As an example, if we assumed cleanliness was the 'illah(reason or motive) for the wulu(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, thought the matter is not like this. Therefore seeking an 'illah is dangerous for the rule and its performance.

Shari'a Illah versus Rational Illah

The Islamic systems are composed of Ahkam Sharai'ah related to ibadat, morals, food stuffs, clothing, mu'amalat (transactions) and penal code.

The divine rules related to ibadat(rituals), morals, food-stuffs, and clothing cannot be reasoned by illah (reasoning or motive). The Messenger (SAW) said: "Wine (khamr) was forbidden for itself." However the Ahkam Shara'iah related to  transactions and penal code are reasoned by illah(textual reason). This is because the hukm Shar'ai in these matters is built upon a reason, which was the cause of legislating the rule. Many people became used to justify all the rules  according to benefit, because they are influenced by the Western ideology and Western culture, which views benefit alone as a criterion for actions. Such an understanding contradicts the Islamic intellectual leadership, which considers spirit as the basis for all actions; and makes the mixing of the spirit with the material the controller of the actions. Accordingly, the Ahkam Sharai'ah related to ibadat, morals, food-stuffs, and clothing are absolutely not reasoned, since there is no illah(textual reasoning) for these rules. They should be taken as they came in the text and should not be based upon a 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 thing 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 wulu(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, thought the matter is not like this. 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. As for the Hikmah(wisdom) behind a law, Allah alone knows it, since our mind cannot conceive the essence of Allah, and hence we cannot comprehend His Hikmah. As for the Hikmah mentioned in the texts, such as the saying of Allah (swt), "Lo! Prayer (Salah) preserves from lewdness and iniquity", and Allah (SWT)'s saying, "That they may witness things that are of  benefit to them", and for His saying, "That which you give in Zakah seeking Allah's countenance, has increased manifold", and other sorts of Hikmah that are stated in the texts, they should be taken literally as mentioned in the text without making comparison to them. Unless the Hikmah of the rule is mentioned in a text, neither Hikmah and nor a illah has to be sought for the rule.

This is in respect of ibadat. The morals are however 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 once man acquired it 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.

As for the fact the Muslim does not acquire morals for the sake of morals, this is because of the description of the actions. An action which man performs might be by itself, qabeeh(unpleasant), but he thought it hasan(pleasant), so he performed it. The attribute, which he was characterised with, might be by itself, qabeeh, but he considers it a hasan attribute so he acquired it and thus errors would arise because man performed morals for their own sake. Unless Islam defines the hasan attributes and the qabeeh attributes, unless the Muslim performs them according to this definition, then his acquiring of these attributes would not be in compliance with the Ahkam Sharai'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 self-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'aan and Sunnah), restrict them in the spiritual basis, and build them upon the Islamic aqeedah.

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, he does so in response to the commands and prohibitions of Allah. This is the understanding, which makes characterisation with good morals constant and steadfast 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. This is because his morals are built on benefit, so his morals revolve around the benefit, for man makes the reasoned rules revolve with their illah, and he does not believe in the existence of the rules nor in their obligation if their illah ceased.

Therefore, morals are not reasoned, and should never be taken by their illah. 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.

Therefore, it becomes evident that the aim of the ibadat is the spiritual value only and the aim of morals is the ethical value only. They must be restricted to these intended values only. Neither benefits nor interests should be manifested in the ibadat and morals, because such manifestation is dangerous to them, causing hypocrisy in those who worship and those who are virtuous people. It will also lead to the abandonment of the ibadat and morals when their benefit or interest do not appear.

