good and bad, and it can be known by reason and the Sharia that such actions are bad; however, this does not attribute a quality to the action that was not there before. But it does not follow from the existence of this badness that its doer will be punished in the Hereafter if the Sharia did not intend that. This is something that the extremists among those who claim the existence of good and evil have erred in, for they said that people are punished for their bad actions even if no messenger was sent to them. This contradicts the text, as Allah, Exalted is He, says, "And We would not punish until We sent a messenger" { وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا } (45), and He, Exalted is He, says, "Messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners, so that there will be no excuse for the people against Allah after the messengers" { رُسُلاً مُّبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنذِرِينَ لِئَلاَّ يَكُونَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَى اللَّهِ حُجَّةٌ بَعْدَ الرُّسُلِ } (46).
The second type is that when the legislator commands something, it becomes good, and when he forbids something, it becomes bad, and the action acquires the quality of goodness and badness through the address of the Sharia.
The third type is that the legislator commands something to test the servant whether he obeys or disobeys, and the intended purpose is not the action commanded, as when Ibrahim was commanded to sacrifice his son. When they both submitted and he laid him down on his forehead, the intended purpose was achieved, and he was ransomed with a sacrifice. Thus, the wisdom arises from the command itself, not from the commanded action. This type and the previous one are not understood by the Mu'tazila, who claimed that goodness and badness can only exist in what is characterized by them without the command of the legislator. The Ash'ariyyah claimed that all
__________
(45) Surah Al-Isra, verse 15.
(46) Surah Al-Qasas, verse 59.


[Page 38]

Legislation is part of the examination, for actions do not have a characteristic either before the law or by the law. As for the philosophers and the majority, they have established the three categories, which is correct"(47).
From the previous words of Ibn Taymiyyah, it becomes clear from the second section that there are actions that acquire the name of goodness (hasan) by being commanded, and thus they contain benefit (maslaha), whether worldly or otherworldly. And there are actions that acquire the name of evil (qabih) from God's prohibition, and thus their performance is the evil, and consequently, they contain corruption (mafsada). The apparent meaning of his words
- May Allah have mercy on him - that it acquires this even if people think otherwise. This is clearly illustrated by his statement in his discussion on public interests (masalih mursala), where he said:
This is an important section that deserves attention, for it has caused great confusion in the religion. Many rulers, scholars, and worshippers have seen interests (masalih) and acted upon them based on this principle, and some of these may be prohibited in the Sharia (law) without their knowledge. They may also prioritize interests that contradict the texts, and many of them have neglected interests that must be considered according to the Sharia, believing that the Sharia did not address them, thus missing out on obligations and recommended acts or falling into prohibitions and disliked actions. It may be that the Sharia did address these matters, but they were unaware of it. The argument for the first position is that this is an interest, and the Sharia does not neglect interests; indeed, the Qur'an, the Sunnah (traditions), and consensus (ijma) have indicated their consideration. The argument for the second position is that this is a matter for which the Sharia has not provided a text or analogy. The assertion of unregulated interests (masalih mursala) establishes something in the religion that Allah has not permitted, and it resembles, in some respects, the issue of juristic preference (istihsan), rational improvement (tahsin), and opinion (ra'y), and so forth. Juristic preference seeks the good and the better, akin to extraction; it is the perception of something as good, just as the perception of something as bad is termed aversion (istiqbah). Goodness is the interest, so juristic preference and interest-seeking are closely related, and rational improvement is the claim that reason...
__________
(47) Majmu' al-Fatawa, previous reference, vol. 5, p. 43.


[Page 39]

The good is recognized, but there are differences between these, and the comprehensive statement is that the Sharia (Islamic law) never neglects any benefit (maslaha) at all. However, what the mind believes to be a benefit, even if the Sharia did not intend it, one of two things must be the case: either the Sharia indicated it in a way that this observer was unaware of, or it is not a benefit even if it is believed to be so, because the benefit is the advantage that is obtained or predominant. Many people often mistakenly think that something is beneficial in religion and worldly matters, while it may have a lesser benefit accompanied by harm, as Allah, Exalted is He, said about wine and gambling, “Say, ‘In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit.’” {Qur'an 2:219}. Much of what people have innovated in beliefs and actions, from the innovations of the people of rhetoric, the people of Sufism, the people of opinion, and the people of kingship, they have considered to be a benefit or a good that is correct and right, while it is not so. Indeed, many of those who have deviated from Islam, including Jews, Christians, polytheists, Sabians, and Magians, many of them think that what they hold in terms of beliefs, transactions, and acts of worship is a benefit for them in religion and worldly matters. Their efforts have gone astray in this worldly life while they think that they are doing well. {Qur'an 18:104}. Their evil deeds have been made to seem good to them. Thus, if a person sees as good what is actually bad, their approval or acceptance of it may fall into this category(48).
Therefore, he (may Allah have mercy on him) has brought closer the view of the majority of the Ahl al-Sunnah (People of the Sunnah) on this issue, and that the final reference is only to the Sharia, even if one thinks that the benefit is otherwise. This is what the researcher seeks to prove, and this refutes the claims of the Mu'tazila, al-Tufi, and the Malikis. However, Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned a third category: that of an action that appears to be harmful and ugly, and he exemplified it with the killing of the Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) of his obedient son Isma'il (peace be upon him). However, he said that this may have been...
__________
(48) Ibn Taymiyyah (Ahmad ibn Abdul Halim), Majmu' al-Rasa'il wa al-Masa'il, Arab Heritage Committee, vol. 5, pp. 23, 24.


[Page 40]

It is commanded as a test, and the intention is not to carry out the commanded action??? But here there is a pressing question: has the command not come, and we are certain that Allah does not command immorality? And Ibrahim (peace be upon him) and his son (peace be upon him), the noble prophets, did not say or ask, "Why, O Lord, have You done this?" as these people ask, nor did they say, "What is the wisdom?" and "What is the benefit?" nor did they claim that this contradicts the objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia) of preserving life, how could it be when it is a pure and virtuous soul? Here, the definitive objectives of the Sharia take precedence over the command of slaughter, rather they accepted the command with submission and compliance.
The question is: does this not indicate that they understood that this command, despite its apparent ugliness to limited intellect, is indeed the truth, justice, and goodness when commanded by Allah? And if the threefold division mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah is correct, then why should many of the established rulings of the Sharia based on the Book and the Sunnah not belong to this third category, which is intended merely as a test for the servants, while we are unaware that it is so? As for Ibn Taymiyyah's statement that the commanded action is not intended, it is refuted by His saying, Exalted is He: “And if We had decreed upon them, ‘Kill yourselves’ or ‘Leave your homes,’ they would not have done it, except for a few of them. But if they had done what they were instructed, it would have been better for them and a firmer position”(49). Al-Tabari said: "If we were to suppose that those who claim to have believed in what has been revealed to you and are judging by the tyrant were commanded to kill themselves or to emigrate from their homes to another land (they did not do it), meaning: they did not kill themselves with their own hands nor did they emigrate from their homes"(50). “And if they had done what they were instructed” by following the Sharia and submitting to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), it would have been better for them in this world and the Hereafter and a firmer support for them in adhering to the truth(51).
__________
(49) Surah An-Nisa, verse 66
(50) Tafsir al-Tabari, previous reference, vol. 8, p. 525.
(51) Al-Shawkani (Muhammad ibn Ali), Fath al-Qadir, Dar Ibn Kathir - Dar al-Ilm al-Tayyib, Damascus, Beirut, 1st ed., 1414 AH, vol. 1, p. 560.


[Page 41]

In these verses, there is evidence that the very command to kill themselves is intended, and this, according to those who advocate for the objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia), contradicts the definitive objective of preserving life. However, Allah condemned them for not complying with the command and for viewing it as repugnant. Al-Qurtubi reported that Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "If this were written, I would have begun with myself and my family"(52). Thus, the intention behind Allah's command is not understood at all; is it a test, or is it rational for us? Even according to the opinion of the majority, based on that, there must be compliance in all circumstances, and may Allah grant success.
The destruction of the issue of rational preference (istihsan)
Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "If you dispute over something, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and a more favorable conclusion" (53). He did not say, "Refer it to what you find preferable." It is impossible for the truth to lie in what we find preferable without evidence, for if that were the case, Allah would be commanding us to do what we cannot bear, and the truths would be nullified, the proofs would contradict each other, and the arguments would oppose one another. Allah would be commanding us to differ, which is impossible, for it is not permissible at all for all scholars to agree on one opinion while differing in their aspirations, natures, and interests. We find that the Hanafis have preferred what the Malikis have deemed reprehensible, and we find that the Malikis have preferred an opinion that the Hanafis have deemed reprehensible. Thus, it is invalid for the truth in the religion of Allah, the Exalted, to be referred to the preferences of some people. They have argued for preference with a saying that circulates on their tongues, which is: "What he saw."
__________
(52) Al-Qurtubi (Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abu Bakr), Ahkam al-Qur'an, Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, Cairo, 2nd ed., 1384 AH, 1964 CE, vol. 5, p. 70.
(53) Surah An-Nisa: 59.


[Page 42]

Muslims have said, "What some of them see as good is good" (54), and we do not know of this being attributed to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) from any source at all. If this had come from a correct source, they would have no basis for it, because it would only establish the consensus of the Muslims, as it does not say, "What some Muslims see as good is good," but rather, "What Muslims see"—this is the consensus that cannot be contradicted. Then they are asked, what do you mean by your statement of istihsan (juridical preference) in this matter? Their answer to this is one of two responses: one is what they were upon in the time close to Abu Hanifa and Malik, which they see as more cautious, or lighter, or closer to custom and tradition, or further from disgrace. All of this, in general, returns to what their souls find pleasing, and this is invalidated by His saying, "And as for he who fears the position of his Lord and prohibits the soul from [following] desire, then indeed, Paradise will be [his] refuge" (55). "Indeed, the soul is ever inclined to evil, except those upon which my Lord has mercy" (56). "So if they do not respond to you, then know that they are only following their desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah?" (57). This verse refutes the idea that anyone should follow what they find pleasing without evidence(58).
He says, "That reason does not necessitate anything nor does it deem anything good or bad, and the proof of this is that all people of reason, except for a few, are followers of laws, and the laws have come with killing, taking property, striking a person, and slaughtering animals. Never have the people of reason said that these laws contradict what is in reason, and only the least of people have claimed that."
__________
(54)
(55) An-Nazi'at: 40
(56) Yusuf: 53
(57) Al-Qasas: 50
(58) Ibn Hazm (Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Sa'id), Dar al-Afaq al-Jadida, Beirut, no date, vol. 6, pp. 16-19.


[Page 43]

His intellect is a measure against the intellect of others, and if this were a requirement for intellects, all people of intellect would possess it, as they say they are equal, equal. Thus, it is established that their claim regarding intellects is false in the realm of good and evil in general(59).
There is no doubt that the first sin that occurred after the creation of Adam was rooted in an intellectual repulsion. This is because when Iblis was commanded to prostrate to Adam (peace be upon him), he found that command repugnant. Ibn Kathir says, "And Iblis (may Allah curse him) said, 'I am better than him' (60), which is an excuse that is greater than the sin, as if he refrained from obedience because the superior should not be commanded to prostrate to the inferior. He means (may Allah curse him): 'I am better than him, so how can You command me to prostrate to him?' Then he clarified that he was better than him because he was created from fire, and fire is more noble than what You created him from, which is clay. The accursed one looked at the origin of the element and did not consider the honor and exaltation, which is that Allah, Exalted is He, created Adam with His own hand and breathed into him from His spirit. He made a faulty analogy in opposition to the explicit text of His saying, 'So prostrate to Adam' (61) (62). This repulsion led Iblis to prioritize the analogy he ruled over Allah, Exalted is He, believing it did not contradict the explicit text, and Allah is the One whose help is sought.
Abu Muhammad said, "Muslims have known that Allah, Exalted is He, is just and does not oppress or wrong. Whoever describes Him, Exalted is He, with oppression and wrongdoing is a disbeliever. However, this is not as the ignorant think, that their intellects judge Allah, Exalted is He, in that He should only do what their intellects deem good and that He should be deemed to do what their intellects deem evil. This is merely likening Allah, Exalted is He, to His creation. The truth is that everything Allah, Exalted is He, does, whatever it may be, is from Him, Exalted is He.
__________
(59) Ibn Hazm (Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Sa'id), Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa' wa al-Nahl, Al-Khanji Library, Cairo, undated, vol. 5, p. 80.
(60) Surah Al-A'raf: 12.
(61) Surah Al-Hijr: 29.
(62) The appropriate description of the ruling Sharia, previous reference, p. 36.


[Page 44]

Truth, justice, and wisdom, even if some of that from us is injustice and folly. And everything that Allah, Exalted is He, did not do is injustice, falsehood, futility, and disparity. You all acknowledge that Allah, Exalted is He, has always been One, without any creation alongside Him, nor anything existing, neither body, nor accident, nor essence; there is neither intellect nor intelligible, nor folly nor anything else. Then you have acknowledged without disagreement among you that He created souls and brought them into existence after they did not exist, and He created intellects and instilled them in the souls after intellects did not exist at all. Therefore (63)(*), it is necessary that you do not impose upon the Creator, Exalted is He, a judgment that is obligatory upon Him due to some of His creation. If they say that the ugly has always been ugly in the knowledge of Allah, Exalted is He, and the good has always been good in His knowledge, we say to them: Suppose this is as you say, then you have two invalid judgments regarding your corrupt statement. One is that you have made the judgment in that matter based on the intelligible, not based on what preceded in the knowledge of Allah, Exalted is He. Thus, you have not made the prohibition of doing what is ugly in your view except because the intellects deem it ugly. Then, "what is your evidence for this? Perhaps He, Exalted is He, has always known that a matter is good for a period of time, then He deems it ugly, and it becomes ugly when He deems it so, not before that, as He has done with all the abrogated religions.
And we also say to them: Inform us, who has made good good in the intellects and who has made ugly ugly in the intellects? If they say: Allah, Exalted is He, we say to them: Was Allah, Exalted is He, able to reverse that order, so that He arranges it contrary to how He arranged it, making the ugly good and the good ugly? If they say yes, they must affirm that nothing became ugly except after Allah, Exalted is He, judged it to be ugly, and nothing became good except after Allah, Exalted is He, judged it to be good. And if they say no, they have incapacitated their Lord. Or it may be that He, Exalted is He, has made that obligatory upon Himself after He was not always obligated to it. If one says this, it is said to him: Then He was not obligated to it until He made it obligatory. Thus, it is as such.
__________
(63) (*) Missing from the original.


[Page 45]

It was permissible for him to do all that he mentioned he obligated upon himself, and if he obligated that upon himself after it was not obligatory upon him, it is possible for him to lift that obligation from himself. Thus, the invalidity of what they interpret regarding the saying of Allah, Exalted is He, {and it was a right upon Us to aid the believers} (64) and His saying {He has decreed upon Himself mercy} (65) becomes apparent. All of this is merely that Allah, Exalted is He, decreed it and made it a necessity, and since it is a right, that obligation is from Him, not upon Him. Therefore, I replaced (min) with (ala), and prepositions can be exchanged for one another. (66)
The types of ugliness they mentioned and the response to them:
"They said: And it is always ugly to do to others what you do not want done to yourself, and to impose what cannot be borne and then punish for it. Abu Muhammad said: These deluded ones, when they brought forth this foolishness, thought they had made a profound point, while in reality, they have babbled and wasted their words. This is a clear error, and some of this type is ugly because Allah, Exalted is He, deemed it ugly, and some of it is good because Allah, Exalted is He, deemed it good. It is astonishing that they boast in their claim that favoritism among us is injustice, and we do not know in which law or in which reason they found that favoritism is injustice, while Allah, Exalted is He, has permitted it except where He wills. This is because a man may marry two, three, or four wives, and this is permissible and good for him... whereas it is not permissible for a woman to marry more than one nor to have a slave. This is good from Him, and we know by necessity that in their hearts there is jealousy just as in our hearts. Likewise, we find that Allah, Exalted is He, has given the eldest son two shares of the inheritance even if he is wealthy and self-sufficient, while He has given the daughter one share even if she is young and poor. Thus, the claim of the Mu'tazila is invalid, and it is established that Allah, Exalted is He, shows favoritism."
__________
(64) Surah Ar-Rum: 47.
(65) Surah Al-An'am: 53.
(66) Ibn Hazm (Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Sa'id), Al-Fasl fi Al-Milal wal-Ahwa' wal-Nihal, Al-Khanji Library, Cairo, no date, vol. 3, p. 8059.


[Page 46]

Whoever He wills, He allows, and whoever He wills, He prevents; and this is justice. As for imposing what is beyond one's capacity and punishing for it, this is deemed reprehensible among us only because Allah, Exalted is He, has prohibited that for us(67).
What Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) held is supported by what Imam Ahmad narrated from Mujahid, who said: I entered upon Ibn Abbas and said, "O Abu Abbas, I was with Ibn Umar and he recited this verse and wept." I asked, "Which verse?" He said, "And if you disclose what is in yourselves or conceal it, Allah will bring you to account for it"(68). Ibn Abbas said: When this verse was revealed, it greatly distressed the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and caused them intense anger. They said, "O Messenger of Allah, we are doomed, for if we are held accountable for what we say and what we do, as for our hearts, they are not in our control." The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to them, "Say, 'We hear and we obey.'" He said: Then this verse abrogated it: "The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers"(69), up to "Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear; it will have [the consequence of] what [good] it has gained, and it will bear [the consequence of] what [evil] it has earned." Thus, they were excused for their inner thoughts and acted upon their deeds"(70).
In the hadith, the obligation of what cannot be borne, which is the essence of what is deemed reprehensible by these individuals, was not met with the response of the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) saying, "We heard and disobeyed," but rather they said, "We heard and obeyed," even if the obligation contradicted what they believed to be the dictates of reason. This hadith refutes every argument made by those who prioritize public interest (maslaha) over textual evidence and judge by their intellect on
__________
(67) The previous source, vol. 3, p. 61.
(68) Surah Al-Baqarah: 284.
(69) Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 285.
(70) Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Al-Musnad, Dar Al-Risalah, 1st ed., 1421 AH - 2001 CE, hadith no. (3070), its verifier stated that its chain is authentic according to the conditions of the two shaykhs.


[Page 47]

Texts of the Sharia.
"And some of the Mu'tazila said that it is always reprehensible and prohibited, and it is indeed a form of disbelief in the favor of the Benefactor and disobedience to the father. Abu Muhammad said: This is the height of error, for the rational person, when he reflects, knows with certainty that there is no benefactor except Allah alone, without partner. It is not obligatory to thank a benefactor unless Allah, Exalted is He, makes it obligatory. A small child may suckle from a goat, yet he does not owe any right to it because Allah, Exalted is He, did not make it for him but made it for the parents, even if they are disbelievers or insane, and they did not take care of our upbringing but were preoccupied with their own pleasures. Here, there is only the command of Allah, Exalted is He. Another proof is that if a man has intercourse with a woman, knowing that it is prohibited or not knowing, yet he is someone from whom a child cannot be attributed due to the sperm that comes from that act, then his rights do not apply to that child at all. There is no difference in reason, and in birth, the fetus is born from the sperm of the one who has intercourse with its mother, whether it is from our legitimate children or from children born out of wedlock."(71)
"And some of them said that lying is reprehensible in every case. Abu Muhammad said: This is like the first case, and they have all agreed with us on the invalidity of this statement and on the permissibility of lying in five situations, as Allah, Exalted is He, has made it permissible. This includes a Muslim who is hiding from a tyrannical imam who is oppressing him and seeking him. If that tyrant asks the one who is hiding about the one he is seeking... there is no disagreement among any of the Muslims that if he tells the truth and guides him to his location and his wealth, he is disobedient to Allah, the Almighty, and a wicked oppressor, committing a reprehensible act. But if he lies and says, 'I do not know his location or the location of his wealth,' then he is rewarded and is doing good."
Then Ibn Hazm referred to the hadith of Umm Kulthum bint 'Uqba, who said: "I did not hear the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) permit anything of lying except in three cases, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would say, 'I do not consider him a liar.'"
__________
(71) Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, the previous reference, vol. 3, p. 62.


[Page 48]

"The man reconciles between people, speaks the truth, and intends nothing but what is best; and the man speaks in war, and the traveler speaks to his wife, and the woman speaks to her husband"(72).
"And some have said: Oppression is ugly. Abu Muhammad said, 'This is like the first, and we ask them what the meaning of oppression is, and they can only say that it is killing people, taking their wealth, harming them, killing oneself, or disfiguring oneself, or permitting others to marry one's relatives. None of this is ugly in itself. Indeed, Allah, Exalted is He, has permitted taking the wealth of a people in Khurasan because of a cousin who mistakenly killed a man in Andalusia. We find that He, Exalted is He, has permitted the blood of one who commits adultery while being married, even if he has never had relations with any woman except for an old, ugly wife, whom he had relations with once before she died, and he finds no means to marry or take a concubine while he is a young man in need of women. And He has prohibited the blood of an old man who committed adultery, even though he has a hundred beautiful maidens like stars, but he has never had a wife. As for a man killing himself, Allah, Exalted is He, has made it good for a person to expose himself to being killed in His cause, and the shock of the crowds that he is certain will kill him in that act. And He, Exalted is He, commanded those before us to kill themselves, as He said: {So turn to your Creator and kill yourselves} (73). As for disfiguring oneself, circumcision, entering into the state of ihram, bowing, and prostrating, if it were not for Allah, Exalted is He, commanding this and beautifying it, it would have no meaning"(74).
He said regarding marriage: "As for witnessing a man marrying their daughters to men, then the man among them divorces the woman, then another man, and so on as much as they can. Likewise, if he dies, what difference is there in minds between permitting relations with her by the word...
__________
(72) Abu Dawood (Sulaiman ibn al-Ash'ath al-Sijistani), Sunan Abu Dawood, Al-Maktabah Al-Asriyah, Sidon, Beirut, Hadith No. (4921), authenticated by Al-Albani: Sahih.
(73) Surah Al-Baqarah: 54.
(74) Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa' wa al-Nahl, previous reference, vol. 3, pp. 203-204.


