1 ——部分学者认为，以获取利益（Jalb Al-Masaalih）和排除损害或败坏之事（Dar'u l-Mafaasid）作为沙里尔（Shar'i）推理中的“Illah”（ʿIllah，即伊斯兰教法律的理据），并据此推导伊斯兰教法规定（Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah），这种推导是无效的。

1 – The deduction of some of the ‘Ulamaa in respect to the bringing of interests (Jalb Al-Masaalih) and the repelling of harms or corrupted matters (Dar’u l-Mafaasid) being representative of an ‘Illah (Shar’i reasoning) for the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah is an invalid deduction.

其证据在于，他们用作推论依据的那些经文（Aayaat），无论就其所用的表述形式（Seeghah）而言，还是就其实际含义而言，都并不表明“Illiyah”（理由、因由）。

The proof and evidence for that is that the Aayaat that they used for evidence in their deduction do not indicate ‘Illiyah (reasoning) whether in the form that they have come (Seeghah) or in respect to the reality.

他们引用了安拉至高者的话作为证据：

They used as evidence the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

该节经文表明，派遣使者（愿安拉赐福于他并使他平安）是对全人类的一份慈悲（Rahmah），这意味着伊斯兰教法（Sharee'ah）在其整体描述中的目标与宗旨，是带来利益（Masaalih）并排除败坏（Mafaasid）。然而，该经文并不意味着带来利益并排除败坏即代表伊斯兰教法整体描述中的“Illah”（起因/依据），也不意味着它就是每一条具体教法律例（Hukm Shar'iy）本身的“Illah”。

The Aayah indicates that the sending of the Messenger (saw) represents a Rahmah (mercy) for mankind which means that the objective and purpose of the Islamic Sharee’ah in its overall description is to bring the Masaalih and repel the Mafaasid whilst the Aayah does not mean that the bringing of the Masaalih and repelling of the Mafaasid is representative of the ‘Illah of the Islamic Sharee’ah in its overall description or that it is the ‘Illah for every single Hukm Shar’iy in itself.

这是因为该经文所指向的，是伊斯兰教法所带来的结果，即获取利益与消除败坏（Mafaasid），但它并不表明这些结果就是立法的“Illah”（effective cause）。结果与“Illah”之间存在区别：结果指的是律法在实施之后所产生的后果，而“Illah”则是律法本身的理由或动机（Baa’ith），即该条律法之所以被制定的原因。因此，二者之间存在明显的差别。

That is because the Aayah guides to the result that comes as a consequence of the Sharee’ah which is the bringing of benefit and the repelling of the Mafaasid whilst it does not indicate that they represent the ‘Illah of the Shar’iyah. There is a difference between the result and the ‘Illah as the result relates to the consequence of the Hukm after its implementation whilst the ‘Illah is the reason or motive (Baa’ith) for the ruling itself i.e. the reason for which the Hukm was legislated. There is therefore a clear difference between the two.

他们还引用了使者（愿主福安之）的圣训作为证据：

They also used as evidence the Hadeeth of the Messenger (saw):

以上这段圣训所能表明的，至多是伊斯兰教法整体上排除了败坏与有害的事物（الْمَفَاسِد），但它既不意味着、也不表明任何“阿拉伊赫”（ٱلْعِلِّيَّة，即“因由”），无论这种因由是针对整个教法而言，还是针对某一具体的沙拉欧教律（حُكْم شَرْعِيّ）而言。

The most that this Hadeeth can indicate is the negation of the Mafaasid (corrupt and harmful matters) from the Islamic Sharee’ah as a whole whilst it does not mean or indicate Al-‘Illiyah (reasoning), whether it is in respect to the Sharee’ah (as a whole) or to any specific Hukm Shar’iy.

此外，这段圣训的叙述目的是为了消除人们可能受到的伤害，而其中并未提到“在伊斯兰中”这一措辞。伊本·阿拔斯（愿安拉喜悦之）说：安拉的使者ﷺ说：

Additionally, this Hadeeth was related to repel the harm from the people whilst the wording ‘In Islaam’ was not mentioned in it. Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

因此，这段圣训并不属于伊斯兰教法目的（Maqaasid ash-Sharee'ah）的范畴，而是与防止或消除损害（Darar）有关。因此，它在带来利益（Masaalih）与消除弊端（Mafaasid）的主题上并不具有任何暗示之义（Dalaalah），也不表明它构成了教法规定（Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah）的一个"Illah"（effective cause，诱因）。

The Hadeeth was therefore not within the subject area of the Maqaasid of the Sharee’ah but was rather related to preventing or repelling the harm (Darar). Consequently, there is no Dalaalah (implied indication) within it in relation to the subject of bringing the Masaalih and repelling the Mafaasid or to indicate that it represents an ‘Illah for the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah.

即使《古兰经》和《逊奈》的经文指引了伊斯兰教法的实施所产生的结果，即实现利益（Masaalih）和消除弊害（Mafaasid），但它们并不表明这些结果就是立法的“原因”（‘Illah），也不表明它们是每一条沙里尔判决（Hukm Shar'iy）本身的“原因”。因此，在这一问题领域，基于这些证据的推论是不成立的，也站不住脚。

Even if the texts of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah have guided to the result that occurs from the implementation of application of the Islamic Sharee’ah manifested in the bringing of the Masaalih and repelling of the Mafaasid, they do not however indicate that they represent an ‘Illah (reasoning) for the legislation of the Sharee’ah or an ‘Illah for every Hukm Shar’iy in itself. As a result, the deduction based upon these evidences is not valid and falls down in respect to this subject area.

