学者们对于沙里亚的教法条款是否以公益（Maslahah）作为理由（Mu'allalah）存在分歧，并由此形成了若干派别：

The ‘Ulamaa differed in respect to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah being Mu’allalah (reasoned) by the Maslahah into a number of groupings:

第一组:此派否认伊斯兰教法律条文(al-Ahkaam ash-Shar'iyah)以公益(al-Maslahah)为依据,即公益并非伦理裁定(al-Hukm ash-Shar'iy)的动机或理由。据此,他们认为立法者(ash-Shaari',即真主)有可能制定一条本身不包含公益(利益或好处)的伦理裁定。持此观点的有艾什尔里学派(阿布·哈桑·艾什尔里的追随者)和达乌德·宰西里学派(达乌德·宰西里的追随者)。

1 – The first group: This group denied the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah being reasoned by Al-Maslahah i.e. that the Maslahah is the motive or reason for the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy. In accordance to their opinion they say that it is possible for the Shaari’ (Legislator) to legislate a Hukm Shar’iy that does not have a Maslahah (interest or benefit) within it. Those holding this view are the Asha’irah (the followers of Abu-l-Hasan Al-Ash’ariy) and the Zhaahiriyah (the followers of Daawood Azh-Zhaahiriy).

尽管如此,他们确实确立了这样一点:对经文与裁决的考察表明,所有的沙里尔律例都限定于五项事务之一所体现的玛斯拉哈之内,即:保全宗教、生命、理智、后代与财产。

Despite that, they did however establish that an examination (of the texts and rulings) affirms that the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i are all restricted to falling under a Maslahah from amongst the five matters: the preservation of the Deen, life, mind, progeny and property.

2 – 第二组

2 – The second group:

该群体中包括一些沙斐仪派学者和一些哈乃斐派学者，他们主张公益（Maslahah）可以作为伊斯兰教法规定（Ahkaam Ash-Shar'iyah）的“illah”（理由），其依据在于：公益代表的是该律例（Hukm）的“amaarah”（标志），而非该律例的动机，即它更接近于“sabab”（成因），而不是“illah”（理由）。

This group includes some of the Shaafi’iyeen and some of the Hanafiyah and they affirmed that the Maslahah is valid to be an ‘Illah (reason) for the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah on the basis that it represents the ‘Amaarah’ (sign) of the Hukm but not the motive for the Hukm i.e. that it is closer to the Sabab than the ‘Illah.

3 ——第三组：此组包括穆尔太齐赖派、马图雷迪派，以及部分罕百勒派和马立克派学者。他们认为，伊斯兰教法的规定可以依据公益（Masaalih）进行推理，不受限制（不受安拉至高意志的约束），但前提是这种推理不得推翻经文（即不得与经文相违背）。

3 – The third group: This group includes the Mu’tazilah, the Maatureediyah and some of the Hanaabilah and Maalikiyah. They viewed that that Ahkaam Ash-Shar’i are reasoned by Masaalih without restriction (to the will of Allah Ta’Aalaa) on the condition that the reasoning does not demolish the text (i.e. go against it).