[Page 49]

“(I have married you or I have given you in marriage)” and the prohibition of consummating the marriage by referring to it with the phrase “then consummate the marriage”(75).
From the above, it is clear that He, Exalted is He, decrees what He wills, and that He has not left the matter to the whims of humans or what they find pleasing. Thus, the statement of those who claim that the purpose of Allah, Exalted is He, is what His servants see as beneficial is invalid, and the claim that what the servants see as beneficial takes precedence over the established texts from the Book and the Sunnah is also invalid. It is evident that they have not provided any evidence for their claim, and that all evidence returns the judgment to Allah alone, who said, “And Allah knows, while you do not know”(76). Therefore, it is established that anyone who says, “I know what is beneficial” is a liar, and may Allah grant success.
The evidence of al-Tufi regarding his view of prioritizing benefit over text and consensus
It has been established that al-Tufi believes that benefit (maslaha) is an independent legal proof separate from the legal texts. In his view, it does not require a foundational testimony for its consideration but rather relies on rational judgment derived from customs and experiences.
Al-Tufi states, “It should not be said that the Sharia is more knowledgeable of their interests, so take from its evidence, for this is only said in acts of worship that conceal their benefits from the workings of minds and customs. However, the benefit of governing the obligated individuals in their rights is known to them by virtue of custom and reason. Therefore, if we see that the evidence of the Sharia is deficient in providing it, we know that we have referred to its attainment for its guardianship”(77).
From here, the difference between al-Tufi and the third path, which is that of the Malikis, who consider benefit, becomes evident.
__________
(75) Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahway wa al-Nahl, previous reference, vol. 3, pp. 203-204.
(76) Al-Baqarah: 216.
(77) Al-Shanqiti (Ahmad ibn Mahmoud ibn Abdul Wahab), The Appropriate Description of the Law of Governance, Islamic University, Medina, 1st ed., 1415 AH, pp. 349-350.


[Page 50]

A definitive legal proof (dalil shar'i qati) rejects the presumptive texts for its sake, because those who assert this have stated that they are not considered unless supported by the texts of the Sharia in general, due to their compatibility with the actions of the Sharia overall.
As for al-Tufi, he said that if public interest (maslaha) contradicts the text and consensus, it is necessary to prioritize the preservation of public interest over them, even if the Sharia has not testified to the nature of this public interest, by specifying the public interest to the text and consensus and clarifying it for them, not by encroaching upon them or nullifying them(78).
Given the seriousness of this opinion and its current spread among the proponents of the liberal and secular currents, and their intention to challenge the rulings of Islamic law and ultimately revert them to what their minds find preferable while rejecting what they do not find preferable, and unfortunately seeking assistance from some who claim to belong to Islamic scholarship, the researcher wished to pause at this point and refute their arguments, and there is no power and no strength except with Allah.
__________
(78) The previous reference, vol. 1, p. 350.


[Page 51]

Section Two

Evidence of Those Who Advocate for the Objective of Public Interest (Maslaha) and Its Refutation

Introduction


[Page 52]

I attempt in this section to shed light on the evidence of those who claim that Allah, Exalted is He, intends through legislation what a person believes to be in their interest, and to refute it, with Allah's help, and to clarify its flaws.
Evidence of those who advocate for the objective of public interest (maslaha) and the response to it:
First: "Indeed, Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has provided us with a way to know our interests by custom, so we should not abandon it for an ambiguous matter (meaning the legal texts) that may or may not lead to an interest, and it cannot be said that the Sharia is more knowledgeable of their interests, so it should be derived from its evidence... because this is only said regarding acts of worship that conceal their interests from the workings of minds and customs, whereas the interest of the governance of the obligated in their rights is known to them by virtue of customs and reason"(79).
(Response) Allah, Exalted is He, has not provided us with a way to know our interests except through Him, and this is supported by the following evidence:
1- Allah, Exalted is He, says: {And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah}(80).
2- And He says: {And if the truth had followed their desires, the heavens and the earth and whoever is in them would have been corrupted}(81).
3- And He says: {Have you seen the one who has taken as his god his desire? Then would you be responsible for him?}(82).
4- And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) reports from his Lord, Exalted is He: {O My servants, all of you are astray except for whom I have guided.}
__________
(79) The previous source, vol. 1, p. 349, 390.
(80) Surah Al-Qasas, verse 50.
(81) Surah Al-Mu'minun, verse 71.
(82) Surah Al-Furqan, verse 43.


[Page 53]

فاستهدوني أهدكم) (83).
So, I affirm misguidance in everything except through the guidance of Allah, Exalted is He, and there is no specification for that. I affirm that whoever follows their desires without guidance from Allah is the most misguided of the misguided, and that the truth is not followed by the desires of any person. These verses and hadith are general, and specifying them without a specification is an act of injustice and a diversion of these texts from their apparent meanings. Every opponent of the truth is pleased with their knowledge and intellect; if the truth were left to the whims of these people, the religion would be lost and obliterated. Allah, Exalted is He, says, “So when their messengers came to them with clear proofs, they rejoiced in what they had of knowledge, and there engulfed them what they used to ridicule” { فَلَمَّا جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُهُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ فَرِحُوا بِمَا عِنْدَهُم مِّنَ العِلْمِ وَحَاقَ بِهِم مَّا كَانُوا بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِئُونَ } (84). Al-Zamakhshari says, “Among them are those who refer to the knowledge of the philosophers and the materialists from the Greeks, who, when they heard of the revelation from Allah, rejected it and belittled the knowledge of the prophets. It is said that Socrates heard of Moses (peace and blessings be upon him) and was told, ‘If you were to migrate to him,’ he replied, ‘We are a refined people, so we have no need for someone to refine us’”(85).
This is the same statement of this group, but they limited it to transactions only, meaning al-Tufi and those who agreed with him, while the secularists and liberals extended it to everything. There is no power and no strength except with Allah.
Secondly: His (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, “There is no harm and no reciprocating harm”(86). Al-Albani said after mentioning the chains of this hadith, and among them is a chain that includes the anachronism of Ibn Ishaq, and a chain that he said is a sound mursal, “These are many chains for the hadith that exceed ten, and although the individual narrations are weak, many of them do not have severe weakness, so if
__________
(83) Sahih Muslim, previous reference, hadith number 2577.
(84) Surah Ghafir, verse 83.
(85) Al-Zamakhshari (Mahmoud bin Amr bin Ahmad), Al-Kashaf 'an Haqaiq Ghawamid al-Tanzil, Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, Beirut, 3rd ed., 1907, vol. 4, p. 182.
(86) Al-Albani (Muhammad Nasir al-Din), narrated by al-Khalil in the verification of the hadiths of Manar al-Sabil, Islamic Office, Beirut, 2nd ed., 1405 AH-1985 CE, vol. 3, p. 413.


[Page 54]

The combination of the two leads to the elevation of the hadith, and it ascends to the degree of authenticity, if Allah wills.
From this hadith, these individuals wanted to say that everything that involves hardship is harmful, and that every harm has been commanded by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to be removed, and thus every harm is contrary to public interest (maslaha). Therefore, every text that results in hardship and, consequently, harm must be removed based on this hadith.
(Reply to this): Not every harm and hardship that befalls a servant leads to the lifting of the obligation and the abandonment of the text. Al-Shatibi (may Allah be pleased with him) states: "The eleventh issue: where the hardship experienced by the obligated person is outside the usual hardships in ordinary actions, such that it leads to religious or worldly corruption, the aim of the legislator in this case is to lift it in general, and this is supported by the previous evidence. Therefore, concessions (rukhas) have been legislated in this regard without restriction. However, if it is not outside the usual, but rather occurs in a manner similar to how hardship occurs in such ordinary actions, then although the legislator did not intend for it to occur, he also does not intend to lift it. The evidence for this is that if he intended to lift it, it would not be possible for the obligation to remain alongside it, because every ordinary or extraordinary action entails effort and obligation. If the Sharia necessitated the lifting of that effort, it would necessitate the lifting of the obligation itself, which is not correct; thus, what it entails is also incorrect"(87).
From this, it becomes clear that abandoning the text due to harm or hardship in this absolute manner is a rejection of the Sharia in general. And may Allah grant success. More explanation of this principle will come, if Allah wills, when discussing the issue of necessity.
Thirdly: Those who deny consensus (ijma) have said that the consideration of interests is a matter of agreement, while consensus is a matter of disagreement. Therefore, adhering to what has been agreed upon (which is the interest) is preferable to adhering to what has been disagreed upon (which is the consensus on the issue that...
__________
(87) Al-Shatibi (Ibrahim ibn Musa ibn Muhammad), Al-Muwafaqat, Dar Ibn Afan, first edition, 1417 AH/1997 CE, volume two, p. 269.


[Page 55]

The public interest (maslaha) contradicts his view(88).
(Reply) First: Whoever attributed to him the denial of consensus may mean: the denial of the possibility of achieving consensus due to difficulty, and even if it were to be achieved, it would be a proof. This is what Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) held, as he restricted consensus to what is known of the religion of Islam by necessity only, transmitted by continuous narration (tawatur)(89). Also, the established consensus of the Companions(90), and Ibn Hazm's view in denying the validity of istihsan (juridical preference) in religion has been previously mentioned, which is that the text should not be rejected for an opinion, preference, or the statement of anyone. This is one of the narrations from Imam Ahmad, who said: "Whoever claims consensus is a liar; perhaps people have disagreed"(91). No one has reported from Ahmad the statement attributed to al-Tufi.
Secondly: Whoever attributed to him the denial of the consensus, meaning its validity, even if it were established, may argue that the evidence could converge on misguidance according to the one who holds this opinion, which is al-Nizam(92).
As for al-Nizam, we do not know where al-Tufi got the idea that he speaks of upholding interests, as he had little faith in analogy (qiyas) and opinion (ra'y), and it is clear that upholding the public interest depends—first and foremost—on analogy and opinion, so how could he then advocate for it?
This statement from al-Tufi is contradictory, as he claims that consensus is a proof for establishing the public interest while knowing that there is no consensus, as previously mentioned, and then he made the public interest a proof for invalidating consensus on a specific issue if it contradicts.
__________
(88) See the appropriate description, previous reference, p. 352.
(89) See the rulings in the principles of rulings, previous reference, vol. 4, p. 142.
(90) Previous reference, vol. 4, p. 150.
(91) Previous reference, vol. 4, p. 188.
(92) He is Ibrahim ibn Yasar ibn Hani al-Basri, nicknamed al-Nizam, said to be due to the arrangement of his speech and also for his poetry. He was one of the leaders of the Mu'tazila, and his doctrine is a mixture of the views of the Mu'tazila, philosophers, and Manichaean Zoroastrians. He was born in 185 AH and died in 231 AH.


[Page 56]

The public interest (maslaha) from his perspective, thus he made consensus (ijma) a proof in establishing the root, but not a proof in establishing the branch, and there is no power and no strength except with Allah.
Fourth: He said: The texts are different and contradictory, and they are the cause of the blameworthy disagreement in rulings, while the consideration of public interests is a real matter in itself that does not differ.
(Response): If he means the contradiction in the origin of the texts, then it is refuted by the saying of Allah, Exalted is He, {And if it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction} (93). And if he means the apparent contradiction, this is a matter that occurs, and we have been commanded, in the presence of contradiction and disagreement, to refer back to the texts of the Book and the Sunnah, not to what each one sees as a public interest. Allah, Exalted is He, said {And whatever you disagree over, its ruling is to Allah} (94), and He said {And if you disagree in anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger} (95). Thus, referring to the one thing is what resolves the disagreement, not referring to whatever one of them thinks is a public interest; this, as we have previously quoted from Ibn Hazm, is the cause of disagreement(96).
Fifth: Al-Tufi used the following hadith as evidence for his point, from Aisha that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Did you not see that your people, when they built the Kaaba, limited themselves to the foundations of Ibrahim (peace be upon him)? I said, O Messenger of Allah, should you not return it to the foundations of Ibrahim (peace be upon him)? He said: If it were not for the recent disbelief of your people, I would have done it."(97) Agreed upon. He said: This indicates that building it on the foundations of Ibrahim is obligatory in its ruling, and leaving it is for the public interest(98).
__________
(93) Surah An-Nisa, verse 82.
(94) Surah Ash-Shura, verse 10.
(95) Surah An-Nisa, verse 59.
(96) See Al-Ahkam fi Usul Al-Ahkam, previous reference, vol. 6, pp. 16-19.
(97) Al-Nasa'i (Ahmad ibn Shu'ayb ibn Ali), Sunan Al-Sughra, Islamic Publications, Aleppo, 2nd ed., 1406-1986, hadith no. 2900.
(98) The appropriate description, previous reference.
(4) Al-Bukhari, Sahih, previous reference, hadith no. 1481.


[Page 57]

(Al-Radd): I do not understand what the benefit is for the people in raising the door of the Kaaba to prevent anyone from entering except for those they wish, while their benefit lies in having the door flush with the ground. Likewise, their benefit is in including the Hijr (the area of the stone) within the Kaaba so that there is no confusion during the Tawaf (circumambulation), making the Kaaba a single structure that includes the Hijr, instead of some people performing Tawaf from inside the Hijr, which invalidates their Tawaf. Thus, there is no benefit in maintaining the Kaaba as it is in the eyes of the people. In the hadith, Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: "I asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) about the wall of the House. He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why did they not include it in the House?' He said, 'Your people have limited resources.' I said, 'What about the door being raised?' He said, 'Your people did that to allow whom they wished to enter and to prevent whom they wished. If it were not for the fact that your people are recently out of ignorance, I would fear that their hearts would reject my including the wall in the House and my having its door flush with the ground.'" (4).
Secondly: No one has said or transmitted that the construction of the Kaaba on the foundations of Ibrahim was an obligatory matter, so we cannot say that here the obligation conflicts with the harm of people's denial, leading to the abandonment of the obligation due to this harm. Otherwise, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did many things that contradicted the customs of the people of ignorance during Hajj and Umrah, and he did not abandon them out of fear of people's denial. And there is no contradiction in the hadith between an obligation and a recommended act.
Among the matters that he (peace and blessings be upon him) did in opposition to what people might disapprove of is what al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: "They used to consider that performing Umrah (lesser pilgrimage) during the months of Hajj was a sinful act on earth, and they used to call Muharram Safar. Then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) arrived with his companions in a state of ihram for Hajj, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded them to perform it as Umrah." They said, "O Messenger of Allah, which is the area of permissibility?" He said, "All of it is permissible."(99).
__________
(99) Sahih al-Bukhari, previous reference, hadith number (3832).


[Page 58]

And among them is what al-Bukhari also narrated from Amr ibn Maimun, who said: "I witnessed Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) praying the Fajr (dawn) prayer in congregation, then he stood and said: 'The polytheists used to not pour out until the sun rises, and they would say, "Shine, Thubir." And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) opposed them and poured out before the sun rose'."(100)
Likewise, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) abandoned the desires of his people for the truth in his marriage to his son's wife, and Allah, Exalted is He, said to him: {And when you said to the one upon whom Allah had bestowed favor and you had bestowed favor, "Keep your wife and fear Allah," while you conceal within yourself that which Allah will make evident, and you fear the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him}(101). Thus, the fear of people does not prevent one from speaking the obligatory truth unless a greater corruption is feared than that corruption. And what indicates that this was not an obligatory matter is what Ibn Abd al-Barr narrated, that after Ibn al-Zubair rebuilt the Kaaba on the foundations of Ibrahim, al-Hajjaj demolished it and rebuilt it as it was in the days of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Then "Harun al-Rashid mentioned to Malik ibn Anas that he wanted to demolish what al-Hajjaj had built of the Kaaba and return it to the construction of Ibn al-Zubair, based on what was narrated about the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Ibn al-Zubair complied, and Malik said to him: 'I beseech you by Allah, O Commander of the Faithful, do not make this house a playground for kings; for if any of them wishes, he would demolish the house and rebuild it, and its reverence would vanish from the hearts'."(102)
If Malik had seen it as obligatory, he would not have left it. Thus, the evidence is not suitable for the inference of al-Tufi, and it is not permissible to abandon the obligatory except for necessity, as will come, if Allah wills, and necessity is to be measured by its extent, and the obligatory ruling is not to be abandoned for everything that people see as beneficial.
Secondly: That the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) leaving this action and affirming the house as it was is also a text, for his affirmation
__________
(100) The previous reference, hadith number (1664).
(101) Surah Al-Ahzab, verse: 37.
(102) Ibn Abd al-Barr (Yusuf ibn Abd Allah ibn Muhammad), Al-Istidhkar, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1st ed., 1421-2000, vol. 4, p. 188.


[Page 59]

He (peace and blessings be upon him) is a legislator, so opposing legislation with legislation – if it is correct to consider it opposition – is not the same as opposing legislation with public interest (maslaha). When the Sharia comes with a ruling to ease things for the people, we do not abandon the rulings and introduce new rulings to ease things for the people from ourselves, for we are not legislators. Indeed, all of Allah's legislation is ease and benefit, as He, Exalted is He, said {Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship}(103).
Sixth: They cited the approval of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of the Companions' (may Allah be pleased with them) disobedience to his command to pray in Banu Qurayza because some of them reached the time of 'Asr on the way, and they said: "Rather, we will pray, and that was not what was intended from us." He mentioned this to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he did not reprimand any of them(104). They said that here the Companions left the text for the sake of public interest, and this indicates the permissibility of deriving a partial objective and the permissibility of managing practical rulings in this derived objective even if it contradicts the apparent indication(105).
(Response): I do not know what interest they thought the Companions left the text for, as the hadith only indicates that they understood that he (peace and blessings be upon him) intended only to hasten and feared missing the time, so they prayed on the way. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "As for the disagreement among the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) regarding hastening the prayer at the time of Thaqif and delaying it, the reason is that the evidences of the Sharia conflicted for them, as prayer is commanded at its time, while the implication of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) statement that no one should pray the Dhuhr or 'Asr except in Banu Qurayza is that worship is to go to them and not to be preoccupied with anything else, and that delaying the prayer is not intended in itself as a delay. Some of the Companions took this implication considering the meaning rather than the wording, so they prayed when the time was missed.
__________
(103) Surah Al-Baqarah, verse: 185.
(104) Sahih Bukhari, previous reference, hadith number (946).
(105) See 'Awda (Jasir), A Maqasidi Introduction to Ijtihad, Open University Publications, undated, p. 53.


[Page 60]

And others took the apparent meaning and its reality"(106).
And the claim that he (peace and blessings be upon him) approved them is not found in the hadith at all; rather, it only indicates that he (peace and blessings be upon him) did not reprimand them, and refraining from reprimanding is one thing, while approval is another. The correct opinion is one, as is established, and one of them is correct without a doubt. The Prophet may have refrained from reprimanding, but he clarified the truth. Al-Nawawi says, "It can be inferred from this that every mujtahid (one who exerts effort in legal reasoning) is correct, and the other speaker can say: He did not explicitly state the correctness of both groups, but he refrained from reprimanding them, and there is no disagreement regarding the refraining from reprimanding a mujtahid even if he is mistaken, provided he exerted his utmost effort in ijtihad, and Allah knows best"(107). Thus, there is no evidence in the hadith for abandoning the text for the sake of public interest (maslaha), nor is there evidence of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) approval of that, and Allah knows best, and success is from Allah, the Exalted.
Seventh: They cited the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not kill Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul for the sake of public interest (maslaha) even though he was a disbeliever, which indicates the permissibility of abandoning the hadith for the sake of public interest.
(Response) It appears that Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul was a hypocrite inwardly, and he did not manifest his disbelief to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) with testimony from someone whose testimony is valid to establish the punishment against him. The hadith reported by Zaid ibn Arqam, where he said, "The honored among them will be expelled from the humiliated," is only established by the testimony of one person, which is not sufficient to establish the punishment for apostasy. If that is the case, we are commanded to apply the rulings based on the apparent, and Allah takes care of the secrets.
Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "And likewise his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, 'People should not say that Muhammad kills his companions.'"
__________
(106) Al-Nawawi (Yahya ibn Sharaf), Sharh Sahih Muslim, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, Lebanon, 2nd ed., 1392 AH, vol. 12, p. 98.
(107) Al-Nawawi, ibid, same page.


[Page 61]

A clear statement regarding the apparent wording, cut off on the absence of a correct inner meaning that Abdullah ibn Ubayy is among the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) by the apparentness of his Islam, and that he is among the Muslim companions who are subject to the rulings of Islam, and whose blood Allah, Exalted is He, has made sacred except by its due right? And we certainly know that if the blood of Ibn Ubayy had been lawful, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would not have favored him, and if it had been obligatory upon him, he would not have neglected it - peace be upon him? And whoever thinks that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would not kill someone whose killing was obligatory among his companions has indeed disbelieved, and his blood and wealth have become lawful, due to his false association with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and his opposition to Allah, Exalted is He. By Allah, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) has indeed killed his virtuous companions who were assured of faith and Paradise when their killing was obligatory, such as Ma'iz, the Ghamidiyya, and the Juhaniyya (may Allah be pleased with them). It is certainly false and a clear misguidance, and pure immorality - rather, it is outright disbelief - to believe or to think that a Muslim would believe that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would kill virtuous Muslims from the people of Paradise among his companions in the most heinous manner with stones, and that he would kill Al-Harith ibn Suwayd al-Ansari in retaliation against Al-Mujaddir ibn Khiyar al-Balawi with his knowledge - peace be upon him - without anyone knowing that, and the woman whom he commanded Unays to stone if she confessed. And for cutting off the hand of the woman from the Makhzum clan - and he says, "If Fatimah were to steal, I would cut off her hand." And by his saying - peace be upon him - "The Children of Israel were destroyed because when a weak person among them committed a crime, they would punish him, but when a noble person committed it, they would leave him." Then he himself - peace be upon him - does that, and he neglects the establishment of the obligatory right in killing the apostate who knows that he has just apostatized, then he is not satisfied with this until he prays for him and seeks forgiveness for him - while he knows that he is a disbeliever. And Allah, Exalted is He, has previously prohibited him from seeking forgiveness for the disbelievers. And we bear witness by the testimony of Allah, Exalted is He, that whoever adheres to this and believes it is indeed a disbeliever, a polytheist, an apostate, whose blood and wealth are lawful - we disassociate ourselves before Allah, Exalted is He, from him and from his allegiance - whoever thinks of him as a hypocrite without dispute, the matter is with those below him without exception.


