Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh by Muhammad Hussein Abdullah

1 – Those who took Al-Masaalih Al-Mursalah as representing a Daleel Shar’iy say that the Shaari’ (legislator) considered the type or category (Jins) of Al-Masaalih Al-Mursalah to fall under the category (Jins) of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah and they use the following Aayah to support that:

This is as they consider the Rahmah (mercy), which they view to be the Maslahah, as an ‘Illah for every Hukm Ash-Shar’iy. This is despite the Aayah not indicating ‘Illiyah (the presence of reasoning) whether in its form or in meaning. The intent of the Aayah is that the result of the application of Islaam upon the people would be a Rahmah (mercy) for them and so the Sharee’ah is a Rahmah for mankind and not an ‘Illah (reason) for the legislation of the Sharee’ah. Rather it is only the result that happens as a result of its application.

2 – The Shar’iyah Nusoos (texts) from the Kitaab and the Sunnah relate to specific actions and they are not related to the Maslahah or the Mafsadah. So for instance Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

This is explaining the ruling of the security and also when He Ta’Aalaa says:

This is explaining the Hukm of the Shahaadah (witnessing). This is whilst there is no text that has been brought or mentioned stating that the ‘Illah for these Ahkaam is to bring or acquire the benefit or to repel the harm or detrimental thing (Mafsadah).

Then when a text comes and it includes a Shar’iyah ‘Illah that ‘Illah is not the acquisition of the Maslahah or repelling of the Mafsadah but is rather something else other than that. We have already mentioned when discussing the subject of Al-Qiyaas that the ‘Illah for the prohibition of trading at the time of the call to prayer for Salaat ul-Jumu’ah is Al-Ilhaa’ (distraction or to be diverted) from the Salaah. That is while the Ilhaa’ (distraction) has not been described in the text as being representative of a benefit or harm or as a repellent to a detrimental thing or harmful matter (Mafsadah).

And in respect to His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

The occurrence of Al-Qisaas is due to an ‘Illah that has been understood from the Shar’iy Nass (text) and this is it’s being (or representing) life (Hayaat) and it is not because it brought about a Maslahah or repelled a Mafsadah.

Consequently, the claims that the Shar’a has considered the Masaalih (interests) as the ‘Illah (reasoning) for the Ahkaam are claims devoid of proof and evidence. There is nothing that indicates and guides to it within the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah; whether in the Ahkaam which contain an ‘Illah or those which do not contain and ‘Illah.

For this reason, it is not permissible to say that Zinaa was prohibited to repel a Mafsadah and Al-Jihaad was made obligatory because it is a Maslahah. That is not said because the Shar’iy text did not say that at all and that was not understood from it whether in its Mantooq (explicitly expressed meaning) or its Mafhoom (implied meaning). The claims are therefore Baatil (False, invalid) and contrary to the Shar’a and the reality.

As for considering what the Hukm has indicated and guided to as a Maslahah or repelling of a Mafsadah or considering that which the ‘Illah Ash-Shar’iyah has guided to as a Maslahah or repelling of a Mafsadah, then this is only in accordance to the view of the Muslim and the Islamic society. As for the non-Muslim then he does not see that because a matter or thing being a Maslahah or repelling of a Mafsadah only stems from the viewpoint in life. Consequently, that which the Shar’a has mentioned in the text in terms of Ibaahah (permissibility), or the Fard or the Mandoob, then in the viewpoint of the Muslim it represents a Maslahah because the Shaari’ has brought a text for it. This is whilst what the Shaari’ has made Haraam represents a Mafsadah because the Shaari’ has stated that.

Therefore, it is the Nass (text) that defines and specifies the Maslahah and the Mafsadah in the Muslim’s view and it is not the Maslahah that specifies the Hukm. That is because the Hukm alone explains that a matter is Haraam, or a matter is Mubaah, Makrooh, Fard or Mandoob whilst it does not explain that such a matter is a Maslahah or Mafsadah. It is rather only the Muslim who interprets that (according to his viewpoint in life).

3 – As for the Ahkaam that they cited as examples for Al-Masaalih Al-Mursalah, then they are not indicative of a Maslahah ‘Aqliyah (rational or intellectual interest). Rather each of them is based upon a Daleel Shar’iy:

Therefore, the compilation of the Qur’aan in the time of Abu Bakr (ra) and the making of a copy in the time of ‘Uthmaan (ra) due to the fear of it being lost and due to differences amongst the Muslims in respect to its recitation, was based upon a Qaa’idah Shar’iyah (Legal principal) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) mentioned:

The fear of losing the Qur’aan and the difference in its recitation only represented a Darar (harm) that the Khalifah of the Muslims removed based on the text of the above mentioned Hadeeth An-Nabawiy and it is not built upon Maslahah whilst the Sahaabah (rah) held a consensus (Ijmaa’) upon that.

As for pouring out the milk (by ‘Umar (ra)) that had been mixed with water in an act of deception then this was a punishment for the one who defrauds or cheats who has contravened the Qawl of the Messenger (saw):

The punishment manifested in the pouring out of the fraudulent milk was from the Ta’zeer (discretionary punishment) and it is a punishment that the Shar’a has approved of and made its evaluation up to the Khalifah or the Qaadi (judge) where he evaluates it as he sees. This punishment does not represent a Hukm Shar’iy the Daleel of which is the Maslahah but rather it is a Hukm Shar’iy the Daleel of which is the Sunnah. It has been related that the Messenger of Allah (saw), upon seeing a pile of wheat, extended his hand in it and found that it was wet. So he said to the one whose pile it was: What is this? He replied: The sky rained upon us. So he (saw) said: Place the wet in sight (visibly). “Whoever cheats us is not from us” (Muslim and At-Tirmidhi). Therefore, the Ta’zeer of the Messenger (saw) was by way of speech whilst the Ta’zeer of ‘Umar was by pouring out the fraudulent milk.

4 – Verily Allah Ta’Aalaa says in Soorat ul-Hashr:

This is whilst the Messenger (saw) did not come with Al-Maslahah Al-Mursalah and that is because those who adopt it admit that these Masaalih do not have a specific text for them from the Shar’a. Therefore, the Messenger (saw) did not come with them and consequently it is not permissible to adopt them or to consider them as a Daleel Shar’iy for the Hukm (legal ruling). (Note: That is because the Noble Aayah commands the Muslims to only take that which the Messenger (saw) came with i.e. that which has a text).

- There are, in addition to the above, other evidences establishing Al-Masaalih Al-Mursalah to be invalid as a proof and we mentioned them previously under the heading of: “The evidences of those who did not adopt Al-Masaalih Al-Mursalah” and so it is possible to refer back to and then add those arguments to these four.