Al-Masalihul Mursalah
 

Islam dictates that benefit revolves around the divine rules. Wherever Islam is, benefit is found, and not the other way around

Those who claim that Al-Masalihul Mursalah (actions which benefit human beings, and that have no specific Islamic proof to show it is allowed) is a legal source of Shariah, have not been able to provide a legal proof to support this claim. But since they said that the entire Sharia is given by Allah(swt) to ensure benefit and prevent harm, then the motive(illah) for legislating for each divine law is the same i.e., to ensure benefit and prevent harm. Some of those who carry such opinion made a condition that a legal text must exist to consider the benefit to be from a particular category or specific, individual benefit. Other did not make these conditions and considered benefit as a legal source itself, even if there is no legal text to consider it as such, because it is included in the general type which brings benefit and prevents harm.

They defined Al-Masalihul Mursalah as: every benefit that has no legal text to consider it as a benefit in itself or as part of a category, because the meaning of Mursalah is having no proof. They also said that if the benefit is considered to be a benefit due to a legal text that exclusively considers it as so, such as teaching, reading and writing, or it is considered as one due to a general text that includes it as such, commanding all kinds of good and forbidding all kinds of evil, then the benefit is not considered to be in the topic of Al-Masalihul Mursalah. rather Al-Masalihul Mursalah are those that have no proof. Meaning, they are those which are taken from the general idea that the entire Shariah is for ensuring benefit and preventing harm.

It should be clear though, that there is a difference between the legal and illegal benefits. The legal benefits are those that are in accordance with the purposes of the Shariah. While the illegal benefits are those that conflict with the Shariah purposes. Therefore Al-Masalihul Mursalah that are considered as such due to the overall texts of Shariah. Consequently, the partial laws become based on it, with the absence of the legal texts which would have addressed the problem. It is then benefit becomes the legal evidence.

The aforementioned summary of Al-Masalihul Mursalah is invalid due to two reasons:

The first: The legal texts from the Quran and Sunnah address a specific action done by the human. Thus they are the legal evidences given by Shariah to that action. They do not address benefit nor do they carry a proof for defining it as a benefit. When Allah the Supreme says in translation, ”But take witness whenever you make a commerical contract ” When He(swt) says in transalation, ”When you deal with each other, in transaction involving future obligations in a fixed period of time reduce them to writing.”

He(swt) is simply stating the rule of Rehan, writing debts, and having a witness at trade. In the above verses, Allah(swt) is not stating what is and what is not beneficial, neither explicitly nor implicitly. And the text does not reflect that the rule is to achieve a benefit or not How could it be said, then, that these are considered by Shariah to be benefits? And consequently a legal evidence?

Moreover, the legal system motives for legislation ('illah' in Arabic) are related to the actions of human beings, and they are proofs for the Hukm Sharia in that action. They did not come to explain a benefit or to explain a proof for benefit. When Allah the Supreme says, in translation, ”In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit among the wealthy among you,” and He(swt) says, in translation, ”In order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the believers (in the matter of marriage) with the wives of their adopted sons”, and He(swt) says, in translation, ”For those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to the truth).”

He(swt) is giving the Illah (legal motive) for the distribution of wealth to the poor, as preventing its exclusive circulation among the rich. In the second verse, He(swt) give the Illah(motive) for the Messengers(saw)'s marriage to Zaynab i.e the permission of marrying the ex-wife of adopted son. And in the third verse, He(swt) gives the illah(motive) for giving those not firm in faith some of the wealth, which is the need of the state to soften their hearts for Islam. However, He(swt) only gives the Illah(motive) for a specific rule, regardless of the absences or presence of benefit. So how can it be said that benefit was showed to be so by the Shariah so that it would be considered as legal evidence?

Since the texts of Shariah do not give the understanding that they are given to achieve benefit, not in its direct understanding or the understanding of the Illah(motive) of the rule, it cannot be said then that the texts are for specific or categorical benefits. None of this is brought by the legal texts.