[Page 62]

Doubt has been concealed - and the issue has arisen in these verses - and all praise is due to Allah. It has been confirmed that Abdullah ibn Ubayy, after he and those who assisted him in that act disbelieved, manifested repentance and Islam, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) accepted that from them, and he did not know their inner state regarding what they were upon in disbelief? Or regarding what they manifested of repentance? However, Allah, Exalted is He, is All-Knowing of that, and He is undoubtedly the One who will hold them accountable on the Day of Resurrection(108).
Seventh: They have argued based on the actions of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), and there is the issue of whether the statement of a Companion is a proof or not, which al-Razi summarized by saying, "The fourth issue, the truth is that the statement of a Companion is not a proof. Some have said it is a proof absolutely, and some have differentiated and mentioned various aspects: (one) it is a proof if it contradicts analogy. (Two) the statements of Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) are only a proof. (Three) the statements of the four caliphs are a proof. We have the text, consensus, and analogy. As for the text, it is His saying, Exalted is He, {So take heed, O people of insight} (Al-Hashr: 2). This contradicts the permissibility of imitation. As for the consensus, it is that the Companions unanimously agreed on the permissibility of contradicting any one of the individual Companions; Abu Bakr and Umar did not deny anyone who contradicted them, nor did either of them deny his companion in matters they disagreed upon. As for analogy, it is that he is capable of grasping the ruling in a way, so it is obligatory for him to refrain from imitation as in the principles"(109).
Al-Shawkani added to the evidence of those who deny the authority of the statement of a Companion, saying, "The truth is that it is not a proof, for Allah, the Exalted, did not send to this nation except our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and we have only one Messenger and one Book, and all this nation is commanded to follow His Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, and there is no distinction between the Companions and those who...
__________
(108) Ibn Hazm, al-Muhalla, previous reference,
(109) Al-Razi (Muhammad ibn Umar ibn al-Hasan), al-Mahsool, Dar al-Maktab al-Islami, 3rd ed., 1418 AH-1997 CE, vol. 6, p. 130.


[Page 63]

After them in this matter, whoever claims that the proof in the religion of Allah, Exalted is He, is established without the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and what refers back to them, has spoken about the religion of Allah with what has not been established, and has affirmed in this Sharia a ruling that Allah did not command, and this is a grave matter." This opinion has been attributed to the majority(110).
The opponents of this view have generally cited several evidences that suggest the validity of relying on the statement or action of a companion. Those who hold this opinion believe that the action of the companion here is to be followed in the specific issue that contradicts the apparent text because he informed of the intention of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding this apparent text(111). However, it is noteworthy that those who advocate for prioritizing public interest (maslaha) over the text believe that they first justify the action or statement of the companion by claiming that he did it solely for the sake of public interest, and no companion has ever stated or uttered that he contradicted the text in his action because he saw it as more beneficial for the people, or because what he deemed to be in the public interest contradicted the text. These individuals have deduced a rationale for the action or statement of the companion, and then they used this deduced rationale as evidence, applying it across all branches of Sharia. Glory be to my Lord, the Exalted, how can the statement and action of the companion, which the majority agree is not a proof, be used as evidence for something that is presumed to have been done for that reason? This is a presumption based on a presumption, and indeed, presumption does not avail against the truth at all.
Evidences of those who argue with the statements and actions of the companions:
First: What has been narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, "My companions are like the stars; whichever of them you follow, you will be guided." He said
__________
(110) Al-Shawkani (Muhammad ibn Ali), Irshad al-Fuhul ila Tahqiq al-Haqq min Ilm al-Usul, Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, 1st ed. 1319-1999, vol. 2, pp. 182-188.
(111) The same reference, vol. 1, p. 162.


[Page 64]

Ibn Hazm said, "As for the mentioned hadith, it is false and fabricated"(112). Al-Shawkani said, "This has never been established"(113). Al-Albani said, "It is fabricated"(114).
Secondly: What has been reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, "So adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs after me"(115)(*) narrated by Abu Dawood. Al-Albani said, and al-Tirmidhi said, "This is a good and authentic hadith," and al-‘Amrawi said, "This is among the best hadiths of the people of Sham," and al-Bazzar said, "This hadith is established and authentic," and al-Hakim said, "It is authentic and has no defect"(116).
(Response): First: A. The companions themselves did not understand from this hadith the obligation to follow the traditions of the four caliphs even if they contradicted the text. Al-Razi said, "They all agreed on the permissibility of opposing any one of the individual companions, for neither Abu Bakr nor Umar objected to those who opposed them, nor did either of them object to his companion in matters in which they disagreed"(117).
Thus, we say that whoever wishes to follow the Sunnah of the caliphs that they have all agreed upon should not object to those who oppose their Sunnah and method due to the emergence of the text that contradicts it for him. Moreover, the four are in agreement on prioritizing the text over the statement of any one of them, so following their Sunnah altogether means prioritizing the text over the statement of anyone among them, and this is evident from
__________
(112) Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, previous reference, vol. 5, p. 64.
(113) Irshad al-Fuhul, previous reference, vol. 2, p. 188.
(114) Al-Albani (Muhammad Nasir al-Din), Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da'ifa wa al-Mawdu'a wa Atharuha al-Sayi' fi al-Ummah, Dar al-Ma'arif, Riyadh, 1st ed., 1412 AH-1992 CE, vol. 1, p. 144.
(115) (*) Sunan Abu Dawood, previous reference, hadith number (4607).
(116) Al-Albani, Irwa al-Ghalil, previous reference, vol. 8, p. 108.
(117) Al-Razi, Al-Mahsool, previous reference, vol. 5, p. 130.


[Page 65]

The following examples.
1- The opposition of Abu Bakr to Umar regarding the text:
Narrated by Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) passed away and Abu Bakr succeeded him, and some of the Arabs became disbelievers, Umar said: "O Abu Bakr, how can you fight the people when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'I have been commanded to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah. So whoever says there is no god but Allah has protected his wealth and himself from me, except for his rights, and his reckoning is with Allah.'" Abu Bakr replied: "By Allah, I will fight those who differentiate between prayer and zakat, for zakat is the right of wealth"(118). Here, Umar opposed the caliph with the text and the caliph responded to him with an understanding of the text as well, even though his opposition was not permissible, and he prioritized his opinion over the text; otherwise, he would have denied him that. Thus, we learned that the practice of Abu Bakr is to prioritize the text over Umar's opinion.
2- The opposition of a woman to Umar regarding the text:
In the presence of the companions, and no one objected to her, not even Umar himself, when he prohibited excessive dowries, the woman opposed him with the verse (And if you have given one of them a qintar, do not take anything from it) (119)(120). If Umar did not see the opposition of his opinion to the text as permissible, he would have denied her, but instead, Umar accepted her statement. Thus, we learned that the practice of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is to prioritize the text over the opinion of the caliphs, of which he is one.
3- The opposition of Ali to Uthman regarding the text.
__________
(118) Al-Bukhari, op. cit., 1399.
(119) Surah An-Nisa, verse: 20.
(120) Al-Ghazali (Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Tusi), Al-Mustasfa, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyya, 1st ed., 1413 AH-1993 CE.


[Page 66]

Said ibn al-Musayyib said: "Ali and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) met at Asfan, and Uthman was forbidding temporary marriage (mut'a) or Umrah. Ali said, 'What do you want with something that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did and you are forbidding it?' Uthman replied, 'Leave me alone.' He said, 'I cannot leave you alone.' When Ali saw that, he called both of them to perform the pilgrimage."(121) Al-Qasim ibn Salam added, "Uthman said, 'Do you see me forbidding the people while you do it?' He replied, 'I would not abandon the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) for the statement of anyone among the people.'"(122) Thus, we learned that the Sunnah of Ali is to prioritize the text over the statement or action of the caliphs. Al-San'ani says, "The sixth: Among the evidence of the followers is the hadith, 'Upon you is my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs after me, Abu Bakr and Umar. Follow their guidance and hold fast to the covenant of Ibn Umm Abd.' The response is that following them means adhering to the Book and the Sunnah, accepting what is in them, calling to them, and prohibiting imitation, as nothing has been reported from them in this regard. It has been authentically reported from Ibn Mas'ud, who is Ibn Umm Abd, that he prohibited imitation and said, 'A man should not be an imitator without insight.' It is well known that none of them abandoned the Sunnah for the statement of any speaker. Furthermore, the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs and their method is to follow the Book and the Sunnah; thus, adhering to their Sunnah is following the prophetic Sunnah and the Qur'an."(123)
Thirdly: They said that the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) witnessed the revelation, so they are more knowledgeable about what they witnessed, and praise has come upon them.
(Response): Ibn Hazm said, "The obligation of praising them does not necessitate that they be imitated, as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned...
__________
(121) Muslim (Ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi), Sahih Muslim, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, no date, hadith number 1223.
(122) Al-Adawi (Abu Ubaid al-Qasim ibn Salam), Al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh fi al-Qur'an al-Aziz, Maktabat al-Rushd, Riyadh 1418 AH, hadith number (338).
(123) Al-San'ani (Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Salah), Irshad al-Nuqad ila Taysir al-Ijtihad, Dar al-Salafiya, Kuwait, 1st ed., 1405 AH, vol. 1, p. 166.


[Page 67]

He (peace and blessings be upon him) said that Abu Bakr and Umar are the best of their men after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and they erred as... Abdullah ibn al-Zubair informed them that a delegation from Banu Tamim came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and Abu Bakr said: "Appoint al-Qaqa' ibn Ma'bad ibn Zararah," while Umar said: "Rather, appoint al-Aqra' ibn Habis." Then this was revealed: {O you who have believed, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and do not speak loudly to him as you speak loudly to one another, lest your deeds become worthless while you perceive not}(124). Ibn al-Zubair said that thereafter, whenever Umar narrated a hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he would do so quietly. Abu Muhammad said: "Whoever errs, it is not permissible to accept his word without evidence that validates it. As for his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), 'Adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs,' we know that he (peace and blessings be upon him) does not command what cannot be done, and we find that the rightly guided caliphs after him (peace and blessings be upon him) differed greatly. Therefore, there must be one of three possibilities, with no fourth: either we take everything they disagreed upon, which is impossible and cannot be done, as it contains contradictions; thus, this option is invalid. Or it may be permissible for us to choose any of those matters, which is a departure from Islam because it would mean that the religion of Allah, Exalted is He, is left to our choice. Furthermore, if this were the case, then if we followed the opinion of one of them, we would have abandoned the opinion of the other, and that is inevitable. Thus, we would not be following their Sunnah, and we would have fallen into contradiction with the mentioned hadith. The only remaining option is to take what they unanimously agreed upon, and that is only what the other companions (may Allah be pleased with them) agreed upon in following the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and adhering to it. Moreover, when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded adherence to the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs, it necessarily implies one of two things: either he (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted them to establish practices other than his practices, which no Muslim would say. Whoever allows this has disbelieved and apostatized, and his blood and wealth become lawful, for the entire religion...
__________
(124) Surah Al-Hujurat: 2.


[Page 68]

It is either obligatory or non-obligatory, or it is either forbidden or permissible; there is no division in the religion other than these categories at all. Therefore, whoever permits that the rightly guided caliphs have a Sunnah (tradition) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not establish, or that they may introduce an obligation that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not impose, or that they may abolish an obligation that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) imposed and did not abolish until he died, then whoever allows any of these matters is a disbeliever (kafir) and a polytheist (mushrik) by the consensus of the ummah without disagreement. And with Allah's help, this matter has been invalidated, and all praise is due to Him. Alternatively, it may be that he intended by following them to emulate his Sunnah (tradition) (peace and blessings be upon him). Thus, we say that this hadith does not admit of any interpretation other than this at all. And it is said to them in their argument by what has been narrated regarding adhering to the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs that this is an evidence against you because the Sunnah of all the rightly guided caliphs, without disagreement, is that they should not imitate anyone and that they should not imitate one another, and that they should seek the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) wherever they find it and turn to it and act upon it(125).
Fourth: They argued with the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), "Follow those after me, Abu Bakr and Umar"(126). The response to this is the same as the response to the previous argument.
Fifth: They cited the hadith, "Indeed, Allah placed the truth on the tongue and heart of Umar"(127). "He speaks it."
(Response): The answer to this hadith is that the intended meaning of the truth here is the truth known to the listeners at that time regarding a specific past matter, as indicated by the use of the past tense in the hadith. The meaning is that Allah placed the truth in
__________
(125) Ibn Hazm, Al-Ahkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, previous reference, vol. 6, p. 79.
(126) Al-Albani (Muhammad Nasir al-Din), Sahih al-Jami al-Saghir wa Ziyadatih, Islamic Books, undated, hadith no. (1142), and the hadith was narrated by al-Tirmidhi (3662) and Ahmad (23245).
(127) Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (3682) and Ahmad (9213). See.


[Page 69]

This issue is on the tongue of Umar and in his heart, and the intended meaning of "the truth" here is not the absolute truth, so the definite article (الـ) here is not for generality but rather for mental reference, meaning the truth that is known to you regarding this raised issue. As for the addition of "he says" in the hadith, it has been weakened by al-Albani(128). Therefore, it should not be used as evidence. Perhaps the intended truth is what was stated on his tongue in the hadith narrated by Anas, who said: Umar said: "I agreed with my Lord in three matters. I said, O Messenger of Allah, should we take from the standing place of Ibrahim a place of prayer?" Then the verse was revealed: {And take from the standing place of Ibrahim a place of prayer}(129). And I said, O Messenger of Allah, your women are visited by both the righteous and the wicked, so should I command them to veil themselves? Then the verse of hijab was revealed. And the wives of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) gathered around him out of jealousy, and I said to them: {Perhaps his Lord, if he divorces you, will give him instead wives better than you}(130). She said, and it was revealed likewise. This indicates that the intended meaning is a specific issue, as evidenced by what has been established about him (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding his mistakes in several matters, including
His statement in the story of Hudaybiyyah (peace be upon him) "So we did not concede anything in our religion" (131) and then his return and his statement "I did actions for that."
His statement regarding dowries and the exaggeration in them, then his retraction, and his statement "A woman was correct and Umar was mistaken."
His denial of Abu Bakr regarding fighting those who say "There is no god but Allah," then his statement after that: "By Allah, it is nothing but that...
__________
(128) The previous reference, hadith number (1736), and al-Albani said: authentic.
(129) Surah Al-Baqarah, verse: 125.
(130) Surah At-Tahrim, verse: 5.
(131) Al-Albani (Muhammad Nasir al-Din), Mishkat al-Masabih, Islamic Office, Beirut, 3rd edition, 1985, hadith number (6043) and al-Albani said it is weak, and it was narrated by al-Haythami (Ali ibn Abi Bakr) in Ma'aref al-Zaman on the authority of Ibn Hibban, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, undated, hadith number (2185).


[Page 70]

The explanation of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) indicates that it is the truth) (132).
His statement (by Allah, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not die, and Allah will surely resurrect him, and He will cut off the hands and feet of men) (133). Then his retraction from that.
It is clear from the above that he (may Allah be pleased with him) makes mistakes just as humans do, so we do not abandon the words of the infallible (peace and blessings be upon him) for the words of someone who is subject to error. Even if Allah placed the truth on his tongue in all matters, as they say, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) strongly denied a man who asked him about a matter in Hajj, and when he gave him a fatwa, the man said, "This is how the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) gave me a fatwa." Umar struck him with a stick and said to him: "You asked me about something that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) has already given a fatwa on, so should I contradict him?" We narrated it through the chain of Abdul Razzaq. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "Our opinion is mere conjecture, while the opinion of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was the truth." Abu Muhammad said, "Whoever follows them should follow them in this agreement of abandoning taqlid (imitation) and in what they unanimously agreed upon regarding following the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and in what they prohibited regarding conjecture" (134).
It is clear from all of the above that it is not permissible to contradict the text for the words of anyone, regardless of who they are. However, for the sake of discussion, the researcher will present, if Allah wills, what they have cited from the statements and actions of the Companions, attempting to clarify its aspect.
The actions of the Companions that were cited by those who prioritized presumed benefit over the text:
First: They cited that the Companions opposed the text for the sake of benefit in the hadith that when he (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded
__________
(132) Bukhari, previous reference, (402), (4916).
(133) Previous reference, hadith number (4844).
(134) Al-Ahkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, previous reference, vol. 6, p. 79.


[Page 71]

By making Hajj (pilgrimage) equivalent to Umrah (lesser pilgrimage), they said: "How could that be when we have named it Hajj?" They hesitated, and this is a contradiction to the text based on custom(135).
(Response): This reasoning is strange, as the Companions executed the command of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and did not oppose him; rather, they were only astonished by it (and it was a great matter for them)(136) because they previously believed that performing Umrah during the months of Hajj was sinful, yet they executed the command, as indicated by what is reported in Sahih Muslim: "We had relations with our women, we used perfume, and we wore our garments, and there were only four nights left until Arafat."(137). So where in the hadith did they abandon the text for custom and for presumed benefit? Glory be to You, this is a great slander.
Secondly: They cited Abu Bakr's (may Allah be pleased with him) compilation of the Qur'an, and the point of evidence is that this contradicts the hadith: "Whoever performs an action that is not in accordance with our command, it is rejected."(138)
(Response): I do not see where Abu Bakr opposed the text here and prioritized the imagined benefit. Ibn Hazm says: "As for Abu Bakr's (may Allah be pleased with him) compilation of the Mushaf, yes, and the reason for that is clear. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to receive the Qur'an in parts and would command that the verse revealed be joined to such and such verse from such and such surah. Thus, it was not possible to write the Qur'an in a comprehensive Mushaf for that reason. When he passed away (peace and blessings be upon him), and the revelation was established, and it was known that there would be no more added to it or altered, Abu Bakr wrote it down at that time and confirmed it."(139).
So, the writing of the Qur'an is originally permissible, and there is no prohibition against writing it connected from the beginning of the Mushaf to
__________
(135) The appropriate description, previous reference, p. 353.
(136) Al-Nasa'i, hadith number (2813), and its verifier Al-Albani said it is authentic.
(137) Sahih Muslim, previous reference, hadith number (1212).
(138) Muslim, Sahih Muslim, previous reference, hadith number 1718.
(139) Previous reference, hadith number 1718.


[Page 72]

It remains permissible based on its original ruling, so he (may Allah be pleased with him) did not contradict the text at all, and this is a means to facilitate acts of worship, and it is not an independent act of worship introduced by Abu Bakr. The evidence for writing is what Zaid ibn Thabit said: "I gathered the Qur'an entirely from palm fronds, pieces of leather, and the chests of men"(140). He compiled that into a single mushaf not as legislation for what Allah did not permit. Rather, it is a means to facilitate worship, like using an airplane for traveling to Hajj, or using television and tapes for calling to Islam, and so on, and Allah knows best.
Thirdly: They cited Umar's collection of the kharaj (tax), and this was not done by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) with the People of the Covenant (dhimmi), as it is not permissible for Umar to take the kharaj from the trade of the People of the Covenant in the land of Islam, because they are only liable for the jizyah (poll tax).
(Response): Umar did not do this in contradiction to a text, as it is merely a rental contract, where the people of war pay a fee for their trade, or a reward that the people of war established for the Muslims in exchange for selling their goods in the lands of Muslims. Both contracts are permissible under their conditions in the Sunnah. So where is Umar's prioritization of public interest (maslaha) over the text concerning the people of war? Moreover, the wealth of the combatants is originally lawful for Muslims, as Allah, Exalted is He, said: "And know that whatever you obtain of war booty, then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it" { وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّمَا غَنِمْتُم مِّن شَيْءٍ فَأَنَّ لِلَّهِ خُمُسَهُ }(141), and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "And the war booty has been made lawful for me" (142). So if Umar took a fifth from the Muslims, where is this in prioritizing public interest over the text? As for the People of the Covenant, it is because they were agreed upon in their covenant that he had made with them in the treaty, as Abdul Razzaq narrated in his Musannaf: "Amr ibn Shu'ayb said: The people of Manbij and those beyond the sea of Aden wrote to Umar ibn al-Khattab offering to enter...
__________
(140) Al-Ihkam fi al-Ahkam, previous reference, vol. 6, p. 111
(141) Surah Al-Anfal, verse 41.
(142) Muslim, previous reference, (810).


[Page 73]

In their trade, they have the land of war and they have the tithe (ushr) from it. So Umar consulted the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding this, and they all agreed on it. He was the first to take the tithe from them"(143). If this hadith is authentic, which is apparent as it is disconnected, then it seems that they were people of war, and the ruling regarding them has already been established. Perhaps Umar's evidence is the consensus here, and this is clear, not the public interest (maslaha) as they claim. There is no contradiction in the narration with any text, nor is there anything in it that suggests Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) prioritized public interest over the text. Ibn Hazm interpreted Umar's taking of the tithe as being based on a peace treaty they had made, saying, "As for the disbelievers, Allah has only made the jizyah obligatory upon them. If this was a peace treaty along with the jizyah, then it is a rightful and valid covenant." They cited the hadith of Anas ibn Sirin from Anas ibn Malik from Umar ibn al-Khattab: "Take from the Muslims one dirham for every forty dirhams, and from the people of dhimmah (dhimmis) one dirham for every twenty dirhams, and from those without dhimmah one dirham for every ten dirhams"(144).
Abu Muhammad said: "All of this is not a proof because it is not from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). How could it be, when we have narrated from Umar clarifying all of this? From Abu Mujliz, who said that Umar sent Ammar, Ibn Mas'ud, and Uthman ibn Hunaif to Kufa, and he mentioned the hadith in which Uthman ibn Hunaif measured the land and placed on it such and such, and he took from the wealth of the people of dhimmah who trade with it one dirham for every twenty dirhams, and he imposed on their heads—excluding women and children—twenty-four. Then he wrote this to Umar, and he approved it. It is established that this was in the original covenant and contract with them. And from Abdullah ibn Khalid al-Absi, who said: I asked Ziyad ibn Hudayr, 'Who were you taking the tithe from?' He said: 'We did not take the tithe from a Muslim or a protected person; we took the tithe from the merchants of the people of war, just as they take the tithe from us when we go to them.'" So it is established.
__________
(143) Sahih al-Bukhari, previous reference, hadith number 438.
(144) al-San'ani (Abdul Razzaq ibn Hammam), al-Musannaf, Islamic Office, Beirut, 2nd edition, 1403 AH, hadith number (10118).


[Page 74]

It was not to be taken from one who had not contracted for it. (And from Masruq, he said: "By Allah, there is no action that I fear will lead me to the Fire more than this action of yours, and it is not that I fear that I have wronged a Muslim or a protected person (dhimmi) out of a dinar or a dirham, but I do not know what this rope is that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not establish, nor did Abu Bakr or Umar." Abu Muhammad said: "It is clear that it is an innovation (bid'ah) and it is not permissible to think that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) exceeded what was in their contract, just as it is not permissible to think that he would take from the Muslims one dirham for every forty dirhams, when it is less than two hundred dirhams. And with Allah's help is success.)(145)
From what has been mentioned, it is clear that Umar used to take zakat from the Muslim, and from the dhimmi who had contracted for an increase over the jizyah, he would take the increase, while from one who had not contracted for it, he would take nothing. And from the people of war, he would take one-tenth. And with Allah's help is success. Thus, it is invalid to claim that he contradicted a foundational text, because it is permissible to make a settlement for wealth upon conquest above the jizyah based on the text, and it is permissible to deal with the people of war through leasing or a reward and to impose a fee on them for entering the lands of the Muslims, so there is no text that prohibits this fundamentally, until it is said that Umar contradicted it for the sake of public interest (maslaha). And with Allah's help is success.
Fourth: They cited the abrogation by Umar of the share for those whose hearts are to be reconciled (muallafatu qulubuhum)(146), saying that he abandoned the text for the sake of public interest, as the public interest is the benefit of the remaining categories, and the text is: "Indeed, the alms are for the poor and the needy and those who collect them and those whose hearts are to be reconciled."(147)
__________
(145) Ibn Hazm (Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Sa'id), al-Muhalli bil-Athar, Dar al-Dhikr, Beirut, undated, vol. 4, p. 237.
(146) An Introductory Study on Maqasid for Ijtihad, reference Jasaq, p. 58.
(147) Surah At-Tawbah, verse 60.