In regard to the Ahkam Sharia'ah related to man's actions in his relation with others, some of the texts that came as evidence to them include a illah(textual divine reasoning) such as in respect to giving the spoils of Bani Nadhir to the Muhajireen not the Ansar, in this regard Allah(SWT) says: "that it does not become a commodity between the rich among you." While some other texts do not include an illah at all such as: "Allah has permitted ba'ia (trading) and has forbidden Riba (interest)." Therefore any rules where the text included an illah, these rules are reasoned and Qiyas may be made to them; whereas for the rules whose text is without illah, a illah is not sought and Qiyas cannot be used. The valid illah is the Shar'ai illah that is mentioned in the text from Qur'aan and Sunnah, for only these two are the Shar'ai texts. Therefore, the illah upon which the reasoned hukm Shar'ai is built is a Shar'ai illah and not a rational illah. In other words, illah must be mentioned in the text either explicitly or implicitly or by deduction or through Qiyas. This illah is connected with the reasoned hukm in presence and absence. Thus the rules revolve with their illahs. So we find a thing is prohibited in a situation due to the existence of a Shar'ai illah, and if this illah disappears that very thing becomes permissible. So the hukm Shar'ai revolves with the illah in existence and in absence, thus when it exists the hukm exists, and if the illah does not exist the rule doesn't exist either.

However, the absence of the rule due to the absence of the illah does not at all mean that the Hukm Shar'ia has changed, rather the hukm Shar'ai of the question remains as it is, without change. It is only the rule no longer applied due to the absence of the illah, and will be applied once the illah returned.

The relationship of the rule with the illah in existence and in absence does not mean that the rules change due to the change of the time and place, thus claiming that bringing about the benefit and preventing corruption is the illah of the Hukm Shar'ai, which changes as the time and place change, so the Hukm Shar'ai changes accordingly. This is because bringing about benefit and preventing harm are not at all the illah of the Akham, since no text came to denote that bringing about benefit and preventing corruption are illah for all the Akham, nor to denote that they are a illah for a specific rule. Thus, it cannot be taken as a Shar'ai illah.

Moreover, the Shar'ai illah is that which is taken from a shar'ai text and therefore should be restricted to it and its meaning. The shar'ai text has neither indicated that bringing about a benefit nor warding off corruption as being the illah. Thus, the shar'ai illah would be that which the shar'ai text has brought, not the bringing about of benefit nor warding off corruption. That which is brought in the text is not indicated by the time or the place nor indicated by the action itself. It is rather indicated by the text in manifesting the illah of the rule. This text never changes, so no consideration is given to the time and place in this context, nor is there a value to bringing about benefit and preventing corruption. Accordingly, Ahkam Shara'iah do not change with the change of time and place, they remain as such regardless of the change of times and places.

As for the change of traditions and customs of people, this does not have an effect in changing the rule, for the tradition is not a illah of the Hukm Shar'ai nor a source for it. The traditions may agree or disagree with the Shar'a. If they disagree with the Shar'a then the Shar'a has come to abrogate and change them, since the function of the Shar'a is to change the corrupted traditions and customs, because they are the factors that cause corruption of the society. Therefore, they are not taken as a source for the Hukm Shar'ai nor a illah for it and the rule does not change because of it. However, if the traditions were in agreement with shar'a, then the rule is proved by its Shar'ai evidence and by its Shar'ai illah and not by these traditions, even if these traditions do not contradict the Shar'a. Therefore, the customs cannot rule over the Shar'a, rather the Shar'a rules over the traditions and customs. Accordingly, the Ahkam Shara'iah have their own evidence which is the text and they have Shar'ai illah and the traditions and customs are not a part of that at all.

