The Shar’iy ‘Illah which is the matter for the purpose of which the Hukm was legislated and is derived from a Shar’iy text, is categorised or divided, in accordance to how it came, into four categories:

It can be Saraahatan (explicit), Dalaalatan (implicit), Istinbaatan (derived/extracted/deduced) or it can be Qiyaasan (based on analogy).

This is the ‘Illah that is understood from the Alfaazh (wordings) of the Nass (text) that linguistically indicate Ta’leel (reasoning i.e.

presence of an ‘Illah). These are like the wordings:

‘Min Ajli’ (for the sake or purpose of) or like the Huroof ‘Kay’ (كي/so that), ‘Laam At-Ta’leel’ (ل ,(Al-Baa’ (ب (amongst others.

Examples of this are as follows:

The statement of the Messenger of Allah (saw):

This is when the reasoning (Ta’leel) is necessarily understood from what is indicated by the wording (Madlool Al-Lafzh). So the Harf (letter) فاء is a Harf ‘Atf (letter of connection) and Ta’qeeb (of following) however the construction or structure of the sentence sometimes makes this Harf (Faa’a) indicative of Ta’leel (reasoning i.e.

containing an ‘Illah). So for example:

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

So making the ownership of the land a consequence of reviving it by using the Faa’ At-Tasbeeb (the Faa’ of causality) makes reviving (AlIhyaa) the ‘Illah for ownership and it extends to everything that holds the meaning of reviving like putting stones upon its borders, cultivating it, planting on it, building upon it or making a stream or water source flow in it. This is all specific to the dead land that has no owner.

Another example of an Illah by way of Dalaalah is the speech of the Messenger of Allah (saw):

That is because the (wording) Qaatil is a Wasf Mufhim Munaasib that establishes an ‘Illah (reason) whilst the construction of the sentence indicates that killing is the ‘Illah for depriving the inheritor who has killed from the inheritance of the one leaving the inheritance who has been killed.

A further example is his Qawl (saw):

That is because the Lafzh (wording) As-Saa’imah (free grazing) is a Wasf Mufhim that indicates the ‘Illah of the obligation of Zakaah upon sheep if they are not fed fodder from their owner and graze naturally upon the pastures.

This is when the text through its composition provides for the deduction (Istinbaat) of an ‘Illah for the Hukm whilst this ‘Illah is not mentioned in the text either explicitly or implicitly (Saraahatan or Dalaalatan).

An example of this:

Allah Ta’Aalaa said:

And Allah Ta’Aalaa said in the Aayah that follows the above Aayah:

So the first Aayah contains a forbiddance (Nahi) from conducting trade at the time of the call to Jumu’ah and the second Aayah contains a command (Amr) to disperse in the land and seek the bounty of Allah when the Salaah has ended which means the Ibaahah (permissibility) of conducting trade if the circumstance forbidding it has gone away, which is the performance of the Salaah. From this it is deduced (Istinbata) that the forbiddance of conducting trade at the time of the call of the Jumu’ah prayer is due to the reason (‘Illah) of Ilhaa’ (distraction). Therefore ‘distraction from the performance of the Salaah’ represents the ‘Illah that has been deduced (Mustanbatah)

and which is not mentioned explicitly or implicitly within the text.

If the ‘Illah mentioned in the text is a Wasf Mufhim (i.e. a description open to reasoning) it is possible to make analogy upon it a new ‘Illah and this new ‘Illah is called an ‘Illah Qiyaasiyah. The meaning of Wasf Mufhim is that it provides understanding of Ta’leel (reasoning)

and the angle of reasoning. This then is like having an ‘Illah for the ‘Illah and it is therefore not permitted to make Qiyaas of an ‘Illah upon an ‘Illah unless the Wasf (description) mentioned in the text is open to reasoning or provides the understanding of reasoning and leads to the understanding of the angle of the ‘Illah within it.

An example of this:

The Qawl of the Messenger (saw):

This Hadeeth contains a mentioned ‘Illah which is anger and it is the reason that the Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade passing judgement at the time of anger.

However, this mentioned ‘Illah (anger) is a Wasf Mufhim due to the effect or impact of anger upon passing judgement due to what anger causes in terms of clouding the thought and destabilising the condition. As a result, this new ‘Illah is called: ‘Clouding the mind and destabilising the condition’ and it represents an ‘Illah Qiyaasiyah and the ‘Illal (reasons) that include the clouding of the mind and destabilising the condition are measured upon it (i.e. Qiyaas is made).

This would include hunger for instance so that the statement: ‘Don’t pass judgment whilst you are hungry’ would apply, or pain so that the 189

statement: ‘Don’t pass judgement whilst you are in a lot of pain’ would be applicable.

Three conditions are stipulated in regards to the Lafzh (wording)

from which it is valid for an ‘Illah Qiyaasiyah to be taken:

1 – That it is a Wasf that is Mushtaqq and not Jaamid. The Mushtaqq (Lafzh) is that which is taken (derived) from other than it like ‘Ghadbaan’ (angry) is derived from ‘Al-Ghadab’ (anger). The Jaamid is that which is not taken or derived from other than it like ‘Al-Asad’ (lion), ‘Al-Burr’ (wheat) and ‘Adh-Dhahab’ (gold).

2 – That the Wasf is a Wasf (description) Mufhim (open to understanding an ‘Illah) indicating Ta’leel (reasoning).

3 – That the Wasf Al-Mufhim also guides to the angle of reasoning like hunger causing cloudiness of thought and like the pain and anger or severe thirst.

So for instance it is narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw):

That which is mentioned in this Hadeeth is not reasoned. That is not because it is an amount or because it is foodstuffs but rather because these mentioned things in the Hadeeth are Jaamid Alfaazh and are not Mushtaqqah (derived). As such it is not a Wasf Mufhim that indicates a reasoning and it does not contain the sense of reasoning whether from a linguistic or Shar’a angle. Therefore, the Tahreem (prohibition) of Ribaa Al-Fadl (excess) is restricted to these six items alone. Analogy is not made upon wheat and extended to rice, or grapes to dates, or sugar to salt. It is therefore permitted to exchange sugar for sugar with an increase and similarly for grapes to be exchanged for grapes with an increase (involved in the trade). This is as long as another text does not prohibit that.