[Page 75]

The response: A careful examination reveals otherwise. Every ruling has a basis for its application, and the basis for applying this text is the reconciliation of hearts. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) observed that Islam had gained strength, and the greatest empires in the world had submitted to it. Islam no longer needed the reconciliation of hearts or the appeasement of those whose hearts were to be reconciled. If the text revolves around its reason for existence or non-existence, then the application of the text itself necessitates refraining from granting this group of people anything after Islam had gained strength and its state had become powerful. Is this not an ijtihad (independent juristic reasoning) within the text? Is it an infringement upon Umar to say that he prioritized public interest (maslaha) over the text?(148).
Fifth: They argued against Umar's not dividing the land of al-Sawad among the conquerors, contrary to the text (And know that whatever you obtain of war booty, then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it)(149). He imposed kharaj (tax) on it and designated it as a waqf (endowment) for the Muslims. Instead of dividing the four-fifths of the land that the Muslims had gained among the conquerors, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did with the land of Khaybar, and as the verse states, he made it a waqf for all Muslims.
(Response): First:
1- Ibn al-Zubayr, Bilal, and others called for the division of the land, and when they disputed, the reference should be what Allah the Exalted has commanded to be referred to, as He says (And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day)(150).
__________
(148) Jreisheh (Ali Muhammad), Al-Maslahah Al-Mursalah: An Attempt to Elaborate on Its Perspective, Islamic University, Medina, Article, Year Ten, Issue Three, Dhul-Hijjah, 1397 AH, p. 47.
(149) Surah Al-Anfal, verse: 41.
(150) Surah An-Nisa, verse: 59.


[Page 76]

2- It was narrated from Umar that he said, "If I live until next year, I will not open a village except that I will divide it as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) divided Khaybar." This is a return from Umar to the division.
3- It was reported from Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he pleased the souls of the conquerors after the conquest, and this is permissible. It was narrated from Qais ibn Hazim that he said, "Bajila constituted a quarter of the people on the day of Qadisiyyah, so Umar allocated to them a quarter of the spoils. They received it for two or three years. Then Ammar ibn Yasir came to Umar ibn al-Khattab with Jarir ibn Abdullah. Umar said: 'O Jarir, were it not that I am responsible for the division, you would have received what was allocated to you. I see that the people have increased, so I think it should be returned to them.' Jarir did that. Then Umm Kuraz al-Bajiliyah said: 'O Commander of the Faithful, my father has died and his share is fixed in the spoils, and I have not converted to Islam.' Umar said to her: 'O Umm Kuraz, your people have done what you know.' She replied: 'If they have done what they have done, then I will not convert to Islam until you carry me on a gentle she-camel adorned with a red cloak and fill my hands with gold.' Umar did that, and the gold amounted to about eighty dinars. This is the most authentic report about Umar in this regard, and it is our opinion, for he did not stop until he pleased the souls of those present, and he inherited from those who died among them, and this is what should not be thought of Umar otherwise."(151)
Sixth: They argued that Umar contradicted the text "There is no zakat on a Muslim for his servant or his horse"(152) which is agreed upon for the public interest, as Al-Bayhaqi narrated from Ya'la ibn Umayyah who said, "Abdur-Rahman ibn Abi Umayyah, the brother of Ya'la, bought a female horse from a man for one hundred camels, but the seller regretted it. He came to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and said: 'Ya'la and his brother have taken my horse by force.' So Umar wrote to Ya'la ibn Umayyah to come to me." He came to him and informed him, and Umar said: "Indeed, horses reach this."
__________
(151) See al-Mahalli, previous reference, vol. 5, p. 412.
(152) Bukhari (1463), and Muslim, Zakat/10.
And Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi Library, Egypt, 2nd ed., 1395 AH - 1975 CE, (628).


[Page 77]

He said: "I have not known a horse before this that has reached this," so Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "Then we take one sheep from every forty sheep and do not take anything from the horses; take one dinar from every horse."(153) Here, he (may Allah be pleased with him) contradicted the text and imposed on the people what was not obligatory upon them.
(Response): The action of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is understood as "Umar did this when it was pleasing to its owners"(154), as al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, and there is nothing wrong with this in terms of pleasing the soul. This is supported by what al-Bayhaqi narrated and indicated, and he applied the previous hadith to it, which is the narration of Harithah ibn Mudrib who said: A group of people from the Levant came to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and said: "We have acquired wealth in horses and slaves, and we would like to have zakat and purification on it." He said, "What my two companions did before me, I will do." Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) consulted Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and a group of the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "It is good if it is not a tax imposed on them regularly."(155)
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) clarified that the element of obligation should not be present, nor should the element of regularity, thus confirming that it was not obligatory, nor did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) or Abu Bakr do it, and its owners are the ones who requested it willingly. There is nothing wrong with this, as what is prohibited is the element of obligation according to the hadith "The wealth of a person is not lawful except with his good pleasure."(156) "It has been confirmed that Umar only took it as a voluntary charity from them, not as an obligation."
__________
(153) Al-Bayhaqi (Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn Ali), al-Sunan al-Kubra, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, Lebanon, 3rd ed., 1424 AH - 2003 CE, Hadith No. (7420).
(154) Ibid, same hadith.
(155) Ibid, Hadith No. (7414).
(156) Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. (20695), and al-Daraqutni (2885), authenticated by al-Albani in Irwa al-Ghalil (1459).


[Page 78]

It is obligatory, from Nabil ibn Awf who said that Umar ibn al-Khattab commanded the people to give charity, so the people said, "O Commander of the Faithful, we have horses and slaves, impose upon us ten for ten." Umar replied, "As for me, I will not impose that upon you"(157). Thus, it is confirmed that Umar did not impose as he promised, may Allah have mercy on him, and this is the assumption regarding Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and thus it was only a recommendation from him and a voluntary act from them.
Then Ali opposed Umar after that—if he indeed imposed it—and said, "I have forgiven the charity on horses and slaves"(158). Ali followed the text, and he is among the rightly guided, so let them follow his Sunnah in adhering to the text, as well as the Sunnah of Abu Bakr due to Umar's earlier statement, "What my two companions did before me." So what made Umar's action, if it is correct that he did it as an obligation, a proof, while the actions of Abu Bakr and Ali are not proofs, even though they are included in the hadith? And may Allah grant success.
Seventh: They said: Umar contradicted the text of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in which he said, "Whoever kills a person, his spoils belong to him"(159), and Umar contradicted him by taking a fifth of the spoils of the marzuban's horse for the public interest (maslaha) since the spoils were significant(160).
(Response): By presenting the hadith of Umar, the story becomes clear, with the permission of Allah. Al-Bayhaqi narrated from Anas ibn Malik that the first spoils to be divided in Islam were those of Al-Bara' ibn Malik, who charged at the marzuban and stabbed him, killing him. His companions dispersed from him, so he descended to him and took his belt and bracelets. When he returned, Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) walked until he reached Abu Talha al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him) and said, "O Abu Talha, we used to not take a fifth of the spoils, even if the spoils of Al-Bara' ibn
__________
(157) Al-Mahalli, previous reference, vol. 4, p. 34.
(158) Previous reference, same page.
(159) Sahih Bukhari, previous reference, hadith number (3142).
(160) See Awda (Jasir), Introduction to Maqasidi for Ijtihad, previous reference, p. 57.


[Page 79]

Malik has wealth, and I am the fifth, so establish the area and the two bracelets for thirty thousand."(161) Ibn Hazm used this as evidence.
The narration of the action of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him):
The first narration: Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) perhaps saw that if the spoils were significant, then the imam has the right to divide it into five parts, which is the position of Ishaq ibn Rahawayh (may Allah have mercy on him)(162).
The following hadith refers to this:
From Awf ibn Malik, he said: "I went out with those who went out with Zayd ibn Harithah in the Battle of Mu'tah, and I was accompanied by reinforcements from Yemen. In one narration, a man from Hamir (who was the reinforcements) killed a man from the enemy and wanted to take his spoils, but Khalid ibn al-Walid, who was their commander, prevented him. So Awf ibn Malik went to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and informed him. He said to Khalid, 'What prevented you from giving him his spoils?' He said, 'I thought it was too much, O Messenger of Allah.' He said, 'Then let him have it.' So Khalid passed by Awf, pulled his cloak, and said: 'Have I fulfilled for you what I mentioned to you from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)?' The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) heard him and became angry and said, 'Do not give it to him, O Khalid, do not give it to him, O Khalid. Will you leave my commanders to me...'"(163)(164)
Here, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted the action of Khalid, and this is perhaps due to the fact that the wealth was abundant, as Khalid informed.
__________
(161) Al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra, previous reference, hadith number (12787).
(162) The Kuwaiti Jurisprudence Encyclopedia, Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait, Dar al-Safwa Press, Egypt, edition from (1404-1427 AH), vol. 25, p. 183.
(163) (*) Al-Madadi: This means a man from the reinforcements who came to support Mu'tah and assist them.
(164) Sahih Muslim, previous reference, hadith number (1753, 1754).


[Page 80]

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not say to him that this is not permissible, but rather said, "Give it to him," then told him, "Do not give it." This may indicate that if the wealth is abundant, the imam has the choice between giving and returning it, as is evident from the hadith. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) held this view, and perhaps his justification is the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in this matter, and not public interest (maslaha), as they claimed. It is possible that he (may Allah be pleased with him) understood this interpretation from this hadith, for if giving the spoils were obligatory, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would not have neglected it, nor would he have commanded to withhold it from its owner.
The second argument is that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) may have seen the matter of the spoils as entrusted to the imam, because when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ruled the spoils for the killer, he did so as an imam in a discretionary manner, not as a matter of legislation. The Hanafi and Maliki schools hold this view(165)(166).
Ibn Rushd said, "The reason for their disagreement is his (peace and blessings be upon him) statement on the day of Hunayn after the fighting had cooled down, 'Whoever kills a man, his spoils belong to him.' This may have been from him (peace and blessings be upon him) as a discretionary act because it has not been established that he said this (peace and blessings be upon him) or ruled it except on the days of Hunayn, and due to the opposition of the verse on spoils if it is taken to mean entitlement, namely the saying of Allah, Exalted is He, {And know that whatever you obtain of war booty, then indeed, it is for Allah and the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the traveler, and if Allah wills, He will forgive you} (167). For when the verse specifies that one-fifth is for Allah, it is understood that four-fifths are obligatory for those who are present(168).
__________
(165) Al-Sarakhsi (Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abi Sahl), Al-Mabsut, Dar Al-Ma'rifah, Beirut, no edition, 1414 AH-1993 CE, vol. 15, p. 47.
(166) See Ibn Rushd (Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad), Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid, Dar Al-Hadith, Cairo, no edition, 1425 AH-2004 CE, vol. 2, p. 160.
(167) Surah Al-Anfal, verse: 41.
(168) Ibn Rushd, the previous reference, vol. 2, p. 160.


[Page 81]

Perhaps Umar understood this as well as these individuals did, so where is the contradiction with the text, especially since the previous hadith in Muslim indicates this as well.
The third argument: that Umar found the heart of Al-Barra pleasing. Ibn Hazm said, "It should not be assumed that Umar deliberately opposed the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), for it is established that he found the heart of Al-Barra pleasing, and this is a sound and good point that we do not deny"(169). Ibn Hazm interpreted the hadith that prevented Khalid from giving the spoils to the killer as "in its text, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only commanded him not to return it to him, because he knew that the killer was the owner of the spoils who gave it willingly, and Khalid did not demand it from him, and that 'Awf was speaking about something he had no right to, and this is the text of the report"(170).
And Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did not say that he did this for the sake of public interest (maslaha), so this is a statement made without knowledge, and may Allah be pleased with him be far from opposing the text of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) without interpretation, and may Allah grant success.
Eighth: They cited the hadith of Ibn Abbas who said: "Divorce during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), Abu Bakr, and two years of Umar's caliphate was three divorces as one. Umar ibn al-Khattab said: The people have hastened in a matter in which they had previously been patient, so if we enforce it upon them, we will enforce it upon them"(171).
They said: With this hadith, Umar has prioritized public interest (maslaha) over the text, and they thought that the public interest was a deterrent for these people, and here Umar has imposed a ruling and a divorce that is not obligatory at all, and he has opposed the text for the sake of public interest.
__________
(169) Ibn Hazm, al-Mahalli, previous reference, vol. 5, pp. 401, 403.
(170) Previous reference, vol. 5, pp. 401, 403.
(171) Sahih Muslim, hadith number (1472), al-Tabarani, (Sulaiman ibn Ahmad ibn Ayyub), al-Mu'jam al-Kabir, Ibn Taymiyyah Library, Cairo, 2nd ed., undated, hadith number (1096).


[Page 82]

(Al-Radd): First: The researcher does not know what benefit (maslaha) there is for the people in what they understood from the action of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). Many often use the term benefit to refer to what is advantageous and facilitates matters for people from their perspective. Here, Umar's action is nothing but a tightening of the rules upon the people according to their understanding of the text. There is no doubt that pronouncing divorce—if the three are uttered together in one phrase—three times is more difficult than pronouncing it once. If these individuals oppose this with the hadith and say: it can be inferred from Umar's abandonment of the text that people should be cautious, even if it is more severe, it would be more appropriate than their claim. This would necessitate abandoning the texts of legal facilitation and imposing the stricter interpretation due to Umar's action, which, according to their view, is that of a rightly guided caliph who prioritizes his Sunnah over the text. There is no power and no strength except with Allah. It is astonishing that those who advocate for facilitation and benefit here have abandoned his action of pronouncing three divorces together in one phrase for the sake of benefit, and instead adopted the practice of pronouncing three as one(172). Thus, Umar's action is a proof when it aligns with their desires, and at other times it is not a proof, but rather his supposed and imagined intention of deliberately opposing the text for what he sees as a benefit is the proof. This is how they play with the religion of Allah, Exalted is He, and there is no power and no strength except with Allah.
Secondly: This hadith has several chains of narration that refute the claim that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) contradicted the text in principle.
First: Does the phrase "the matter was such during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)" have the ruling of being raised (marfu'), meaning does it imply that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was aware of it and approved it or not? There is a disagreement among the usuliyyin (scholars of usul al-fiqh). It is mentioned in the book al-Tabsirah: "If a companion (sahabi) says, 'We used to do such and such during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)...
__________
(172) The Egyptian Personal Status Law adopts the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) and Ibn al-Qayyim that the three divorces count as one, even though this contradicts the action of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) in their view. They agreed with him in deriving the ruling (meaning that he did this for the sake of public interest (maslaha)) but disagreed with him in the original apparent opinion, as they claim. (See previously, Sayyid, Fiqh al-Sunnah, Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, Beirut, Lebanon, 3rd ed., 1397 AH - 1977 CE, vol. 2, p. 271.)


[Page 83]

It is as if it is attributed to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Some of the companions of Abu Hanifa said it is not like that. We have the argument that the apparent condition of the companions is that they would not undertake any matter of religion while the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was among them except by his command, so it became as if it were attributed to him. This is because it is only attributed to the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) for a benefit, which is to indicate that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was aware of it and did not deny it, thus it must be considered as if it were attributed to him. They argued that they used to do things during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that were not attributed to him. Do you not see that when they disagreed about the meeting of the circumcised, some of them said, "We used to have sexual relations during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and we would not perform ablution"? Umar said to him, "And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew that and approved of you?" He said, "No." Umar said, "Then what?" And Jabir said, "We used to sell the mothers of children during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)."(173).
Ibn Hazm said, "As for the hadith of Tawus from Ibn Abbas, which states that the three were one and were returned to the one and made one, there is nothing in it that indicates that he (peace and blessings be upon him) was the one who made them one, or that he (peace and blessings be upon him) was aware of it and approved it. There is no proof except for what is authentically reported that he (peace and blessings be upon him) said, did, or knew, and did not deny."(174)
Perhaps Umar understood this as well, so he exerted himself in the matter because there is no hadith raised to him (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding it. Thus, he did not contradict any text at all, since it was not established for him that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was aware of it and approved of it.
Secondly: If it is accepted that it has the ruling of raising (raf') then perhaps what is meant is "repeating the wording as if he says you are divorced, you are divorced,
__________
(173) Al-Shirazi (Ibrahim ibn Ali ibn Yusuf), Al-Tabsirah fi Usul al-Fiqh, Dar al-Fikr, Damascus, 1st ed., 1403 AH, p. 334.
(174) Al-Mahalli, previous reference, vol. 9, p. 392.


[Page 84]

You are divorced, and they were initially accepting of the idea that they intended to confirm, but when the people increased during the time of Umar and deceit and similar matters became prevalent, which prevented the acceptance of those who claimed confirmation, Umar took the wording at face value regarding repetition and enforced it upon them. This response was accepted by al-Qurtubi(175). Thus, the ruling changed due to the change in the people's custom from intending by repeating divorce to confirming their intention by repeating it as a foundation, so Umar interpreted their statement according to the verbal custom and the apparent meaning.
Thirdly: Some have interpreted the hadith by saying that "people during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would issue one divorce, but during the time of Umar, they would issue three." The essence of this is that the divorce enacted during Umar's time as three was previously enacted as one, because they did not use three at all, or they used it rarely. However, in Umar's era, its usage became widespread. The meaning of his statement, "and he enforced it upon them and permitted it," among other things, is that he ruled on the divorce as it had been ruled before him. Ibn al-Arabi favored this interpretation and attributed it to Abu Zur'ah. Al-Nawawi said that, based on this, the report occurred due to the differing customs of the people specifically, not due to a change in the ruling regarding the single divorce(176). I do not know, with the abundance of these interpretations, what drives them to attribute Umar's action to prioritizing public interest (maslaha) over the text, and Umar did not say that either, and he is among the furthest from that, may Allah be pleased with him. And may Allah grant success.
Ninth: They cited Umar's killing of the group for the single divorce, which Malik reported from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib that Umar ibn
__________
(175) Ibn Hajar (Ahmad ibn Ali al-Asqalani), Fath al-Bari, commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, Dar al-Ma'rifah, Beirut, 1379 AH, vol. 9, p. 364.
(176) The same reference, vol. 9, p. 364.


[Page 85]

The address killed a group, five or seven, by one man whom they killed treacherously, and Umar said, "If the people of Sana'a had banded together against him, I would have killed them all."(177) Sheikh al-Albani authenticated it and said in one of its chains that the Hafiz said in al-Fath: This narration is connected to Umar with the most authentic chain.(178) It was said: When Umar established the killing of the group by one, he did so based on public interest (maslaha) in opposition to the noble text (prescribed for you is retaliation for the murdered: the free for the free, and the slave for the slave) { كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ القِصَاصُ فِي القَتْلَى الحُرُّ بِالْحُرِّ وَالْعَبْدُ بِالْعَبْدِ }(179), and His saying (and We prescribed for them therein that a soul for a soul and an eye for an eye) { وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ }(180). The free person is one, and the slave is one, and the soul is one, so it is not permissible for the ruling to extend to multiple souls; rather, only one soul should be killed, while the other participants should not be killed because the original ruling is the sanctity of their blood.
(Response): "Umar's action was not legislation as some have imagined, but rather an application of the text with deep understanding. The definite article in (the soul) refers to (the type) and does not mean (the individual), and the 'by' in the following soul is a causal 'by'. Thus, the text means that every soul that participated in the killing is to be killed by the soul that killed, that is, because of this killed soul. Furthermore, Umar's ijtihad (jurisprudential reasoning) to kill the group by one makes the application of the text in this manner a remedy for the heart, indeed a complete remedy. This is something that all secular systems have failed to achieve. Should we blame Umar after that that
__________
(177) Al-Asbahi (Malik ibn Anas ibn Malik), al-Muwatta, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, Lebanon, 1406 AH - 1985 CE, p. 871, hadith no. (13), and al-Daraqutni (Ali ibn Umar ibn Ahmad), Sunan al-Daraqutni, Maktabat al-Risalah, Beirut, Lebanon, 1st ed., 1424 AH - 2004 CE, hadith no. (3463). And Sunan al-Bayhaqi, previous reference, hadith no. (2962), narrated therein from Nafi' from Ibn Umar.
(178) Al-Albani, Irwa al-Ghalil, previous reference, hadith no. (2201).
(179) Surah Al-Baqarah, verse: 178.
(180) Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse: 45.


[Page 86]

He strived to understand the text and apply it(181).
There is no doubt that the definite singular noun with the article "the" is one of the forms of generality. Ibn Qudamah said about the forms of generality, "The third type: the singular term, such as 'the thief' and 'the female thief,' and 'the fornicator' and 'the female fornicator,' as it is established. It is referred to as the singular noun defined by the non-specific 'the,' and its being one of the forms of generality is the view of al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, Ibn Burhan, Abu al-Tayyib, and al-Buwayti, and al-Amidi transmitted it from most scholars(182). Therefore, based on this, Umar's understanding that lives are taken for lives is indeed an application of the form of generality in the verse.
Tenth: They cited Umar's (may Allah be pleased with him) prohibition of Nasr ibn Hajjaj from going to Basra, as he was handsome, to prevent the temptation of women by him, even though the original principle is that there is no connection to this, and the original ruling is the prohibition of harming a Muslim, due to His saying, "And those who harm believing men and believing women without what they have earned have certainly born upon themselves a slander and a manifest sin" {And those who harm believing men and believing women without what they have earned have certainly borne upon themselves a slander and a manifest sin}(183). Thus, punishment is only applied upon the occurrence of a sin, and Umar's action in this regard contradicts those texts considering the public interest.
(Reply): The hadith was mentioned by al-Khara'iti, and its chain of narration states, "While Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was in one of the streets of the city, he heard a woman calling out in her chamber and saying:
'Is there a way to wine for me to drink, or is there a way to Nasr ibn Hajjaj?'
Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: 'I see that Nasr is a man whom the young women call out to in their chambers, regarding Nasr ibn...
__________
(181) The public interest (maslaha mursala), an attempt to elaborate on it and a perspective on it, previous reference, p. 47.
(182) Ibn Qudamah (Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad), The Garden of the Observer and the Paradise of the Viewers, Al-Rayan Foundation, 2nd ed., 1423 AH - 2002 CE, vol. 2, p. 11.
(183) Surah Al-Ahzab, verse 58.


