According to the strongest view no „Illah exists in the Asl (origin) of the rules relating to food, clothing, morals and ritual worships („Ibadat), this is due to two reasons:

a) By a scrutiny of the texts we found that they do not contain „Illah.

b) These rules are not related to achieving results in this life.

The divine rules related to „Ibadat (worships), Mat‟umaat (foodstuffs), Malboosaat (clothing) or Akhlaq (morals) cannot be reasoned by „Illah. The primary motive for these actions is worship and hence there are no tangible results that we seek since the results are in the Hereafter. They should be taken as they came in the text and should not be based upon an „Illah. Thus, prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, Zakah, the method of praying (Salah), the number of its rak'at, the rites of pilgrimage (hajj) and the minimum amount of property liable to payment of Zakah (Nisab of Zakah), and the like should be taken, accepted and submitted to as they came in the text (Tawkifiyyah) and no „Illah is sought for them. The same applies to the prohibition of eating the meat of a dead animal, pork and the like. Seeking „Illah for these rules is wrong and dangerous, because if an „Illah was sought the result would be that if the „Illah of the rule ceased to exist then the rule would no longer exist. This is because the „Illah is connected to the rule in existence and absence.

As an example, if we assumed cleanliness was the „Illah for the Wudhu (ablution), and physical exercise as the „Illah for prayer, and good digestion as the „Illah for fasting etc., then in these situations whenever the „Illah doesn't exist, the rule would not exist either, this would lead us to abandoning these shari‟ah rules. Another example would be if someone raised a clean pig which they had fed with good food and kept in a hygienic manner, would we then be permitted to eat it? Of course that would not make it permissible.

Therefore seeking an „Illah is dangerous for the rule and its performance. Thus, it is obligatory to take rules of „Ibadat as they are, without seeking an „Illah for them.

Contrary to a common misconception the prohibition of alcohol contains no „Illah. There is no „Illah contained in the verses prohibiting it, furthermore the Messenger (saw) said:

» قش صِ ج خٌ شّ ؼٌ ١ ٕٙح « “Wine (khamr) was forbidden for itself.” However in the Furu‟ (branches) of worship „Illah‟s may exist because certain tangible results are sought. For example, Jihad is from the rules of worship („Ibadat) but its performance entails certain tangible results and hence there is a propensity for „Illah‟s to exist. So preparation for Jihad is a tangible result which is sought and it does contain an „Illah which is to terrify the enemy.

The morals (Akhlaq) are values for which rules have been established to illustrate the virtues and noble deeds and their opposite. They also result from „Ibadat, as well as being observed in Mu'amalat. This is because Islam aims in its legislation to take man on the road towards perfection, so as to reach the highest achievable level. Therefore man has to work towards acquiring the supreme qualities and to maintain them. The good moral is a value which is intended to be achieved because it is one which Shar‟a has stated, and its value is targeted when performing these virtues and acquiring them. Morals are a part of the Islamic Shari‟ah, and a part of the commands and prohibitions of Allah, which must be achieved by every Muslim so that his performance of Islam becomes complete, and his undertaking of the commands and prohibitions of Allah is perfected.

A Muslim neither acquires moral attributes for their sake, nor for their benefit. Rather he acquires them only because Allah commanded him with them and for no other reason. So, a Muslim is not characterised with truthfulness for the sake of truthfulness itself, nor for the benefit it has, rather because Shar‟a ordered of it.

A Muslim should not acquire morals for the sake of morals. An action which man performs might be by itself, bad, but he thought it good, so he performed it. The attribute, which he was characterised with, might be by itself bad, but he considers it a good attribute so he acquired it and thus errors would arise because man performed morals for their own sake. For example, someone may seek to be truthful for the sake of it, therefore when he is captured by the enemy he is truthful to them and gives them all the information regarding the position of the Muslim troops and their strategy even though the Prophet (saw) said:

»َ ج كٌَْشْخَ خَذْػَس « “War is deceit” And Islam prohibits giving information to the enemy that would lead to harming the Muslims.

Unless Islam defines the good attributes and the bad attributes and unless the Muslim performs them according to this definition, then his acquiring of these attributes would not be in compliance with the Ahkam Shari‟ah. Therefore, the Muslim should not be characterised with truthfulness for the sake of truthfulness, nor should he be characterised with compassion for the sake of compassion, nor should he be characterised with all the morals for their own sake. Rather he should be characterised with them as commands from Allah, because the fundamental fact is that these morals are based on the Islamic „Aqeedah. Observing this issue would guarantee the possession of the morals in individuals, thus purifying the soul of any impurity and distancing it from any corrupting factors. Therefore, the best way to protect morals is to confine them to what is stated in the text (Qur'an and Sunnah).

As for not acquiring morals for the sake of benefit, this is because benefit is not intended of the moral and should not be aimed at, lest it corrupts it and makes it revolve around the benefit. Hence, morals are attributes which man must be characterised with, freely and willingly, by the incentive of Taqwa (the fear of Allah). A Muslim does not abide by morals simply because they benefit or harm him in life, but he does so in response to the commands and prohibitions of Allah. This is the understanding, which makes characterisation with good morals constant and does not revolve around benefit. Such morals built on the exchange of benefit would make the individual a hypocrite, revealing certain behaviour while concealing his true nature. For example, may only be nice to another person because he wants him to buy something from him, but if there is someone who he cannot obtain material benefit from then he would not be nice to him.

Therefore, morals are not reasoned, and „Illah should never be invented for them. They must be accepted as they came in Shar‟a, irrespective of any „Illah. It is erroneous and dangerous to seek „Illah for morals, so as not to abandon the characterisation with morals when their „Illah has ceased.