2 – 伊斯兰教法追求的目的或结果，即取得公益、排除弊害，只有在整体地看待教法时才能实现。至于每一条单独的律例，其结果可能实现，也可能不实现。例如，在当今的伊斯兰国家，在其中建立起来的人造制度之下，可以看到禁止的高利贷（Ribaa）已经成为人们经济生活的一部分，因此任何不与高利贷打交道的商人或工厂主都会遭受经济损失。即便可以预见，他因坚守宗教而将承受巨大的亏损，这种情形就如同手握燃烧的炭火。那么在这种情况下，今世的公益究竟在哪里？而在执行那条由真主的使者ﷺ在圣训中所指引的律例上，公益又在哪里呢？

2 – The Ghaayah (aim) or Nateejah (result) of the Islamic Sharee’ah to bring the Masaalih and to repel the Mafaasid is only realised from the Sharee’ah in its description as a whole. As for every Hukm in itself then this could be realised just as it may not be realised. So for example, in the lands of Islaam today and under the shade (or rule) of the man-made systems that have been established within them, it is seen that Ribaa, which is Haraam, has become a part of the economic life of the people and so any trader or factory owner who does not deal with Ribaa is afflicted by an economic harm. That is whilst it could be perceived that he would carry a burden of significant losses as the result of his adherence to his Deen, in which case he would be like the one who is holding onto burning embers of coals. So in this case where does the worldly benefit of Maslahah lie?! And where is the Maslahah in relation to the implementation of the Hukm that has been guided to in the Hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (saw):

因此,获取马萨利哈(Masaalih,利益)或排除玛法辛德(Mafaasid,害处),并不是每一条具体的伊斯兰教法裁决(Hukm Shar'iy)本身的目的(Ghaayah)或结果,而是整个伊斯兰教法(Islamic Sharee'ah)的目的或结果。

Therefore, the acquisition of the Masaalih or the repelling of the Mafaasid do not represent the Ghaayah (aim) or result of the application of every Hukm Shar’iy in itself but rather they represent the aim or result of the Islamic Sharee’ah as a whole.

3 – 至于伊斯兰教法的特定律例在实施过程中所产生的利益或好处(Masaalih)，这并不能作为证据，证明这些律例是以利益(Maslahah)为其成因(Mu'allalah)的。因此，婚姻、贸易或雇佣所带来的利益可能出现，也可能不出现。一个人可能结了婚却并未获益；他可能雇人却蒙受损失，也可能经商却亏本。对这些律例的遵守和奉行，源自那些指引人们遵行它们的沙里尔证据(Shar'iyah Adillah)，而不是源自它们能带来利益或消除害处这一前提。

3 – As for what occurs in terms of interests or benefits (Masaalih) as a result of the application of specific Ahkaam from the Islamic Sharee’ah, then this is not considered to be representative of a Daleel to support that the Ahkaam are Mu’allalah (reasoned) by the Maslahah. Consequently, the occurrence of a benefit or interest from marriage or trade or hiring, for example, could occur just as it may not occur. Someone could get married whilst he does not benefit or he could hire and lose out just as he could trade making a loss. Adherence and commitment to these Ahkaam emanates from the Shar’iyah Adillah (evidences) that have guided to them whilst they have not emanated from the premise that they bring a Maslahah or repel of a Mafsadah.

因此,将获取“مصالح”(公益)或排除“مفاسد”(弊害)与伊斯兰教法的律例(الأحكام الشرعية)相联系,并以之作为这些律例的“علة”(成因)或其结果,是没有地位也没有依据的。这不仅仅是一种牵强附会,更是一个严重的错误,它使人们——尤其是穆斯林——偏离了对伊斯兰教法律例的精确与准确的遵守。这种做法会导致在遵守这些律例时趋于放松,同时也会在立法和推导律例时产生错误,因为它把律例本身与人们所认为的该律例中存在的公益(المصلحة)联系或捆绑在一起,使其局限于这种公益的范围之内。

As such, implicating or involving the acquisition of Masaalih or the repelling of Mafaasid in respect to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah as an ‘Illah for them or as a result has no place or justification for it, as it does not just represent an implication but rather represents a gross error that distances the people and particularly the Muslims from a precise or accurate adherence to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah. It attracts leniency in respect to this adherence just as it brings about errors in respect to the legislation and deduction of the rulings as a result of connecting or tying the Hukm itself within the (scope of the) Maslahah that has been perceived to be present in relation to the Hukm.

4 – 至于伊斯兰律例中的“沙尔仪illah”(即法理依据),通过考察伊斯兰法的经文可以发现,有些律例是有“illah”(即法理依据)的,也有些律例并没有为其设定“illah”。 Note: I've rendered "Shar'iyah ‘Ilal" as 沙尔仪illah with the Arabic term kept for clarity.

4 – As for the Shar’iyah ‘Ilal (reasons) then from an examination of the Shar’iyah texts it is found that there are Ahkaam (rulings) that are Mu’allalah (i.e. containing an ‘Illah) just as there are rulings which do not contain an ‘Illah (legal reasoning) for them.