[Page 87]

Hajjaj, so he brought him, and he was one of the most handsome of people in face, eyes, and hair. He ordered that his hair be cut, and a forehead appeared for him as if it were a slice of the moon. He ordered him to wear a headscarf, so he wore it, and the women were captivated by his eyes. Umar said, "By Allah, you will not stay with me in a land where I am." He said, "O Commander of the Faithful, why?" He replied, "It is what I say to you," and he sent him to Basra(184).
(Reply): First: This narration is weak regarding Umar, as it contains Muhammad ibn Sa'id ibn Ziyad al-Qurashi al-Basri, about whom Abu Hatim said: He is a fabricator of hadith, inconsistent in his narrations, and weak. Abu Zur'ah said about him, "Weak in hadith, he is nothing, and his narrations are to be abandoned"(185). In the hadith, there is Jahm ibn Uthman; Abu Hatim said he is unknown(186). Al-Albani(187) said he is not known, so the hadith is not authentic from Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and it cannot be used as evidence for the issue at hand. And Allah, the Exalted, grants success. The text of the hadith itself indicates its weakness; if Umar exiled him out of fear of temptation for the women of Medina, who are known for their piety and righteousness due to their close time with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and their companionship with his companions (may Allah be pleased with them), then how could he send him to the women of Basra, who are further removed in time from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the companions? The women of Basra share with the women of Medina in...
__________
(184) Al-Khara'iti (Muhammad ibn Ja'far ibn Muhammad), I'tilal al-Qulub, Nizar Mustafa al-Bazi, Mecca, 2nd ed., 1422 AH, 2002 CE, vol. 3, p. 239.
(185) See al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Thabit), Tarikh Baghdad, Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, Beirut, 1st ed., 422 AH - 2002 CE, vol. 3, p. 239.
(186) Al-Shawkani (Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad), Nail al-Awtar, Dar al-Hadith, Egypt, 1st ed., 1413 AH - 1993 CE, vol. 2, p. 235.
(187) Al-Albani (Muhammad Nasir al-Din), Da'if al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib, Maktabat al-Ma'arif, Riyadh, undated, vol. 2, p. 95.


[Page 88]

The same reasoning applies; would Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) take precautions for the women of Medina while leaving the women of Basra to fall into trials, as they claim? Far removed is he from that, and Allah knows best what is correct.
Eleventh: They cited the inclusion of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) of craftsmen, even though the original principle is that liability does not extend except with evidence. However, when Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) saw the benefit for the people in including them, he prioritized the public interest (maslaha) over the text, which is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), "But the oath is upon the defendant."(188). The craftsman here is a defendant, and the original principle is that he should not be liable except for transgression, and his oath suffices him when he denies it. Ibn Hazm said, "It is authentically reported through Ibn Abi Shaiba from Hatim ibn Ismail from Ja'far ibn Muhammad from his father that Ali used to hold the tailor and the goldsmith liable, saying, 'The people cannot be rectified except by that.'"(189).
(Response): Imam al-Shafi'i said, "And it may be narrated from a source that the scholars of hadith do not affirm, that Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) held the washer and the dyer liable, saying, 'The people cannot be rectified except by that.' This was reported to us by Ibrahim ibn Abi Yahya from Ja'far ibn Muhammad from his father that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said that, and it is also narrated about Umar holding some craftsmen liable from a source weaker than this."(6).
And if the narration from Ali is authentic, it has not been reported from him (may Allah be pleased with him) that he knew the original principle is that craftsmen are not liable in Sharia, then he contradicted that for the sake of public interest (maslaha). Thus, it is not correct to attribute that to him; rather, good opinion of him necessitates that we think he exercised ijtihad in the absence of a text, so it is not correct to speak about anyone without knowledge.
__________
(188) Sahih Muslim, previous reference, hadith number (1711).
(189) Al-Muhalli, previous reference, vol. 7, p. 30.
(6) Al-Shafi'i (Muhammad ibn Idris), Al-Umm, Dar al-Ma'rifah, Beirut, 1393 AH, vol. 7, pp. 96, 97.


[Page 89]

But perhaps the guidance of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is the guidance of the Malikis in this issue, as they refer in this matter to prioritizing the apparent over the original. If the apparent indicates the wrongdoing of the craftsmen and the joint workers, and if they claim at that point that they did not fall short or neglect, they are in this case contradicting the apparent, as the apparent indicates wrongdoing by the workers. Since they prioritize the apparent over the original, then the apparent is what they rely on, and the one who claims contrary to the apparent is the claimant mentioned in the hadith, “The burden of proof is on the claimant, and the oath is on the one who denies”(190). Therefore, he must provide proof and establish that he did not exceed or fall short, and if he does not bring proof, he is liable. This is their understanding of the hadith, as their principle is “the one who contradicts the apparent is the claimant”(191), differing from others among the Shafi'is, as their principle is “the original is not abandoned even if the apparent contradicts the original”(192). This is a difference in interpreting the meaning of the claimant, and perhaps Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) understood this as well. The disagreement is a disagreement in interpreting the meaning of the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) statement regarding “the claimant,” and not a contradiction to the text based on public interest, and may Allah the Exalted grant success. This disagreement is a well-known foundational disagreement, as Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) held that the craftsman is the claimant, and he must be held liable unless he brings proof that he did not exceed, because the apparent indicates wrongdoing due to its prevalence and notoriety. Ibn Farhun said, “Know that the science of adjudication revolves around knowing the one being claimed against, as it is a fundamental issue, and they did not differ in the ruling for each of them, and that the claimant must provide proof if the demand is denied, and that the one being claimed against must take an oath.”
__________
(190) Al-Daraqutni (3190), Al-Bayhaqi (3103), and see Irwa al-Ghalil, previous reference, hadith number (1938), authenticated by Al-Albani.
(191) See Hassan (Hussein Hamid), The Theory of Public Interest in Islamic Jurisprudence, Al-Mutanabbi Library, 1981, pp. 135, 136.
(192) See Al-Haythami (Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hajar), The Major Jurisprudential Fatwas, Islamic Library, no date, vol. 1, p. 26.


[Page 90]

If the evidence is not established, and the expressions of the jurists differ in defining the claimant and the defendant, al-Qarafi said, "The claimant is the one whose statement contradicts the origin or the custom, and the defendant is the one whose statement aligns with the origin or the custom"(193).
It is noted here from al-Qarafi's words that the apparent customs and habits take precedence over the origin if they testify for the person; thus, if his statement contradicts the prevailing custom, he is the claimant. Ibn Taymiyyah said: "If they disagree regarding the receipt of the dowry, the correct view is that if the prevailing custom is that receipt occurs in debts or tangible assets, then the statement of the one who aligns with the custom is accepted, and this is consistent with our principles and those of Malik regarding the conflict between the origin and the custom, and it appears that the custom is preferred"(194). This clarifies the reasoning behind the statement of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and Allah, the Exalted, knows best what is correct.
Twelfth: They argued that Umar suspended the punishment for theft during the year of famine, and they said this is a prioritization of public interest (maslaha) over the text, and the text is His saying, the Exalted, {And as for the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they earned as a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise}(195). The hadith has been reported in the Musannaf of Abdul Razzaq from Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, who said that Umar said, "Do not cut off in a year of famine or drought"(196). The term "a year of famine" refers to a year of drought and scarcity.
__________
(193) Ibn Farhun (Ibrahim ibn Ali ibn Muhammad), Tabserat al-Hukam fi Usul al-Aqdiyah wa Manahij al-Ahkam, Al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyah Library, 1st ed., 1406 AH - 1986, vol. 1, p. 140.
(194) Ibn Taymiyyah (Ahmad ibn Abdul Halim), Al-Fatawa al-Kubra, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1st ed., 1408 AH - 1987, vol. 5, p. 476.
(195) Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse 38.
(196) Abdul Razzaq, Al-Musannaf, previous reference, (18990).


[Page 91]

(Al-Radd): Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) says, "It is not permissible to suspend these punishments under any circumstances, and what has been narrated about Amr (may Allah be pleased with him) that he lifted the punishment during the year of famine requires two things.
The first thing: the authenticity of the narration, as we demand from anyone who claims this to provide a reliable transmission to the Commander of the Faithful, Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him).
The second matter: that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) only lifted the punishment due to an existing doubt, as the people were in a state of famine, and a person might take something out of necessity, not for the sake of satiation. It is known that it is obligatory for Muslims to feed the one who is in dire need of food. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) feared that this thief was in dire need of food and was prevented from it, so he seized the opportunity and stole. This is what is befitting of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) if the narration attributed to him is authentic."(197)
It is noted from the hadith being cited two things:
First: That the narration of Yahya ibn Abi Kathir did not mention it in a form of hearing, as he said: "Umar said," and Ibn Hajar said, "Yahya ibn Abi Kathir al-Yamani is from the minor successors, a well-known memorizer with many transmissions, and it is said that he did not have authentic hearing from a companion, and al-Nasa'i described him as a mudallis."(198) The hadith of a mudallis is not accepted if he does not explicitly state that he heard it, and this is well-known among the hadith scholars.(199) Yahya al-Qattan said: "The mursal narrations of Yahya ibn Abi Kathir...
__________
(197) Ibn Uthaymeen (Muhammad ibn Salih), Islam Question and Answer website.
(198) Ibn Hajar (Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad), Definition of the People of Sanctity Regarding the Ranks of Those Described as Mudallis, Al-Manar Library, Amman, 1st ed., 1403 AH - 1983 CE, p. 36.
(199) See al-Zarkashi (Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Bahadur), The Notes on the Introduction of Ibn al-Salah, Adwa' al-Salaf, Riyadh, 1st ed., 1419 AH - 1998 CE, vol. 2, p. 95.


[Page 92]

"Like the wind"(200). It is noted that Yahya ibn Abi Kathir said regarding him, "Abu Hatim, Abu Zur'ah, al-Bukhari, and others stated that no one from the Companions was met except for Anas ibn Malik, for he saw him but did not hear from him. This is the wording of Abu Hatim"(201). Based on this, the hadith is considered disconnected, and a disconnected hadith is not a proof according to the majority of hadith scholars(202). The hadith was narrated as connected through various chains from Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, from Ibn Zaher, from Husayn ibn Hudayr, who said: I heard Umar say: "There is no cutting in a cluster, nor in a year of famine." Al-Albani said, "Weak."
Ibn Abi Shayba narrated it (11/74/2) from Hisham al-Dastawayh from Yahya ibn Abi Kathir from Hassan ibn Zaher from Husayn ibn Hudayr who said: I heard Umar saying: "There is no cutting in (ghadq), nor in the year of abundance."
Al-Hafiz cited in "al-Talkhis" (4/70) from Ibrahim ibn Ya'qub al-Jawzajani in "al-Jami'" from Ahmad ibn Hanbal from Harun ibn Isma'il from Ali ibn al-Mubarak from Yahya ibn Abi Kathir with it and added: "He said: So I asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal about it? He said: (al-ghadq): the date palm, and the year of the year: the year of famine. I said to Ahmad: Do you say this? He said: Indeed, by my life." I said: And he was silent about its chain of narration, and there is a lack of clarity in it; for Hassan ibn Zahir and Husayn ibn Hudhayr have ambiguity in them, as Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned them (1/2/236, 191) and did not mention any criticism in them nor...
__________
(200) Al-Dhahabi (Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman), The Lives of the Noble Figures, Dar al-Risalah, 3rd ed., 1405 AH - 1985 CE, vol. 6, p. 29.
(201) Al-Alai (Khalil ibn Kaykilawi ibn Abdullah), Al-Jami' al-Tahsil fi Ahkam al-Marasil, Dar al-Kutub, Beirut, 2nd ed., 1407 AH - 1986, p. 299.
(202) See al-Dhahabi (Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman), Al-Muqizah in the Science of Hadith Terminology, Islamic Printed Publications Library, Aleppo, 2nd ed., 1412 AH - p. 40.


[Page 93]

Amending, as for Ibn Hibban, he included them according to his principle in "al-Thiqaat" (1/23, 2/63) (203).
And if the narration of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is authentic, it is understood in the context that the basis of the ruling has not been established as previously mentioned, and success is from Allah, the Exalted. Indeed, Allah, the Exalted, said {So whoever is forced by necessity, neither intending to commit sin nor transgressing, there is no sin upon him}.
{Al-Baqarah: 173}. Ibn Hazm says, "It is not permissible for a Muslim who is forced to eat carrion or pork while he finds food that belongs to a Muslim or a dhimmi, because it is an obligation upon the owner of the food to feed the hungry. If that is the case, then he is not forced to eat carrion or pork, and success is from Allah. He may fight for that, and if he is killed, then the killer is subject to retaliation, and if the one preventing him is killed, then he is under the curse of Allah because he prevented a right and is a rebellious faction" (204). Thus, it is clear from this that there is a right for the poor in the wealth of the rich who has surplus wealth, and if the poor is compelled by hunger to take from it, he is entitled to do so. Whoever takes his right is not a thief, so there is no punishment upon him. This is what Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) understood, and it should not be assumed that he meant by this the abrogation of the punishment for the wealthy who is full. This, if the report is authentic in their understanding, is at most a matter of the ijtihad (independent reasoning) of the Companions, which the researcher has indicated is not authoritative, and success is from Allah, the Exalted.
Thirteenth: They argued with the action of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he prohibited marriage to the People of the Book, for Umar prioritized public interest (maslaha) over the text, and the text is His saying, the Exalted, {This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them, and [lawful in marriage] are chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you} (205).
(Reply) First: Umar did not prohibit in the sense of making this act unlawful, but he merely disliked it for them, and this dislike is not.
__________
(203) Al-Albani, Irwa al-Ghalil, previous reference, hadith number 2428.
(204) Al-Mahalli, previous reference, vol. 4, p. 284.
(205) Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse 5.


[Page 94]

Absolute dislike for what is originally permissible, rather what Umar disliked was only out of fear that the condition for the permissibility of marriage with the People of the Book (ahl al-kitab) would not be fulfilled, which is the condition of chastity in His saying, {And the chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you} (al-Ma'idah: 5). And Allah, Exalted is He, knows best. The hadith clarifies the intended meaning, which is "that Hudhayfah married a Jewish woman, so Umar wrote to him, 'Release her,' and he wrote back, 'Do you claim she is unlawful, so you want me to release her?' He said, 'I do not claim she is unlawful, but I fear that you will engage with the promiscuous women among them.' This is authentic."(206) Al-Albani said, "The chain is authentic, and it was narrated by al-Bayhaqi, who said: This is from Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) in the manner of disapproval and dislike."(207) What indicates the dislike is that when he was asked, he said, "I do not claim she is unlawful," and likewise "the addition of Abdul Razzaq, he did not divorce her until after that he divorced her."(208) If Hudhayfah believed it was unlawful, he would have hastened to divorce her, and if Umar believed it was obligatory to follow his statement, he would not have approved of Hudhayfah's act of what is unlawful.
It is also well known that if what is lawful is mixed with what is unlawful, some scholars have stated that in this case, it is disliked to engage in what is lawful due to the hadith, "Whoever avoids the doubtful matters has safeguarded his religion and honor." Ibn Battal said, and others stated that the doubts mentioned in this hadith are lawful, as evidenced by his saying (peace be upon him) in it, "Like a shepherd who grazes around the sanctuary," thus making the doubts what is around the sanctuary, and what is around the sanctuary is not the sanctuary itself, indicating that this is lawful, and that leaving it is piety.(209) The mixing of what is lawful with what is unlawful here is the possibility that this woman is among the promiscuous women, and thus she would be
__________
(206) The hadith was narrated by al-Bayhaqi, in al-Sunan al-Kubra, (13984). See also
(207) Al-Albani, Irwa al-Ghalil, previous reference, vol. 6, p. 301.
(208) Abdul Razzaq, al-Musannaf, previous reference, no. (10057).
(209) Ibn Battal (Ali ibn Khalaf ibn Abdul Malik), Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Al-Rushd Library, Riyadh, 2nd ed., 1423 AH - 2003 CE, vol. 6, p. 193.


[Page 95]

Non-chaste, meaning not chaste, said al-Samarqandi, “And the chaste women from those who were given the Scripture” means the chaste ones from the People of the Book(210).
Thus, Umar acted according to the texts at all times and did not contradict them at all; he believes that marrying women from the People of the Book is not forbidden, but when he feared the mixing of the lawful with the unlawful, which is their being from the prostitutes, due to the previous verse, and due to Allah's saying, “And the adulteress should not marry except an adulterer or a polytheist, and that is forbidden to the believers” (al-Nur: 123). He acted here according to the hadith, “Whoever avoids doubtful matters has cleared himself in regard to his religion and honor”(211). He disliked that, and may Allah have mercy on him, did not contradict any text at all, and may Allah grant success.
This is what we have thoroughly examined, and all praise is due to Allah. All that they have cited has no proof for them, as the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) abandoned the text for the sake of public interest (maslaha), and if it were correct, they are far removed from that; it is personal ijtihad that does not rise to the level of being a proof. They are excused and rewarded, if Allah wills, and we are excused, if Allah wills, for abandoning their opinions for the saying of our leader (peace and blessings be upon him), and may Allah grant success.
The evidence of the Malikis and those who agreed with them on their doctrine:
The evidence of the Malikis in their theory that they adopted is mostly inductive evidence, not legal evidence from the Book and the Sunnah, and it is based on the actions of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), which have been previously addressed. Thus, among their evidences.
__________
(210) Al-Samarqandi (Nasr ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad), Bahr al-Ulum, no publisher, no date, vol. 1, p. 371.
(211) Al-Bukhari, previous reference, p. 52.


[Page 96]

First: Indeed, Allah, Exalted is He, only sent the messengers (peace and blessings be upon him) to achieve the interests of the servants, based on inductive reasoning, and whenever we find an interest that is likely to be required by the Sharia(212).
(Response): It has been previously stated that inductive reasoning has also indicated that there are some rulings legislated for the sole purpose of testing, and there is no apparent benefit for the servant in this world. Therefore, associating the matter at hand with worldly interests is no more valid than associating it with the other purpose intended for testing and examination. Associating the matter at hand with one of them without the other is a judgment without evidence. This has been explained in detail before. It has been objected to this evidence that the interest in the general analogy is unaddressed, and that acting upon it is no more valid than disregarding it. This means that associating it with recognized interests is no more valid than associating it with nullified interests, as the legislator has considered some interests while nullifying others. Thus, preferring its consideration over its nullification is a preference without justification, which is invalid(213).
Secondly: The general principle derived from the inductive study of the texts of the Sharia is equivalent in strength to the general principle derived from the wording, as al-Shatibi said: "Generalization, when established, does not necessarily have to be established solely from the wording of generality, but from the inductive study of the contexts of meaning until a general, comprehensive concept is formed in the mind, which operates in judgment like the generalization derived from the wording"(214). Thus, the general interest (maslaha) established according to al-Shatibi is based on inductive reasoning, and its generality is inductive, so it must be applied to all the branches presented.
__________
(212) Al-Qarafi (Ahmad ibn Idris ibn Abdul Rahman), Sharh Tanqih al-Fusul, United Artistic Printing Company, 1st ed., 1393 AH - 1973 CE, p. 446.
(213) The appropriate description for the legislation of the ruling, op. cit., p. 266.
(214) Al-Shatibi, Al-Muwafaqat, op. cit.


[Page 97]

(Al-Radd): They relied on the unqualified texts in which Allah, Exalted is He, did not say, "I did this for such and such reason," and they inferred reasons from them and asked Allah why He did it, responding to themselves without evidence, claiming that Allah did it for our benefit, and they forgot His saying, “He will not be asked about what He does, but they will be asked” { لاَ يُسْأَلُ عَمَّا يَفْعَلُ وَهُمْ يُسْأَلُونَ }(215). If we were to be required to follow this induction they claimed, and this question they asked, then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would have clarified that for us, as He said, “So that you may clarify to the people what has been revealed to them” { لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ }(216). And he would have asked this same question to the best of generations, who were the most eager for the religion and for understanding it, in order to derive, as they claim, definitive general principles.
Then, after their inference that Allah, Exalted is He, did that for the benefit they mentioned, they also claimed that when Allah did that action for such and such benefit, it must and cannot ever deviate from that in any branch or any individual case of the general rule, ever. This is a right upon Him, Exalted is He, that does not waver or change. We ask them a question: Is it permissible to specify a general rule established by text or not? They all say yes, as the many general texts in the Book and the Sunnah are mostly specified by Him, Exalted is He, to the extent that it was said, “There is no general rule except that it has been specified,” except for His saying, “And Allah is All-Knowing of everything” { وَاللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ }(217). He permitted sales and prohibited uncertainty, forbade the sale of fresh dates and allowed the sale of dried dates, and Allah, Exalted is He, did not obligate Himself to apply the general rule established by text to all its individuals, but rather He, Exalted is He, excludes what He wills. So why did they not say this regarding the general rule established by their induction, if it is valid to be considered general, that He, Exalted is He, has exceptions as He wills? Perhaps the issue...
__________
(215) Surah Al-Anbiya, verse 23.
(216) Surah An-Nahl, verse 44.
(217) Al-Amidi (Ali ibn Abi Ali ibn Muhammad), Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, Islamic Office, Beirut, Lebanon, vol. 4, p. 281.


[Page 98]

The issue presented is one of the specific matters from that alleged generality, especially - and I say especially - when a correct evidence from the authentic Sunnah comes to exclude this matter and there is a specific text regarding it; it is not permissible to reject this specification, as they did in rejecting the hadith "the two sellers have the choice until they part"(218) which is related to the general prohibition of selling uncertainty. And Allah, Exalted is He, said: {And do not say about Allah that which you do not know}(219). So where do we have the knowledge that Allah, Exalted is He, legislated that ruling for the sake of such and such benefit, and then from where do we have the knowledge that Allah, Exalted is He, must never specify that ruling and must apply it to all similar branches? There is no power and no strength except with Allah.
The third evidence: They said, "If the public interest (maslaha) in the appropriate analogy (qiyas) is not considered, it would lead to some occurrences being devoid of the ruling of Allah, Exalted is He, because the texts and the analogies derived from them are limited, while incidents are not limited, and the limited cannot suffice for the unlimited. Thus, it is necessary that some new incidents be devoid of rulings, and the absence of rulings on incidents is invalid."
(Response): Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said, "We bring you one text that encompasses every incident that has occurred or will occur until the Day of Judgment, and it is the authentic report we mentioned earlier with its chain of narration, which is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), 'Leave me as long as I leave you, for those before you were destroyed due to their excessive questioning and their disagreement with their prophets. If I command you with something, then do of it what you can, and if I prohibit you from something, then avoid it'(4). It is thus established that what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not mention is not obligatory because he did not command it, and it is not forbidden because he did not prohibit it, so it remains necessarily permissible. Whoever claims otherwise...
__________
(218) Bukhari (2079), Muslim (1532).
(219) Surah Al-A'raf: verse 33.
(4) Narrated by Bukhari (7288), Muslim (1337).