As for the suitability of the Islamic Shari'ah for every time and place, it results from the fact that the Islamic Shari'ah addresses man's problems by its rules through all times and places and is capable of solving all man's problems irrespective of how diverse and numerous they are. This is because when it addresses the problems of man, it treats him in his capacity as a human being and not in any other capacity. Whatever the time and place, man is still the same man with respect to his instincts and biological needs without changing at all, so the rules, which solve his problems, do not change. The thing, which changes, is the patterns of man's life, which do not affect his viewpoint of life. In regard of the renewed numerous demands of man, they emerge as a result of his endeavour to satisfy his instincts and biological needs. The Shari'ah was revealed to solve such new and numerous demands, regardless of their diversity or how their patterns change. Actually, this was one of the factors, which contributed towards the growth of Fiqh. However this vast capacity of the Shar'iah does not mean that it is flexible and adapts to everything or to every issue even if it contradicts Shar'ai. Nor does it mean that it evolve thereby it changes with time. It rather means that the texts have the capacity to drive numerous rules from them, and it also means that the rules have the capacity to apply on many issues. So for example, Allah (SWT) says; "Then if they give suckle for you (your children) give them their due payment." From this verse a Hukm Shar'ai is derived, that the divorced woman deserves a compensation for suckling the baby. Another Hukm Shar'ai is derived from it, that the hired person, whosoever, is entitled to a wage if he has carried out his work, whether he is a private or common employee. This rule applies to numerous cases, such as the government employee, the labourer in the factory, the farmer on the farm and the like. So every one of them is entitled to his wage if he has completed his work, because he is a private employee. So too, the carpenter who makes the cupboard, the tailor who sews the dress, the shoemaker who makes the shoe and the like, every one of them is entitled to his wage if he has carried out his work because he is a common employee. Since the employment is a contract between an employer and an employee the ruler (Haakim) is not included, because he is not hired by the Ummah, but rather he executes the Ahkam Shar'aiah i.e. implements Islam. Accordingly, the Khaleefah is not entitled to a wage for carrying out his work, since he was given the pledge to implement the Shar'a and to convey the Islamic Da'wah, so he is not employed by the Ummah. Similarly, his assistants (deputies), i.e. the members of the executive and the Walis (governors) are not entitled to a wage for carrying out their work since their work is ruling, thus they are not employees. Therefore, they do not take a salary, but an amount is assigned to them to meet their needs, due to them being kept preoccupied from practising their own affairs and occupations.

This capacity of the texts to derive many rules and the capacity of the rules to be applied to many problems is what makes Islamic Shar'iah suitable to address all problems in life at all places and times as well as to all peoples and generations. This cannot be described as flexibility and evolution.

The Daleel of the Hukm Shar'ai taken from the text, either Qur'aan or Sunnah, is to address the issue at hand, because the Legislator (Allah) intended that the meanings of the texts rather than following to them literally, has to be followed. Therefore, when deriving the Ahkam Shar'aiah, attention has to be paid to the sense of illah i.e. to observe the sense of the illah in the text, from the legislative perspective.

The Daleel may include a illah for the hukm, or the illah may be taken from one or more other evidences. Although the hukm is derived from the daleel, nevertheless the sense of the illah in it is observed, without adhering to the (material) form mentioned in the text that came to treat the problem at that time. An example is that the saying of Allah (SWT) "Prepare for them all you can of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby you strike fear in the heart of the enemy of Allah and your enemy". The Hukm concerns the preparation of force and the problem at hand addressed at that time was by force including tethering the horses, and the sense of the illah from this Hukm is to strike terror in the enemy; Therefore, when we derive today the rule of preparation of force from this daleel we observe the sense of the illah from the Hukm, and accordingly we prepare whatever needed to terrorise the enemy; without restricting ourselves to the form that came in the text (i.e. the horses tethered), in treating the problem at hand at that time.

Therefore this approach should be followed in every daleel from which a rule is derived, since the purpose is to fulfil the sense of illah intended from the hukm. Accordingly, Islamic Shar'a requires that the rules related to the societal relations (mu'amalat) among people be based upon their illah; observing the legislative perspective in the texts and not the form that came in them, when deriving the rules from these texts.

As Qur'aan and Sunnah are sources for Hukm Shar'ai, the Ijma'a (consensus) of Sahabah and the Qiyas are also considered likewise. Accordingly, the sense of the collective (ijmaliyyah) shar'ai evidences of the shar'ai rules are, the Qur'aan, the Sunnah, Ijma'a as-Sahaba and Qiyas. As for the opinion of a Sahabi related to matters of Ijtihad, it is not a daleel, because the Sahabi is like any Mujtahid(scholar), and is subject to error. Furthermore, the Sahaba differed over some issues and everyone held an opinion different from the other. So if the opinion of the Sahabi was taken as a daleel, then the proofs would be different and contradictory. Therefore, the opinion of the Sahabi is not considered a shar'ai daleel, but rather it is allowed to be followed like the other acknowledged opinions and schools of thought. However, rules agreed upon by the Sahaba are not a mazhab for them, but rather they are Ijmaa(consensus).

Further Reading

Islam - The Correct Criterion

The METHOD of the Islamic Ideology