Therefore, the invalidity that the legal texts are carrying proofs for specific benefits or else becomes evident. Consequently, benefit is not a legal evidence. If the above applies to the benefit that is , as they say, has a text that contains it in particular or that fits in a category, then more the reason it applies to the benefit that has no proof from the legal evidence.

Secondly: The Al-Masalihul Mursalah to belong to the topic at hand according to those who believe in it, must have no proof, i.e. there is no Shariah text to consider it in particular or in category to be benefit. Thus, their condition for these benefits is not to have a specific proof from Shariah but to be understood as a benefit from the goals of the Shariah. Because the non-existence of a proof to prove it as a benefit is enough to invalidate it. This is due to the fact that the rule that is sought is that of the Shariah, not that of the mind. Thus, for it to be considered part of Shariah, a proof brought by Wahi, i.e from the Quran or Sunnah must be present. Having put the condition of not having a Shariah proof is enough to negate its legitimacy.

With regard to the saying that Al-Masalihul Mursalah being understood from the Shariah goals, the goals of the Shariah are not a text that is comprehensible. Therefore whatsoever is understood from them is not considered to be a proof and consequently, has no value in relation with the divine rule. Moreover, if what is meant by the Sharia goals is the meanings given by the texts, such as, the prohibition of fornication, theft, the killings of human being, intoxicants and apostasy, then these are not shariah goals. They are rules that address the slaves' actions and no conclusion can be established on them other than the rule derived from the text cannot be a source, but rather a divine rule. More the reason is the non consideration of that imagined by someone's mind to be a Shariah goal. Then how about the understanding of what someone thought to be a Shariah goal to be a legislative source. Therefore, it is completely invalid to consider the understanding of the Shariah goals as legislative source.

However, if the Shariah goals are meant to be the understanding of the entire Shariah's consensus i.e. the consequences of sending the Messenger(saw), meaning the Messenger(saw) being a mercy to mankind, this is the consequence and not the motive for the mission. The consequence (Hikma) might exist and it might not. Then it should not be considered as basis for understanding of the possibility of its absence. Due to the above, the understanding taken from the so called goals of Shariah cannot be used as legislative source. It becomes apparent therefore, the invalidity of the proof that benefits being one of the legislative sources.

This is with regard to what made them consider Al-Masalihul Mursalah a legislative source. As for the divine evidence that they are from the legislative sources, there is no legal evidence from the Quran or Sunnah, definite or indefinite, to support such a claim. Therefore, Al-Masalihul Mursalah cannot be considered to be from the legislative sources.

Consequently, it becomes clearly apparent that the legislative sources definitely brought from Allah(swt) by revelation are exclusively four: The Quran, Sunnah, Consensus of the companions(ijma as sahabha) and Qiyas(analogy) with its legal illah(motive or reason). There is no definite proof for any other. Therefore the legislative sources are the above mentioned four and no other.

It should be clear, however, that the rules derived from what is considered to be a source by a scholar is different from the four sources, are divine rules from their and other's point of view. This is because there exists what is thought to be a proof. Consequently, for those who consider the Ummah's consensus a legislative source and based their derivation of a rule on it, that rule is a divine one for them. They are not allowed to follow any other rule. It is also a divine rule from the point of view of those who disagree with this point, however it is not a divine rule for them and them and they must not follow it.

The criterion for actions in the West is benefit. This yardstick naturally resulted due to the separation of religion from life. The West has determined that happiness translates into achieving the greatest material pleasure. Consequently, they decide upon what actions to perform based on their benefit, as their minds understand it. This idea is being carried to the Ummah not only by individuals but also by Islamic groups. They have made benefit as their criterion for actions, after coating it with an Islamic flavour.

As for those who hold the idea of benefit as the criterion for actions, it must be made clear to them that Islam has a unique view of benefit. Islam dictates that benefit revolves around the divine rules. Wherever Islam is, benefit is found, and not the other way around. Muslims are obligated to carry out the orders of Islam, regardless of the benefit or harm it entails. The benefit is that which is dictated by the Shar'iah and not the limited mind. In other words, the benefit for a Muslim resides in obeying Allah (swt) and adhering to Islam.