[Page 99]

It is forbidden for a person obligated to act to bring forth a prohibition from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). If he does so, we hear and obey; otherwise, his statement is void. Whoever claims there is an obligation must bring forth a command from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). If he brings it, we hear and obey; if he does not, his statement is void. From Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, from his father, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "The most grievous of Muslims in sin is the one who asks about something that is not forbidden, and it becomes forbidden because of his question"(220)(*). The text of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) indicates, as you hear, that everything for which there is no prohibition from Allah, Exalted is He, is not forbidden, and likewise, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed us regarding obligations as well.
And Allah, Exalted is He, said: {And do not say about what your tongues describe, 'This is lawful and this is unlawful,' to invent falsehood against Allah. Indeed, those who invent falsehood against Allah will not succeed}(221). Thus, it is forbidden to rule on something in religion by declaring it forbidden or lawful, and whoever does so is called a liar, and his action is a lie unless Allah prohibits it or permits it in the text or consensus. And Allah, Exalted is He, said: {Say, 'Have you considered what Allah has sent down to you of provision and made of it lawful and unlawful? Say, 'Has Allah permitted you, or do you invent [something] about Allah?'}(222). Thus, Allah, Exalted is He, names the one who prohibits without permission from Allah regarding the prohibition of that thing or permits without permission from Allah regarding its permissibility as an inventor of falsehood(223). And the hadith states: "What Allah has made lawful in His Book is lawful, and what He has made unlawful is unlawful, and what He has remained silent about is excused, so accept from Allah His excusal." Al-Hakim said: The chain of narration is authentic, and Al-Dhahabi agreed.
__________
(220) (*) Narrated by Bukhari (7289), Muslim (2358).
(221) Surah An-Nahl: 116.
(222) Surah Yunus: 95.
(223) Ibn Hazm, Al-Ihkam, previous reference, pp. 19-20.


[Page 100]

Al-Bazzar's chain of narration is sound, and al-Albani said: "It is the closest," and al-Haythami said: "Its chain is good"(224). This hadith indicates that everything the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) remained silent about is excused, thus it is established that every incident has a ruling, as incidents do not fall outside the previous classification, and success is from Allah, the Exalted.
Among the responses also:
2- Generalities and analogies encompass everyone, as incidents are not devoid of rulings due to their reliance on generalities and analogies, and this is according to those who accept analogy.
4- We concede that generalities and analogies do not encompass incidents, but we do not concede that incidents are devoid of rulings, because the absence of evidence for permission or prohibition in the incident is evidence for choice in it, and choice is a legal ruling(225).
The fourth evidence: Al-Qarafi said, "What confirms the practice of public interest (maslaha) is that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) acted on matters purely for the sake of public interest, without a prior witness by consideration"(226).
(Response): The explanation of the actions of the Companions was previously addressed in response to al-Tufi's arguments, and the judge objected to...
__________
(224) See al-Albani (Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani), Series of Authentic Hadiths and Some of Their Jurisprudence and Benefits, Al-Ma'arif Publishing and Distribution, Riyadh, 1st ed., 1415 AH - 1995 CE, Hadith No. (2256), and the hadith was narrated by al-Bazzar (Ahmad ibn Amr ibn Abd al-Khaliq), Musnad al-Bazzar, Library of Sciences and Judgments, Medina, 1st ed., began in 1988 and ended in 2009, Hadith No. (4087).
(225) The appropriate description, previous reference, p. 273.
(226) Al-Qarafi (Ahmad ibn Idris ibn Abd al-Rahman), Sharh Tanqih al-Fusul, United Technical Printing Company, 1st ed., 1393 AH - 1973 CE, p. 446.


[Page 101]

This evidence, as conveyed by al-Ghazali, indicates that he said they may have relied on meanings that they know are supported by the principles of the Sharia (Islamic law), even if they do not specify them(227).
(Risalat al-Raisuni on Ibn Hazm and the response to him)
Raisuni said, "The meaning of the verse { لا يُسْأَلُ عَمَّا يَفْعَلُ وَهُمْ يُسْأَلُونَ } is that Allah, Exalted is He, is not questioned about His actions, nor is anyone allowed to object to His actions and rulings. Allah judges, and there is no one to reverse His judgment. In contrast, the servants are questioned, held accountable, blamed, and they make mistakes. This is because Allah, on one hand, is the Creator of all things and the Owner of all things; to Him belongs what is in the heavens and what is in the earth; to Him belongs the first and the last. And on the other hand, He is the Most Just of judges, the Most Merciful of the merciful, and the Most Truthful of speakers, and He is the All-Knowing, the All-Aware. Based on this foundation—or these foundations—come His actions and rulings. There is no room for correction or objection in them.
For this reason, the Lord, Exalted is He, { لا يُسْأَلُ عَمَّا يَفْعَلُ } means He is not questioned in a manner of accountability or objection.
This is the meaning of the question in the verse. There is no doubt that directing such a question to Allah, Exalted is He, is disbelief.
Here lies the error—or fallacy—of Ibn Hazm in prohibiting reasoning based on this verse and similar verses. The question regarding the reasons for legal rulings, and likewise the question about the secrets and wisdoms behind Allah's actions, is a question of understanding and learning; it is based on the principle of "inquiry," which is the request for understanding. This type of questioning and inquiries has been expressed by the prophets and the righteous.
__________
(227) The appropriate description, the previous reference, 276.


[Page 102]

And he said, "The difference is that the question directed to Allah, or to any of His actions, or any of His sayings, or any of His rulings, if its purpose is: objection, denial, mockery, or accountability, then it is misguidance and disbelief. From this perspective, the question mentioned in the verse that Ibn Hazm used as evidence for the prohibition of seeking the reasons behind rulings is His saying, Exalted is He: {And let those in whose hearts is disease and the disbelievers say, 'What did Allah intend by this as an example?' Thus Allah leads astray whom He wills.}

So the question in the verse is posed by the disbelievers and those in whose hearts is disease, and it carries the meaning of mockery and belittlement, as is clarified in the reason for its revelation.

(The response) This is a specification without a specific reason; the question includes the question of inquiry, which is the reality in language, and then it encompasses more than one metaphorical meaning according to those who accept metaphor. Then, those among the polytheists of Quraysh or others who say it is permissible to question Allah with a question of accountability are all polytheists and people of the Book who believe in His lordship, and it is far-fetched that the verse denies those who ask this question.

Then Al-Raisuni said:
__________


[Page 103]

((And questions of this kind came from the chosen and virtuous, whom we are to follow in their way:
The angels asked their Lord, glory be to Him: {They said, “Will You place on it one who will cause corruption on it and shed blood, while we glorify You with praise and sanctify You?”} 1.

(
And Abraham the Friend, peace be upon him, asked Allah the Exalted and said: {My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead} 2 Al-Qurtubi said, “He only asked for sight, because souls long to see what they have been told of; then he, peace be upon him, gave as the reason for his question reassurance.
That is, I asked You so that my heart may be at ease through the difference between what is known by proof and what is known by sight.3
Of this kind also is the question of both Zechariah and Mary, peace be upon them, when each was given the glad tidings of a child:
Zechariah: {He said, “My Lord, how shall I have a boy when old age has reached me and my wife is barren?”} 4.
And Mary: {She said, “My Lord, how shall I have a child when no man has touched me?”} 5.
Each of them was amazed and bewildered before Allah’s command and power, so their tongue moved to ask the Lord of the command — glory be to Him, He is capable of all things and knows all things.

Al-Nasa’i and Ahmad reported, on the occasion of the revelation of the verse, that Umm Salama said to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: “Why are we not mentioned in the Qur’an as men are?” So Allah revealed this verse. (Indeed, the Muslim men and Muslim women ............ the verse)


[Page 104]

I said (Abu Mazen): "It has been reported in the authentic collection of interpretations based on transmission (4/127)."
It was narrated by al-Hakim (al-Mustadrak 2/416) through the chain of Ibn Abi Najih from Mujahid from Umm Salamah, with this wording. He said: It is authentic according to the conditions of the two shaykhs, although they did not narrate it, and al-Dhahabi agreed with him. It was narrated by al-Tirmidhi, who graded it as good, and al-Albani authenticated it (al-Sunan 5/354 - Book of Tafsir, Chapter on Surah Al-Ahzab, Hadith 3211). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar also graded it as good after he narrated it through its chains and supporting evidence (Muwafaqat al-Khabar 2/21-25) and al-Nawawi said: Its chain is authentic (see the authentication of the hadith in al-Kashaf 3/109). Al-Suyuti also authenticated it (al-Jami al-Saghir with Fayd al-Qadir 1/277 Hadith 434).
It is mentioned in Musnad Ahmad (44/199)
Its chain of narration is authentic, its narrators are trustworthy narrators of the Sahih. Shaybah is the son of Uthman al-Qurashi, and al-Nasa'i narrated from him, and he is trustworthy. He was corroborated, as it was narrated by Uthman ibn Hakim from Abdur-Rahman ibn Shaybah and Abdullah ibn Rafi'.
Yunus ibn Muhammad narrated it - as in this narration, and the following narration numbered (26604) - and Muhammad ibn al-Munhal - as reported by al-Tabarani in "al-Kabir" 23/(665) - both from Abdul Wahid ibn Ziyad, from Uthman ibn Hakim, from Abdullah ibn Rafi, from Umm Salama, with it..))


[Page 105]

(Al-Radd) First: As for the statement of the angels, let us look into these narrations.

It is mentioned in al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib by Qawam al-Sunnah (1/440)
He said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
"Indeed, the first to respond were the angels. Allah said: {I am placing a vicegerent on earth. They said: Will You place therein one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we glorify You with praise and sanctify You?} He turned away from them, and they circled the Throne for six years, saying: Here we are, here we are, as an excuse to You; here we are, here we are, we seek Your forgiveness and turn to You."

It is mentioned in the authentic collection of tafsir by transmission (1/62)
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: Yahya ibn Abi Bakir narrated to us, Zuhair ibn Muhammad narrated to us from Musa ibn Jubair from Nafi, the freed slave of Abdullah ibn Umar, from Abdullah ibn Umar that he heard the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) say: When Allah sent Adam (peace be upon him) down to earth, the angels said: O Lord, will You place therein one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we glorify You with praise and sanctify You? He said: Indeed, I know what you do not know. They said: Our Lord, we are more obedient to You than the children of Adam. Allah, Exalted is He, said to the angels: Bring forth two angels so that they may descend to earth and see how they act. They said: Our Lord, Harut and Marut. So they descended to earth, and a woman of the most beautiful of humans was presented to them. She came to them and they asked her for herself, and she said: By Allah, not until you speak this word of associating partners. They said: By Allah, we will never associate partners with Allah. Then she left them and returned with a child in her arms, and they asked her for herself, and she said: By Allah, not until you kill this child.


[Page 106]

They said: "By Allah, we will never kill him." Then she went and returned with a cup of wine that she was carrying, and they asked her about herself. She said: "No, by Allah, until you both drink this wine." So they drank and became intoxicated, and they fell upon her and killed the boy. When they regained consciousness, the woman said: "By Allah, you have left nothing of what you had refused me except that you have done it when you were drunk." So they were given the choice between the punishment of this world and the Hereafter, and they chose the punishment of this world. (1)
And it was deemed good by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him).
However, this narration has been established through the route of Abdullah ibn Umar from Ka'b al-Ahbar, as narrated by Abdul Razzaq from al-Thawri from Musa ibn Uqba from Salim from Ibn Umar from Ka'b in a similar but abbreviated form (it is a stopped narration, thus it is among the Isra'iliyat, and its content contradicts both transmission and reason due to what has been established in the authentic hadiths regarding the infallibility of the angels).
And there are many examples in the narrations that are weak in their chain of transmission (sanad) and content (matn), or both, and I have limited myself to a few samples of them.))
Al-Albani corrected the suspended narration in his book "The Series of Weak and Fabricated Hadiths and Their Negative Impact on the Ummah" (1/315) and said:
((I said: And the suspended narration is authentic, as will come.))

Al-Tabari reported from Ibn Abbas ((Al-Tabari's Tafsir = Jami al-Bayan, ed. Shakir (1/ 456)
Then He presented these names to those angels - meaning the angels who were with Iblis, who were created from scorching fire - and said to them: "Inform Me of the names of these" - He says: "Tell Me the names of these if you are truthful, if you know that I am not making a vicegerent (khalifah) on earth." (3) He said: So when the angels realized God's accountability upon them.


[Page 107]

In what they spoke of knowledge of the unseen, which no one knows except Him, and of which they have no knowledge, they said: "Glory be to You," as a way of exalting Allah from having anyone know the unseen other than Him - "We turn to You in repentance; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us," distancing themselves from knowledge of the unseen, except what You have taught us as You taught Adam."

And al-Tabari commented on Ibn Abbas's statement: "Abu Ja'far said: This narration from Ibn Abbas indicates that Allah, Exalted is He, saying: 'And when your Lord said to the angels, I am creating a vicegerent on earth,' is a speech from Allah, Exalted is He, directed to a specific group of angels rather than to all of them, and that those who were addressed were a tribe of Iblis specifically - those who fought with him among the jinn of the earth before the creation of Adam - and that Allah only singled them out with this statement as a test and trial for them, to make them aware of their limited knowledge and the superiority of many who are weaker than them in creation over them, and that His honor is not attained through the strength of bodies and the might of forms, as Iblis, the enemy of Allah, thought. And it is clear that their statement to their Lord: 'Will You place therein one who causes corruption and sheds blood,' was a mistake on their part and a conjecture about the unseen; and that Allah, Exalted is He, informed them of the evil of what they spoke of, and made them aware of it until they repented and turned to Him for what they said and uttered from conjecturing about the unseen, and distanced themselves from Him knowing the unseen other than Him, and He revealed to them from Iblis what he had concealed of the arrogance that he had been hiding from them."

So look, may Allah have mercy on you, at the context of all these narrations, for they indicate that the angels did that out of error, and this is supported by the context of the verses themselves. For Allah, Exalted is He, did not respond to them by saying, "I do this for the benefit of such and such," but rather said to them: "Indeed, I know."


[Page 108]

What you do not know) so suffice yourselves with that and be content with it. Let al-Risuni be content with this response as well, and let him not ask Allah why He did such and such. This reasoning from al-Risuni is like one who cites the saying of Noah (peace be upon him), "Indeed, my son is of my family," and seeks intercession for his disbelieving son by permitting intercession and seeking forgiveness for the disbeliever, because Noah, the righteous servant, did that and overlooked Allah's response to him, "Indeed, I advise you not to be among the ignorant." This is one of the most astonishing arguments. Just as the angels, if we assume the validity of their question for the sake of argument, only asked Allah Himself to know His purpose behind the action itself, does al-Risuni ask Allah Himself so that we may be clear about the purpose of legislation? Or do they still say that He did such and such for such and such a purpose based solely on the conjecture that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said is the most false of statements? From where do we have the right to ask Allah why He did such and such, if this question is valid for us? The answer may be with al-Risuni.

Secondly: As for his citing the words of Abraham (peace be upon him), "Show me how You give life to the dead," I do not see the connection between the question (why did You do such and such) and Abraham's supplication to be shown by his Lord how He gives life to the dead. There is no relevance of this statement to reasoning and questioning the cause at all; rather, it is a legitimate request for Allah to show His servant some of His signs so that he may increase in faith. This is nothing but a supplication for an increase in faith. Even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that this is a question about the cause, as al-Risuni would like to say, then Abraham is asking Allah Himself. So do the proponents of the objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia) ask Allah Himself about His wisdom so that we may be clear about these purposes and causes they speak of? Exalted are You; this is a great slander.
__________


[Page 109]

Thirdly: As for his argument with the words of Mary and Zechariah: {He said, "My Lord, how can I have a boy when old age has certainly overtaken me and my wife is barren?"} 4.
And Mary: {She said, "My Lord, how can I have a child when no man has touched me?"} 5.

Ibn Hazm said (al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa' wa al-Nahl (1/138)):
We say there is no objection in the response of Zechariah and Mary (peace be upon them) to the glad tidings of the Creator, Exalted is He, to them, as is found in your book regarding Moses (peace be upon him), nor is there any denial in the words of Zechariah and Mary (peace be upon them) that He would give them children while they are barren and a virgin. Rather, they only asked to know the means by which the child would come to be, for in the Arabic language, in which the Qur'an was revealed, there is no disagreement that its meaning is "from where." Thus, what we have said is confirmed, that they asked Allah, the Exalted, from where they would have the children, or from which direction would Zechariah marry another woman, or would Mary marry a man, or from His creation, Exalted is He, and His power. Zechariah only asked the verse to demonstrate his truthfulness among his people and so that it would not be thought that they had taken it and claimed it. This is the apparent meaning of the two verses we mentioned from the Qur'an without the need for forced interpretation by transferring words or adding or omitting.
The word "how" has two meanings: the first is "how" and the second is "from where," as is in the verse, and there is a great difference between "from where" and "why." Thus, the question about the manner or source is not what is intended by the prohibition. The companions asked, "You said, 'How is this?'" meaning "From where is this?" And from where did we come? So Allah informed them that they had come from themselves and because of their disobedience: "Say, 'It is from yourselves.'" Thus, the question here is about something they did themselves.


[Page 110]

And the question is not about the motive for legislating the ruling, meaning what made Allah legislate this ruling, which is the question of "why" or "for what reason." If we were to descend further, then Mary and Zechariah only asked Allah, "How can we have this now?" in order to obtain the answer, and we have nothing but the illusions of the proponents of objectives (maqasid) and their false assumptions. Thus, it is correct that the question of Mary and Zechariah (peace be upon them) was about the aspect (of the matter) and not about the motive for the legislation, so there is no basis for using this as evidence here.

Thirdly, his citing the hadith of Umm Salamah: "And al-Nasa'i and Ahmad narrated regarding the reason for the revelation of the verse that Umm Salamah said to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): 'Why are we not mentioned in the Qur'an as the men are mentioned?' So Allah revealed this verse: 'Indeed, the Muslim men and the Muslim women...' (the verse)."

The response to that is that the question was in the form of "Why are we not mentioned?" and not "Why does Allah not mention us?" Umm Salamah was asking about the reason from their side that made Allah not mention them, similar to the companions' question of "How is this?" This is like the narration in the Sunan of al-Darimi (1/500):

Sulaiman said, "O Abu Hazim, why do we dislike death?" He said, "Because you have ruined the Hereafter and built up the world, so you dislike to be transferred from construction to ruin." He was only asking about the reason within them that made them dislike death, not what was the reason that made Allah cause them to dislike death.

And like the question of the Jews and Christians.


[Page 111]

Sahih al-Bukhari (3/90)
Narrated to us by Sulaiman ibn Harb, he narrated to us from Hammād, from Ayyub, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them), from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who said: "Your example and the example of the People of the Two Books is like that of a man who hired laborers, and said: 'Who will work for me from dawn until noon for one qirat?' So the Jews worked. Then he said: 'Who will work for me from noon until the time of the afternoon prayer for one qirat?' So the Christians worked. Then he said: 'Who will work for me from the afternoon prayer until the sun sets for two qirats?' So you are they." The Jews and the Christians became angry and said: "Why do we work more and receive less?" He said: "Did I reduce your rights?" They said: "No." He said: "Then that is My favor; I give it to whom I will."
And here, they only asked Allah, Exalted is He, and look at the answer: "That is My favor; I give it to whom I will." So let those who seek objectives (maqasid) be content with this answer. Even if we were to concede that they asked Allah about the motivation behind legislation, let them be satisfied that Allah does what He wills and legislates what He wills.
And there is a distinction between the question of Umm Salama here with "What is wrong with us?" and the question of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) about the reason for legislating the ruling on reconciliation with the polytheists and the response of one who has returned to them. Umar here asked a question that was not appropriate for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) himself: "Why did we give in regarding our religion?" He later regretted this deeply and said, "So I acted accordingly." And see how our most knowledgeable one of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) responded. Did he say as the proponents of objectives (maqasid) claim, that He, Exalted is He, legislated this ruling for such and such benefit and for such and such reason? Rather, he said only, "I am the Messenger of Allah, and I do not disobey Him." So let the proponents of objectives be satisfied with this answer and leave the matter to Allah. The entire account of Hudaybiyyah is in Sahih al-Bukhari.
Likewise, look at Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her). Mu'adhah said: I asked Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) and said: Why does a menstruating woman make up the fasts but not make up the prayers?
She said: "Are you a Harurite?" I replied: "I am not a Harurite. But I ask."
She said: "We would experience that, and we would be commanded to make up the fast (sawm) but not commanded to make up the prayer (salah)."


[Page 112]

(1)

Aisha did not burden herself as the commentators do now, as they say, and she states, as they say, that when He commanded them to pray, it was a hardship for them, but as for fasting, no; she only justified it with the text, and that is sufficient.

And look, may Allah have mercy on you, how when the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) justified the prohibition of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and acted based on this justification in neglecting the text, what did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) do to them?

In Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha said: “We gave the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) medicine in his illness, and he kept signaling to us not to give him medicine. We said: It is because the sick person dislikes medicine. When he regained consciousness, he said: ‘Did I not forbid you from giving me medicine?’ We said: It is because of the dislike for the medicine. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: ‘There will not remain among you anyone except that he will be given medicine, and I am looking at al-Abbas, for he did not witness you.’”
(We gave him medicine) means: we placed medicine in the side of his mouth without his choice, and it is said that it is the practice of rubbing dates on the gums and inserting medicine with the finger into the mouth, which is a painful matter.

It is mentioned in "Umdat al-Qari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" (18/73)


[Page 113]

(“the sick person’s dislike”) — ‘Iyad said: we have it with the nominative, meaning: this is from him, the dislike of the sick person; and Abu al-Baqa’ said: it is the predicate of an omitted subject, that is, this refusal is dislike. I said: there is no added benefit in it, because what he said is like what ‘Iyad said; and the accusative is also allowed, as the object, that is, because of the sick person’s dislike, and its being in the accusative as a verbal noun is allowed, that is, he disliked it as the sick person dislikes the medicine. His words: (“and I am looking”) is a circumstantial clause. That is: no one will remain except that the medicine is given to him in my presence, while I look at them, as retribution for what they did and a punishment for them for leaving compliance with his prohibition of that. As for the one who did it, it is clear; and as for the one who did not, it is because they neglected to forbid what he had forbidden them. His words: (“for he did not witness you”) that is, he was not present with you when the medicine was given; and Maymuna, the Mother of the Believers, was with them and was also given it, since she was fasting, to fulfil the oath of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him.))
It is mentioned in Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by Ibn Battal (8/517)
Al-Muhallab said: As for the hadith of the medicine given by force, it is evidence that people are held to retaliation even for lesser injuries than wounds, because he (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered that retaliation be taken for him against whoever had given it to him during his illness and pained him, and this is less than a wound, with no intent to harm. It also shows retaliation of a man against a woman, since most of the people of the house were women, and it is evidence for taking a group for one person.
Al-Muhallab also said ((Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by Ibn Battal (9/415)
That, since what was done to him was something he had not ordered them to do by way of treatment — indeed he had forbidden it — and he was pained by it severely, he ordered that retaliation be taken from everyone who did it to him. Do you not see his words: no one shall remain in the house except that it is given to him, except al-‘Abbas, for he did not witness you? So he made retaliation obligatory on everyone from the household who gave it to him, and whoever helped in that and saw it, for their going against his prohibition, peace be upon him. And this meaning has come in the report of Ibn Ishaq from al-Zuhri, from


[Page 114]

‘Abd Allah ibn Ka‘b ibn Malik (that they gave the medicine to the Prophet, peace be upon him, during his illness, and when he recovered he said: Why did you do that? They said: We feared, O Messenger of Allah, that you had pleurisy. He said: That is a disease Allah would not strike me with. No one shall remain in the house except that it is given to him, except my uncle). So Maymuna was given it while fasting, because of the oath of the Messenger of Allah, as a punishment for them))

It is mentioned in Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar (8/147)
((It is learned from it that one who gives a far-fetched interpretation is not excused for it, and there is something to consider in that as well, because what happened was in opposition to the prohibition)) That is, a far-fetched interpretation may be excused if there is no explicit text of prohibition opposing it; whereas this hadith is specific to the case where there is an explicit prohibition contradicting this interpretation. And Allah knows best.

The point of this hadith is that the Companions first gave reasons for the hadith and for the Prophet’s prohibition, peace and blessings be upon him: they asked, why did he forbid us to give the medicine? So they drew out the motive for the prohibition from themselves and said that the motive or reason was only the sick person’s dislike of medicine, and they did not intend the real prohibition. So they went against the real meaning of the prohibition by overturning it, because of what they believed to be a benefit, namely their wish for the Prophet’s recovery, peace and blessings be upon him. Their interpretation thus became very far-fetched, because they opposed the explicit text with their suppositions. For that reason the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not excuse them, and punished them with this painful punishment, general to whoever did it and whoever did not, for leaving the apparent meaning for a matter of supposition and an imagined benefit. So this hadith shows the invalidity of giving reasons altogether, the obligation to act on the apparent meaning of the texts, the invalidity of abandoning the evidence for what people suppose to be a benefit, the invalidity of the search for objectives altogether, and that one who leaves the apparent text for some supposed interpretation is not excused, but is punished as well.


[Page 115]

And the punishment for one who remains silent about the denial of it, and this was as mentioned in the explanations of the hadith during his illness before his death. There is no abrogator for these rulings. May Allah send blessings upon the one who died and left us on the clear path. But do the proponents of objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia) consider this and refrain from asking their Lord why He did so? Especially since we believe that there is no responder for them due to the cessation of revelation, and it is nothing but their conjectures. There is no power and no strength except with Allah.
Al-Raisuni said in response to that, "The theory of the objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia) according to Imam al-Shatibi" (p. 246).
Indeed, denying the goodness and corruption in actions, and the benefit and harm they may bring, and that reason guides you to much of this, is not only a departure from rationality, but also a neglect and suspension of the clear indications found in a great many legal texts.
The Noble Qur'an has commanded the doing of good, righteousness, and what is known, and has prohibited evil, corruption, and what is reprehensible. It has commanded justice and benevolence, and has forbidden indecency and oppression. It has informed that it has made lawful the good things and prohibited the vile.
If it were not for the fact that these commandments and prohibitions have meanings understood by those addressed, there would be no benefit in addressing them with them. Who can deny that when people were addressed with them, they had a clear understanding of their content and meaning? And that they were addressed based on that understanding? Indeed, they valued them appropriately. For this reason, they knew that one who commands this good and this righteousness, and forbids this evil and this corruption, without exceeding them, cannot be a liar. From this, a number of distinguished Arabs hastened to embrace Islam.


[Page 116]

For merely estimating what he called for in terms of truth and righteousness, and what he forbade in terms of misguidance and corruption.

Khadijah said to him: "No, rejoice! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. By Allah, you maintain family ties, speak the truth, bear the burdens of others, help the needy, honor your guests, and assist in times of need for the truth."
Reflecting on this situation and this statement should direct attention to three aspects of it, all of which testify to the inherent goodness and evil of actions according to reason:
1- The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was already embodying these virtues before the revelation and before the Prophethood, appreciating them with his sound mind and pure nature.
2- Lady Khadijah (may Allah be pleased with her) also appreciates these noble actions, accepts them from her husband, and considers them among his noble qualities and virtues, without relying on any legal ruling in this regard.
3- Lady Khadijah is certain that these actions can only receive approval and love from Allah, and that their doer can only receive care, honor, and a good reward from Allah.

Response: We have previously stated that justice and benevolence, and their opposites from the concepts of evil, immorality, and oppression, are all meanings that are not determined by our minds but are according to what Allah intended. Even Ibn al-Qayyim, who cited the words of the Sheikh to argue for the reasoning based on public interest (maslaha), look at what he says.


[Page 117]

He said, "Indeed, the ultimate goal of reason is to grasp in general the goodness of what the Sharia has detailed, or its evil. Thus, reason comprehends it as a whole. The Sharia then comes to detail it. This is similar to how reason understands the goodness of justice. As for whether this specific action is just or unjust, this is something that reason is unable to comprehend in every action and contract. Likewise, it is incapable of grasping the goodness of every action and its evil.
The Sharia comes to detail and clarify that. What clear reason has understood from this, the Sharia comes to affirm it. What was good at one time and evil at another, and reason has not guided to the time of its goodness from the time of its evil, the Sharia commands it at the time of its goodness and prohibits it at the time of its evil. Similarly, an action may contain both a benefit and a harm, and reason cannot determine whether the harm outweighs the benefit. Thus, reason hesitates in that. The Sharia comes to clarify this, commanding the greater benefit and prohibiting the greater harm. Likewise, an action may be beneficial for one person and harmful for another. Reason does not grasp that. The Sharia comes to clarify it, commanding it for whom it is beneficial and prohibiting it for whom it is harmful. Similarly, an action may appear to be harmful, while within it is a great benefit that reason cannot perceive, and it can only be known through the Sharia, such as jihad and killing in the cause of Allah. It may appear to be beneficial, while within it is a great harm that reason cannot perceive, so the Sharia comes to clarify what is within it of the greater benefit and harm. This, while what reason is unable to grasp regarding the goodness and evil of actions is not less than what it can perceive of that. Thus, the need for messengers is essential. In fact, it is above all needs. The world is in greater need of them than of the messengers, may Allah's blessings be upon them all."


[Page 118]

As for his argument using the words of Khadijah, it is very strange, as it suggests that the Quraysh did not know any religion that would guide them towards good, whereas the opposite is true. In fact, they had remnants of the religion of Ibrahim (Abraham), and some of them were following the religion of Ibrahim, such as Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufail. The laws of the religion of Ibrahim were widespread, such as pilgrimage (hajj), as well as other laws from other religions like Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, the author's claim that Khadijah derived the rulings of these matters solely through her intellect is a significant overreach and a claim that requires evidence.

Commentary:
What has been mentioned above are the arguments of those who say that the Sharia (Islamic law) has objectives (maqasid) that Allah, Exalted is He, intended behind legislating the rulings. The primary objective that Allah, Exalted is He, legislated is what His servants perceive as beneficial. It is noted from the above that if this claim were accepted, the Sharia would become chaotic among rational individuals, who would pull at its edges based on their conjectures without regard to its foundations from the Book and the Sunnah. This would necessitate changing the rulings with the change of individuals, the passage of time, and the differences in locations. This leads to an overall alteration of the Sharia and the establishment of a new law, which is unanimously considered invalid. They are required to provide evidence for what they claim, yet they have not presented any explicit proof to support their position, and all they possess is mere conjecture, which is prohibited. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Beware of conjecture, for conjecture is the most false of speech."


[Page 119]

The hadith"(228).
And the researcher mentions here, if Allah wills, the legal evidence for the invalidation of this doctrine:
First: Allah, Exalted is He, said: “O you who have believed, do not put [yourselves] before Allah and His Messenger. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing”(229). Al-Tabari said: “Do not hasten to decide a matter in your wars or your religion before Allah and His Messenger have decided it for you, lest you decide contrary to the command of Allah and the command of His Messenger”(230). This verse indicates the prohibition of speaking on any issue without legal evidence from the Book or the Sunnah, and it does not command returning to what the people see as beneficial.
Second: Allah, Exalted is He, said: “And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight, and the heart - about all those [organs] one will be questioned”(231). The one who claims that Allah, Exalted is He, left the matter to whatever His servants see as beneficial is a speaker and follower of that which he has no knowledge of, but rather it is mere conjecture.
Third: Allah, Exalted is He, said: “Say, ‘Indeed, my Lord has forbidden immoralities, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, and sin and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know’”(232). This is similar to the previous one, and anyone who claims that Allah intended such and such without evidence is speaking about Allah that which he does not know.
Fourth: “This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion”(233). This verse
__________
(228) Al-Bukhari, Sahih, previous reference, hadith number (5143).
(229) Surah Al-Hujurat, verse: 1.
(230) Al-Tabari, Tafsir, previous reference, vol. 22, p. 272.
(231) Surah Al-Isra, verse: 36.
(232) Surah Al-A'raf, verse: 33.
(233) Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse 3.


[Page 120]

"This religion, in all its components of belief, worship, and legislation, is established; there is no modification or change in it, for this religion has been completed and its matter has ended"(234).
Allah, Exalted is He, said: “O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result”(235). Thus, He commanded to refer back in case of dispute to Allah and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), not to what we see as beneficial.
Sixth: Allah, Exalted is He, said: “And whatever you disagree over, its ruling is to Allah”(236). "So whatever is ruled by the Book and the Sunnah and is affirmed as authentic is the truth, and what is after the truth except misguidance"(237). Therefore, any presumption outside the Book and the Sunnah is misguidance.
Eighth: Allah, Exalted is He, said: “And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things and as guidance and mercy and good tidings for the Muslims”(238). Al-Khazin said: “And We have sent down to you the Book” meaning the Qur'an, “as clarification for all things” is a name from clarification. Mujahid said: it means what He commanded and what He prohibited, and the scholars of meanings said: “as clarification for all things” means matters of religion"(239). Thus, it is not correct, after the clarification of the commanded and prohibited, to return to any source other than it, as it has indicated the Sunnah.
__________
(234) Qutb (Sayyid), Fi Dhilal al-Qur'an, Dar al-Shuruq, Beirut, 17th ed., vol. 2, p. 833.
(235) Surah An-Nisa, verse 59.
(236) Surah Ash-Shura, verse 15.
(237) Al-Qasimi (Muhammad Jamal al-Din bin Muhammad Said), Mahasin al-Tawil, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1st ed., year 1418 AH, vol. 3, p. 139.
(238) Surah An-Nahl, verse 89.
(239) Al-Khazin (Ali bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim), Lubab al-Tawil fi Ma'ani al-Tanzil, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1st ed., 1415 AH, vol. 3, p. 59.


[Page 121]

Tenth: Allah, Exalted is He, said: “And do not say about what your tongues describe, ‘This is lawful and this is unlawful,’ to invent falsehood against Allah. Indeed, those who invent falsehood against Allah will not succeed”(240). Al-Razi said, “Know that Allah, Exalted is He, when He restricted the prohibited things to those four, emphasized this restriction and refuted the way of the disbelievers in adding to these four and subtracting from them others. They have added to the prohibited things and also added to the permissible things, and it has been made clear that the things they say are lawful and unlawful are lies and fabrications against Allah”(241). Likewise, anyone who permits or prohibits based on what they see as beneficial without legislation.
Eleventh: Allah, Exalted is He, said: “Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord, and do not follow other than Him as allies”(242). Al-Tabari said, “He, Exalted is He, is saying to His Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), ‘O Muhammad, to these polytheists from your people who worship idols and statues, follow, O people, what has come to you from your Lord with clarity and guidance, and act upon what your Lord has commanded you, and do not follow anything other than what has been revealed to you from your Lord’”(243). Thus, anyone who follows what they see as beneficial without permission from Allah is following other than what Allah has revealed, and Allah, Exalted is He, knows best what is correct.
The previous verses clarified the obligation to return to Allah, Exalted is He, and His commands and the commands of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and not to speak about Allah based on conjecture that He intended such and such, nor to return to the desires of any human being or what
__________
(240) Surah An-Nahl, verse 116.
(241) Al-Razi (Muhammad ibn Umar ibn al-Hasan), Al-Mafatih al-Ghayb, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, 3rd ed., 1420 AH, vol. 20, p. 281.
(242) Surah Al-Anfal, verse 41. (Surah Al-A'raf, verse 3)
(243) Al-Tabari, Tafsir, op. cit., vol. 12, p. 298.


[Page 122]

people see as public interest (maslaha), and may Allah, the Exalted, grant success.
Based on what has preceded, the researcher believes that anyone who relies on what is called public interest (maslaha) to justify a ruling that contradicts the Sharia is relying on falsehood, and the researcher will mention, if Allah wills, examples of that later on.
Similarly, anyone who relies on the theory of objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia) as a general concept to justify any ruling that contradicts the ruling of Allah and His Messenger is relying on nothing. Unfortunately, the researcher has found many proponents of secular and liberal thought in the current times who rely on this theory, I mean the theory of maqasid, sometimes calling it the general principles of the Sharia, and at other times the spirit of the Sharia, or the spirit of the text. They depend on it to justify their deviation from the clear and explicit Sharia rulings. I do not know of any spirit of the Sharia or what is called general principles; rather, these are names for which Allah has revealed no authority. Therefore, they should not be heeded or taken into account. For this reason, the researcher has elaborated on this topic, even though it is fundamentally an usul (principles) topic, but it is closely related to contemporary financial and economic jurisprudence issues. In fact, most contemporary economic fatwas that contradict the explicit texts of the Qur'an or the Sunnah are based solely on what they call the objectives of the Sharia and what has branched from it.


[Page 123]

The interests (masalih) and there is no power and no strength except with Allah.

Section Three

The concept of the objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia) according to Imam al-Shatibi.


[Page 124]

The Concept of Objectives (Maqasid) According to al-Shatibi
Introduction
It has become common among many contemporary scholars, when using the concept of objectives (maqasid), to assert that the primary objective of the legislator is the welfare of the servants, and that the welfare of the servants is known through the customary practices among people, and what people perceive as welfare. This concept has often been attributed to al-Shatibi. Did al-Shatibi truly intend what they claim and perceive? In this research, I attempt to find an answer to this question by presenting al-Shatibi's views on this topic, and may Allah grant success. However, before beginning this research, the researcher wishes to present his perspective regarding the meaning of the objective, the cause, and other related matters, as clarifying the point of contention will, with Allah's permission, remove the ambiguity.
First: The difference between the cause (illa), the reason (sabab), the purpose (gharaḍ), the sign (ʿalama), the meaning (maʿna), the public interest (maslaha), and the wisdom (hikma)
Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
“Abu Muhammad said, if someone were to say, you deny the statement regarding causes (al-‘ilal) and you affirm the existence of reasons (asbab), what is the difference between the two matters?
The answer, and with Allah's help, is that the differences between the cause (illah), the reason (sabab), the sign (alamah), and the objective (gharaḍ) are clear and evident distinctions. All of them are valid in their respective contexts, and none of them necessitate reasoning in the Sharia or a ruling by analogy (qiyas) at all. We say, and with Allah's help,
The cause (illa) is the name for any attribute that necessitates a certain matter with absolute necessity. The cause is never separate from its effect (ma'lul) at all, just as fire is the cause of burning and snow is the cause of cooling, where neither exists without the other at all, and neither precedes the other nor follows it.
the cause is everything that the agent (al-mukhtar) does for which, if he had wished, he could have refrained from doing, such as anger that leads to victory; thus, anger is the cause of victory. If the victor had wished not to achieve victory, he would not have achieved it. The cause does not necessitate the effect (al-masbub) necessarily, as it exists prior to the effect that results from it. As for the objective (al-gharaḍ), it is the matter that the doer aims for and intends to accomplish, and it is necessarily after the action. The objective of victory is to extinguish and remove anger. The removal of something is distinct from its existence; thus, the removal of anger is different from anger itself. Anger is the cause of victory, while the removal of anger is the objective in victory. Therefore, it is correct that each meaning we have mentioned is distinct from the other, and victory lies between anger and...
Removing it is a cause of anger, and dispelling anger is the objective of it.


[Page 125]

And as for the sign (alamah), it is a characteristic agreed upon by two individuals. When one of them sees it, he understands the matter they have agreed upon, such as the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to Ibn Mas'ud: "Your permission is to lift the veil and to listen to my voice until I prohibit you." Thus, lifting the veil and listening to the movement of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was a sign of permission for Ibn Mas'ud. And as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "I can recognize the voices of the group of the Ash'aris reciting the Qur'an when they enter at night, and I know their places from their voices reciting the Qur'an at night, even though I have not seen their places when they descended during the day." Therefore, the voices of the Ash'aris reciting the Qur'an were a sign of their place of descent. From this, the flags placed in the wilderness for guiding the way and the flags in armies for identifying the position of the leader were derived.
Abu Muhammad said, "And this is a fourth meaning.
It has also been called the meanings of the causes, and this is from their great confusion and corrupt attachment. The meaning is merely the interpretation of the term, such as when someone says, 'What is the meaning of haram?' You would say to him, 'It is everything that is not permissible to do.' Or if he says, 'What is the meaning of fard?' We would say, 'It is everything that is not permissible to leave.' Or he might ask, 'What is the scale?'
We say that it is a tool by which the variation in the quantities of bodies is known; this and similar things are the meanings, and this is also a fifth thing.
All of this does not establish a reason for the laws nor does it necessitate analogy (qiyas), because if the sign (alamah) is designated to recognize something specific, there is no way to recognize something else through it in any manner. If that were the case, it would not be a sign, nor would it have been designated as such, and confusion would arise.
Abu Muhammad said: When these five meanings that we mentioned are different and distinct, each one of them being unlike the other, and all having different definitions and ranks, it is necessary that no one of them be called by a name that belongs to another, so that understanding remains clear and they do not become confused, with some being called by another's name, which would lead to placing a meaning in the wrong context and invalidate the truths. The root of every calamity, confusion, and corruption is the mixing of names, and the occurrence of one name on many meanings, such that the informant uses that name while intending one of the meanings it encompasses, leading the listener to understand a different meaning than what the informant intended, resulting in calamity and confusion. This is the most harmful and destructive thing in the Sharia for those who believe in falsehood, except for whom Allah, Exalted is He, grants success.
These four names, namely the cause (illa), the purpose (ghرض), the reason (sabab), and the sign (alamat), we have clarified that their meanings are different and that their designations are various. We have decisively addressed the ailment of those who wish to impose the name of cause in the Sharia on the meaning of reason, thereby excluding what is not permissible to believe, which is that the laws were legislated by Allah, Exalted is He, for causes that necessitated their legislation, or to attribute falsehood to Allah in claiming that He legislated causes that He, Exalted is He, nor His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) specified, nor permitted. The people of causes must follow one of these two paths, and both are destructive.
And we do not deny that Allah, Exalted is He, has made some things a cause for some of the laws He has legislated; rather, we affirm this and establish it where it has been mentioned in the texts, such as his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), "The most grievous of people in Islam are those who ask about something that is not prohibited, then it is prohibited because of their question." Just as Allah has made the disbelief of the disbeliever and his dying as a disbeliever a cause for his eternal abode in the Fire of Hell, and dying in faith a cause for entering Paradise, and just as He has made theft under certain conditions a cause for amputation, and slander under certain conditions a cause for flogging, and unlawful sexual intercourse under certain conditions a cause for flogging and stoning, and just as we affirm these specified causes, we likewise deny that anyone can claim a cause where it has not been specified.
And we do not say that all laws are for reasons; rather, we say that none of them is for a reason except what has been explicitly stated to be for a reason. As for the rest, it is merely something that Allah, Exalted is He, willed, who does as He wishes. We do not prohibit or permit, nor do we add or subtract, and we do not say anything except what our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, and our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) have said. We do not exceed what they have said, nor do we leave anything of it. This is the pure religion that no one is permitted to contradict or have a different belief about. And with Allah, Exalted is He, is success.
And Allah, Exalted is He, said, describing Himself, { He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned. } So He informed us of the distinction between us and Him, and that His actions are not subject to accountability.


[Page 126]

And if it is not permissible for us to ask Him about any of His rulings and actions, then why is this? The causes would thus be entirely invalidated, and the reasons would be completely nullified, except for what Allah, Exalted is He, has explicitly stated that He did such-and-such for such-and-such a reason.
This too is something that should not be questioned; it is not permissible for anyone to say why this cause was for this ruling and not for another, nor to say why this thing was made a cause while another was not. For whoever engages in this questioning has disobeyed Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, and has deviated in religion, contradicting His saying, Exalted is He. (244)
From this discourse, the very important distinction between these terms becomes clear, and using one in place of another leads to significant confusion. However, it is necessary here to clarify the meaning of these terms according to other scholars so that the difference can be understood and clarified.
First, the meaning of cause: Al-Zarkashi said, "In Sharia, the majority say: it is the apparent, defined description that the evidence of the hearing indicates as being a defining characteristic of the legal ruling." He then commented, "Like the setting of the sun being a defining characteristic for the obligation of prayer... like the setting for prayer and the sighting of the moon in Ramadan for the obligation of fasting, and the threshold for zakat." (245) Thus, the cause here is in the same sense that Ibn Hazm meant.
As for the reason (illah) according to the jurists, they mean by it the apparent, defined description that is appropriate to the meaning of the ruling (246). By description, they mean the sign that indicates the existence of the ruling, such as when they say that measuring is the reason for the prohibition of women; thus, a measured item cannot be sold for another measured item involving women, or their saying that intoxication is the reason for the prohibition of a drink. Whether this sign is one that Allah, Exalted is He, has explicitly stated as a cause, as in the case of intoxication—where Ibn Hazm agrees with them—or not, they then resort to deriving a reason, as in the case of deriving the reason for measuring. Here, Ibn Hazm disagrees with them, as he holds that there is no cause except what Allah has made a cause.
The meaning of reason:
The reason (illah) according to the jurists is the apparent, defined description that is appropriate to the meaning of the ruling. Thus, it is a sign of the ruling according to the definition adopted by the researcher from Ibn Hazm's words. First, if it is found, the ruling exists with it. An example is travel being the reason for shortening prayers; when it exists, shortening is obligatory or recommended. However, it is an apparent sign that is not hidden, and it is also defined, not differing with the differences of individuals, places, and times. They have set conditions for this cause: first, that the establishment of this cause has a purpose from the legislator according to the adopted definition, meaning it must have an intention behind its establishment or a goal or wisdom. This wisdom is what makes this description appropriate, meaning that if we were to arrange the legal ruling based on this description, we would achieve what they call public interest (maslaha). This
__________
(244) Ibn Hazm, Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, previous reference, vol. 8, p. 563.
(245) Al-Zarkashi (Muhammad ibn Bahadur), Al-Bahr Al-Muhit, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, 1421 AH, 2000 CE, vol. 1, p. 246.
(246) Zidan (Abdul Karim), Al-Wajiz fi Usul al-Fiqh, Qurtuba Foundation, p. 203.


[Page 127]

Public interest (maslaha) is the purpose of Allah and His intent and wisdom behind legislating that ruling.
Al-Amidi said: "They differed regarding the permissibility of the cause in the original meaning as a mere indicator, and the preferred view is that the cause in the original must be understood as a motivator, meaning it must include a valid wisdom that is intended by the legislator in legislating the ruling; otherwise, if it were a mere descriptive attribute without any wisdom, but merely an indicator, then reasoning with it in the original is impossible"(247).
Al-Amidi defined wisdom as (the intended purpose of legislating the ruling) (248), and thus, whatever is intended by the legislator, or the wisdom, or the objective, all of this falls under the concept of purpose according to Ibn Hazm, referring to His purpose, Exalted is He, in legislating the ruling.
They differed regarding Allah's purpose in legislation; some defined it, such as Dr. Ahmed Raissouni, as (the goals for which the Sharia was established to achieve the benefit of the servants) (249).
To this definition and similar ones, the majority who discuss the objectives today adhere, and they mean by public interest a description of an action that generally or mostly brings about goodness or benefit for the public or individuals (250). They mean by interests here what people consider to be beneficial; thus, the legislator's intent or purpose is to achieve what people perceive as beneficial. Sheikh Muhammad al-Tahir ibn Ashour says: "The examination of many evidences from the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah necessitates certainty that the rulings of Islamic Sharia are contingent upon judgments and causes that relate to the general welfare."
__________
(247) Al-Amidi (Ali ibn Muhammad), Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, Beirut, Lebanon, 1st edition, 1404 AH, vol. 3, p. 224.
(248) Al-Amidi, the previous reference, vol. 2, p. 224.
(249) Raissouni (Ahmed), The Theory of Objectives According to Imam al-Shatibi, p. 19.
(250) Taha (Hamdi Subh), Objectives and Goals, Proceedings of the 22nd General Conference, p. 28.


[Page 128]

For society and individuals (251). There is no doubt that there are many matters that are considered beneficial by people but have been disregarded by the Sharia.
Thus, the purpose or objective, or wisdom, in their view, behind legislating a ruling is the benefit of the servants (ibad), and this is what is meant by their saying that the appropriate description is one that results in a benefit or harm depending on whether the ruling is a command for an action or a prohibition against it.
However, the determination of the appropriate beneficial description in the ruling is influenced by the jurist's perspective on what constitutes benefit (maslaha) and what constitutes harm (mafsada), as well as their view on the issue of the goodness or badness of actions. A jurist may conceive of a benefit that later, upon examination and research, proves to be a harm, and vice versa. Alternatively, it may be that the Sharia has abrogated or disregarded it, or that there is something more beneficial and more suitable for reasoning. Al-Shawkani says: "The appropriateness: it is also referred to as the connection, the benefit, the inference, and the consideration of the objectives (maqasid)." (252)
Thus, the reason ('illa) according to these usul scholars is a sign established by the legislator as a cause for the legal ruling. This sign must be apparent and not hidden, such as travel being a reason for shortening the prayer; travel...
It is an evident matter that must be consistent and not vary with different individuals; thus, it is not valid to make hardship a reason for shortening (the prayer) because it is not consistent. The reason must be appropriate, meaning it must achieve a benefit for the servants. In this example, that benefit is the alleviation of hardship, and the realization of this benefit and the removal of this harm is what they call wisdom (hikmah) or objective (maqsad) or the intention of the Legislator.
This concept of the cause (illa) differs from what Ibn Hazm calls a cause, because for him "it is the name for any attribute that necessitates a certain matter with absolute necessity, and the cause never separates from the effect (ma'lul) at all." They refer to this as the rational cause (illa al-aqliyya), while the other one that
__________
(251) Ashour (Muhammad ibn al-Tahir), Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Qatar, 1425 AH, 2004 CE, vol. 2, p. 245.
(252) Al-Shawkani (Muhammad ibn Ali), Irshad al-Fuhul ila Tahqiq al-Haqq min Ilm al-Usul, Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, first edition, 1419 AH, 1999 CE, vol. 2, p. 127.


[Page 129]

They refer to it in the definition as the legal cause (illa shar'iyya). Al-Zarkashi said: "It is divided into rational (aqliyyah): which does not become a cause by the making of a maker but by itself, and it is necessary and does not change with time, like the movement of the mover, and legal (shar'iyya): which has become a cause by the making of a maker. Then he said: 'The legal causes are only called causes metaphorically or broadly; otherwise, in reality, the cause is what necessitates the ruling by itself, which is the rational cause, while that which necessitates it through another is not a cause but rather an indicator of the ruling." (253)

The concept of objectives (maqasid) according to al-Shatibi
It is noted from al-Shatibi's words about interests (masalih) that what he intended by the interests that are to be preserved and attained is everything that the Legislator has commanded, and not everything that people desire and think is an interest. The harm (mafsada) that is to be avoided and minimized is everything that Allah has prohibited, and not everything that is difficult for the servants to do. The Sharia did not come in accordance with the desires of the servants in everything they wish for; rather, it came only to achieve servitude to Allah alone by adhering to His obedience and avoiding His prohibitions, Exalted is He. The greatest interest for creation is their attainment of Allah's pleasure and their entry into His Paradise, and the greatest harm is the attainment of Allah's wrath and their entry into His Hellfire. Any hardship that results from obligation is insignificant compared to the hardship resulting from the Fire, may Allah protect us from it. Thus, the intended meaning here is the purpose in the definition adopted by the researcher: the purpose of creating the servants is indeed to worship Him, Exalted and Most High. Allah made obedience to Him a means to enter Paradise and gain His pleasure, and made disobedience a means to His Hellfire and wrath, as He made clear.
__________
(253) Al-Zarkashi, al-Bahr al-Muhit, previous reference, vol. 4, p. 103.


[Page 130]

The sayings of al-Shatibi and commentary on them
He said: "The prohibited causes are causes of corruption, not of benefits, just as the permissible causes are causes of benefits, not of corruption" (254).
From this text, it becomes clear that al-Shatibi considered every prohibited cause to be a cause of corruption. Thus, every cause for acquiring wealth through what is unlawful is prohibited, such as usury (riba), uncertainty (gharar), gambling (maysir), or other types of sales that are forbidden; they are purely corrupt and have no benefit in them, even if people perceive them as beneficial, and the opposite is true.
He said: "If that is the case, it is not correct for anyone to claim that the Sharia was established according to the desires and interests of the servants" (255).
This is a clear statement from him that refutes anyone who says that the Sharia is merely a reflection of what the servants see as beneficial.
He said: "The fact that a benefit is a benefit intended by the ruling and a corruption is a corruption likewise is something that is specific to the Legislator; there is no room for reason in this based on the principle of negation of rational good and evil. If the Legislator has legislated a ruling for a particular benefit, then He is the one who establishes that benefit; otherwise, it could logically be that it is not so, as all things are equal in relation to their original status, and there is no judgment by reason regarding their goodness or badness" (256).
From this text, it becomes clear that rational good and evil have no place in determining what is beneficial and what is corrupt, and there is no room for reason or desire in that; rather, the Legislator is the one who establishes the benefits, and no one else.
__________
(254) al-Shatibi, al-Muwafaqat, previous reference, vol. 1, p. 374.
(255) al-Shatibi, previous reference, vol. 2, p. 292.
(256) al-Shatibi, previous reference, vol. 2, p. 534.


[Page 131]

He said: "If it is accepted that the purpose of the Sharia (law) is for the interests of the servants, then it returns to them according to the command of the Legislator and within the limits He has set, not according to their whims and desires. Therefore, the legal obligations are burdensome on the soul"(257). He said: "The wisdom of the All-Wise Expert has decreed that the establishment of religion and the world is only achieved and sustained through motivations from within the human being that drive him to acquire what he needs for himself and others. He created in him the desire for food and drink when he feels hunger and thirst to motivate him to seek to fulfill this need as much as he can. Likewise, He created in him the desire for women to motivate him to acquire the means that lead to them"(258). Then he said: "If Allah had willed, He could have imposed this obligation while disregarding the desires, or He could have imposed it while removing the innate motivations. However, He has bestowed upon His servants what serves as a means to cultivate this world for the Hereafter and made the acquisition of these desires permissible, not prohibited, but within legal frameworks that are more beneficial and enduring than what the servant considers to be beneficial"(259).
From this text, it also becomes clear what al-Shatibi intended in his book by repeatedly using the term "interests of the servants," which refers to the commands of the Legislator. However, these commands do not prevent the servants from obtaining what they desire, but their acquisition is not unrestricted; rather, it is constrained by limits set by the Legislator. This is a mercy from Allah towards them, for if He had willed, He would not have done so. These constraints imposed by the commands and prohibitions are the true interests, not what the servant perceives as beneficial.
He also says: "The interests that are legislated and the evils that are repelled are only considered in terms of establishing worldly life for the sake of the Hereafter, not in terms of the whims of souls in seeking their ordinary interests or repelling their ordinary evils. The evidence for this includes: the first: (And if the truth had followed their desires, the heavens and the earth and whoever is in them would have been corrupted)"(260).
__________
(257) The previous reference, vol. 2, p. 294.
(258) The previous reference, vol. 2, p. 303.
(259) The previous reference, same page.
(260) Surah Al-Mu'minun, verse: 71.


[Page 132]

The second: what has preceded in meaning is that the benefits obtained by the accountable person (mukallaf) are usually mixed with harms, just as harms are surrounded by benefits. As we say, souls are sacred, preserved, and sought to be revived, such that if the matter comes down to reviving them or destroying wealth upon them, reviving them is preferable. If reviving them opposes the destruction of religion, then reviving religion is preferable even if it leads to their destruction, as in the case of fighting the disbelievers and killing the apostate, and so on. Similarly, if the revival of one soul opposes the destruction of many souls in a conflict, for example, then reviving the many souls is preferable. Likewise, when we say that eating and drinking revives souls and has apparent benefits, even though it involves many hardships and pains in obtaining it initially, in its use at the moment, and in its necessities and consequences ultimately. Nevertheless, what is considered is the greater matter, which is the aspect of benefit that is the foundation of both religion and worldly affairs, not according to the whims of souls(261).
This text is clear and evident, refuting what the false claimants assert, that the Sharia is merely based on what people perceive as beneficial. There is no doubt that every person seeks only their own desires and what they believe to be in their best interest. The verse has rejected this notion, stating that the truth is not in following whims, but rather the truth is only in what Allah has revealed, not in what people think is beneficial.
Then he said: "Just as hardship can be worldly, it can also be otherworldly. If engaging in actions leads to neglecting a duty or committing a prohibited act, then it is considered a greater hardship in terms of the Sharia than the worldly hardship that does not compromise the religion. The consideration of religion takes precedence over the consideration of the self and others in the view of the Sharia."(262)
This text is very important in interpreting al-Shatibi's concept of the removal of hardship (raf' al-haraj) and the concept of difficulty (mashaqa) according to al-Shatibi.
__________
(261) Al-Shatibi, the previous reference, vol. 2, p. 64.
(262) The previous reference, vol. 2, p. 265.


[Page 133]

Not everything claimed by these contemporary individuals is a hardship that nullifies the legal ruling. The statement of Allah, “Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship” { يريد الله بكم اليسر ولا يريد بكم العسر } (263) is undoubtedly true, but what ease are they talking about, and what hardship has Allah removed from us in His legislation? Is it every hardship? Certainly not. For instance, fasting the obligatory fasts in the heat of the day, performing ablution with cold water, fighting, and enduring the preservation of the religion despite trials and hardships, as Allah said { وَإِن كَانَتْ لَكَبِيرَةً إِلَّا عَلَى الْخَاشِعِينَ } (264). Allah did not permit His Messenger to change the law to align with the desires of the polytheists, while He knows the extent of the hardship and difficulty that would befall him and his companions as a result. All of this leads to the conclusion that the hardships of the Hereafter and the hardships after death are the greatest hardships that Allah intended to lift from us, and these major hardships can only be lifted by implementing the commands of Allah, Exalted is He.
__________
(263) Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 185.
(264) Surah Al-Isra, verses 73, 74, 75.


[Page 134]

And it leads to a usual hardship in such matters in this world.
He says, "The legal objective (maqasid al-sharia) of establishing the Sharia is to remove the obligated person from the call of their desires so that they become a servant of Allah by choice, just as they are a servant of Allah by compulsion"(265). The evidence for this consists of several matters: the first is the explicit text indicating that the servants were created to worship Allah and to submit to His commands and prohibitions, as His saying: {And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me} (51:56) {I do not want from them any provision, nor do I want them to feed Me}(266)... And His saying: {And command your family to pray and be steadfast therein. We do not ask you for provision; We provide for you}(267). And His saying: {O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous}(268)... and other verses commanding worship in general and its details in particular, all of which refer back to returning to Allah in all circumstances and submitting to His rulings at all times, which is the meaning of worshiping Allah... The second is what indicates the blame for opposing this objective, starting with the prohibition against disobeying Allah's command and the condemnation of those who turn away from Allah... The root of this is following desires and yielding to the obedience of immediate interests and fleeting pleasures... The third is what is known through experiences and customs that religious and worldly interests cannot be achieved while indulging in following desires and pursuing interests"(269).
He says, "Indeed, Allah has made following desires opposed to the truth and has made it its counterpart... He has confined the matter to two things: revelation, which is the Sharia, and desires, with no third option. If that is the case, then they are opposites, and when the truth is determined in revelation, it turns to the opposite of desires... All of this is clear in that the intention of the Legislator is to move away from following desires and to enter into
__________
(265) Al-Shatibi, the previous reference, vol. 2, p. 289.
(266) Surah Adh-Dhariyat, verses 56, 57.
(267) Surah Taha, verse 132.
(268) Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 21.
(269) The previous reference, vol. 2, p. 292.


[Page 135]

Under the worship of the Lord"(270).
He says: "The answer is that the establishment of the Sharia (law) is, if it is accepted that it is for the interests of the servants, returning to them according to the command of the legislator and within the limits he has set, not according to their whims and desires. Hence, the legal obligations are burdensome on the souls... The commands and prohibitions divert him from the inclinations of his nature and the pursuit of his desires until he takes them from beneath the lawful limit, and this is precisely the intended meaning, which is in direct opposition to whims and desires. As for the fact that the interests of the obligation return to the obligated in this world and the Hereafter, that is correct, and it does not necessitate that attaining them is outside the limits of the Sharia, nor that he can attain them by himself without the Sharia providing them to him, which is evident. This clarifies that there is no contradiction between this statement and what has preceded, because what has preceded considered the establishment of benefit and interest as affirmed by the legislator, not as dictated by whim and desire"(271).
This text clearly illustrates al-Shatibi's (may Allah have mercy on him) intention regarding interest (maslaha), for not everything that people consider to be an interest is indeed an interest; rather, everything that the legislator has commanded is an interest in the religion of the obligated and in their worldly affairs, and all of it is ease, and all of it has no hardship in it, even if at times the obligated may perceive hardship and toil and difficulty in it.
He also said: "The legal objectives (maqasid) are of two types: original objectives and secondary objectives. As for the original objectives, they are those in which there is no benefit for the obligated"(272). He said: "As for the secondary objectives, they are those in which the benefit of the obligated has been taken into account, and from them he attains what he is naturally inclined to in pursuing desires and enjoying the permissible and fulfilling needs"(273).
__________
(270) Al-Shatibi, the previous reference, vol. 2, p. 291.
(271) The previous reference, p. 295.
(272) The previous reference, vol. 2, p. 300.
(273) The previous reference, vol. 2, p. 303.


[Page 136]

From this text, it is clear that the objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia) according to al-Shatibi are divided into primary objectives, which he means, and Allah knows best, is the objective of creating people for worship or the objective of the servant's compliance with the divine command, as will be discussed, God willing. These primary objectives have no share for the servant, nor are they subject to his whims; rather, they are solely for Allah, Exalted is He. However, after the legislation from Him, Exalted is He, there are what are called secondary objectives, which are related to the one obligated (mukallaf). These objectives may either align with the intent of the legislator or contradict it. If they align, they are permissible and beneficial; if they contradict, they are prohibited and harmful.
The concept of objectives according to al-Shatibi
He says: "The objectives that are considered are of two types: one pertains to the intent of the legislator, and the other pertains to the intent of the obligated. The first is considered from the perspective of the legislator's intent in establishing the Sharia from the outset, from the perspective of his intent in making it understandable, from the perspective of his intent in establishing obligations based on it, and from the perspective of his intent in bringing the obligated under its ruling; these are four types"(274).
Subhi Taha says: "Al-Shatibi clarified that the objectives of the legislator from the Sharia are four types: his intent in establishing the Sharia from the outset, his intent in making it understandable, his intent in establishing obligations based on it, and his intent in bringing the obligated under its ruling. This is not merely al-Shatibi's opinion, but it is established among all; no one can deny it. For everyone agrees that the Sharia aims to bring benefits to people and also aims to make clear to the addressed what it contains of rulings and to obligate them to those rulings and their compliance with them. These objectives have different realities; some are for bringing benefits to people, some are a test for them to distinguish the pure from the impure, some are for their understanding so that the proof may be established against them, and some are their actions, which are obedience and compliance with what is stated in the Sharia. It is known that not all of this is beneficial for people, as some people do not successfully pass this test, some do not comply, and some go astray in what they understand. Allah, the Exalted, says: {And We did not send any messenger except with the language of his people to make clear to them. Then Allah leads astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise} (4) [Ibrahim] (275). Thus, the benefit is not in the intent of obligation, nor in the intent of compliance, nor in the intent of understanding, but rather the benefit is in the very act of compliance, in benefiting from what is understood, and in successfully passing the test. Therefore, it is established that the realities of the Sharia are different, and thus it is difficult to provide a definition that encompasses them. This may be another reason added to what I mentioned earlier for the lack of definitions by the predecessors regarding the objectives of the Sharia, and it may be the reason why contemporary definitions have focused on defining only the first type, which is what the phrase 'objectives of the Sharia' generally refers to among the majority of scholars of Sharia who are not specialized in the science of usul. Thus, it can be said that contemporary definitions are not definitions in
__________
(274) Al-Shatibi, the previous reference, vol. 2, p. 7.
(275) Surah Ibrahim, verse 4.


[Page 137]

The truth about the objectives of the Sharia (maqasid al-sharia) is that it is merely a definition of one type of them. If we wanted a definition that encompasses everything that falls under the term objectives of the Sharia, we would say that the objectives of the Sharia are: "what the legislator (al-shari) intended to achieve through the rulings or a group of them." I said "what the legislator intended" so that the definition includes everything the legislator intended through legislation, whether it is benefits for the obligated (mukallaf) or not, such as trials (ibtila). I did not say "its attainment for the people," but rather I said "its attainment" alone so that the definition includes what was intended by the legislation to be achieved for them, such as benefits and trials, or what is to be achieved from them, such as compliance and understanding. The term "rulings" refers to the very texts that include obligations, recommendations, prohibitions, dislikes, and permissions, as is the terminology of the jurists, along with what is related to them from causes, conditions, and impediments (276).
This statement is very important and necessary to correct people's understanding of the objectives that al-Shatibi referred to. Unfortunately, most contemporary scholars have reduced the concept of objectives to just one type, leading many people to believe that the concept of objectives according to al-Shatibi is what they refer to. They even state in their writings about the objectives in their books or articles that one of the first to consider the objectives was al-Shatibi, while al-Shatibi is innocent of their claim, as has been clarified. It is unclear whether this oversight is due to ignorance or ill intent. This has resulted in widespread corruption and statements that have no basis in divine authority, which are in clear contradiction to the Sharia. These individuals did not limit themselves to the types of objectives mentioned by previous scholars, but they also spoke of what they called the renewal of objectives, thus they began to derive new objectives for Allah, Exalted is He, as if the best generations were unaware of this goodness that others have reached through their derivation of Allah's intent and purpose. They do not realize that they are attributing negligence to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), claiming that he knew those objectives of Allah for which they alter the rulings, yet he did not convey them to us despite their importance until these individuals came and discovered them. They criticize the earlier scholars for their lack of interest in extracting what they termed the general objectives (277). Thus, they invalidated the punishment for apostasy by what they called the objective of freedom of belief, and they permitted women to marry themselves in violation of the hadith: "There is no marriage except with a guardian" (278), claiming the objective of the leniency of the Sharia in changing rulings due to changing customs. They also permitted women to lengthen their hair and to use dental embellishment in violation of the hadith: "Allah has cursed those who lengthen their hair and those who create gaps in their teeth for beauty" (279), for the same previous objective. Moreover, they even permitted explicit usury with the wealthy under the guise of development and investment, claiming that the objective of the Sharia is to guide creation morally and educationally, and that there is no contradiction between this and lending to the wealthy with interest. Thus, they interpret the texts prohibiting usury under this overarching objective, limiting its prohibition to the poor only (280). There is no power and no strength except with Allah.
__________
(276) Taha (Hamdi Subh), The Objectives and Goals, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second General Conference, p. 7, 8.
(277) Awda (Jaser), The Concept of Legal Objectives and Their Role in the Field of Ijtihad, Publications of the American Open University, p. 47.
(278) Abu Dawood, Sunan. 1785.
(279) Muslim, 3966.
(280) Jabir (Hassan), Fields of Objectives in Development, Publications of the American Open University, p. 99.