The Secular discourse and Al-Maqāṣid approach

The Secular discourse and Al-Maqāṣid approach

A Critical Study*

By: Dr. Ahmad Edrees Altaan Al-Haaj**

First- Al-Maqāṣid in the secular discourse:

1-Well-said, but ill-intentioned:

Through their discourse, secularists discuss many concepts such as: Al-Maqāṣid[1] (Islamic objectives) Al-Maṣāliḥ (public interest)[2], Al-Maghzā (main purpose), Al-Gawhar (essence) and Ar-Rouḥ (soul)[3], modern conscience[4], Islamic conscience and modern sentiments[5], Method[6] and mercy[7].

Their discussion is well-said, but ill-intentioned because including Islamic concepts in their discourse aims to pull the wool over the eyes. It is like secularists’ glorification towards the Quran although they intend to exclude it from life, legislation and leadership.

2-Praising Ash-Shāṭibī and Criticizing Ash-Shāfi’ī:

Al-Jābrī criticized the great interest of Usul Scholars in linguistic and grammatical issues, neglecting the Islamic objectives. Thus, he dedicated his study to tackle this dilemma under the title: “The dilemma of the word and the meaning”[8]. He stated: (The first thing one can observe in the linguistic studies and researches whether in language, Arabic grammar, Fiqh, theology, eloquence, literary criticism, is the great interest in studying the word and meaning as a separate thing or at least as two poles which are independent of each other.)[9].

From Ash-Shāfi’ī till Al-Ghazālī, the science of Usul was seen as a science that aims to deduce meanings from words[10] (Thus, they focused in their Ijtihād on the language in which the Quran was revealed. Consequently, the linguistic issues distracted them from the Islamic objectives. They delved deeply into the linguistic mind and the cognitive system that is mainly established on two characteristics; the first is to move from words to meanings, and hence focusing on the importance of the word and its significance in linguistic thinking, and the second is to pay attention to partial, micro issues instead of total, macro ones- to pay attention to words and their types, etc., instead of the Maqāṣid of Shariah[11]. This is the reason for controversial and contradictory interpretations deduced according to different schools of thought[12].

For him, the alternative -as we said previously- is the “Maqāṣid of Shariah”, firstly introduced by Ibn Ḥazm, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Khaldun[13] and then Ash-Shāṭibi, who inaugurated a (cognitive) epistemology in the science of Al-Maqāṣid[14].

Thus, Ash-Shāṭibī received a lot of praise and compliments at the expense of Ash-Shāfi’ī and other Usul scholars[15], and he was considered the founder of the science of Al-Maqāṣid[16]. In addition, his theory of Al-Maqāṣid was considered entirely new[17], this is because the objectives are superior to the means[18], and that the crucial factor is neither the general meaning nor the occasion, but the objectives[19]. This is to the extent that some said that Al-Maqāṣid of Ash-Shāṭibī gives priority to Al-Maṣlaḥah over the Text itself[20].

Commending Ash-Shāṭibī was parallel to a fierce attack on Imam Ash-Shāfi’ī, who was labelled as a devotee of (Arab ideology)[21] (While establishing the concept of the Arabism of the Quran, Ash-Shāfi’ī had an implicit ideological perspective influenced by the intellectual and cultural conflict, he biased towards Arabism only, specifically to the Qurayshites.)[22].

Due to his rejection of the principle of Istiḥsān, Ash-Shafi’ī was regard as a fighter aiming to eliminate intellectual and jurisprudential pluralism. In fact, this struggle is not devoid of a clear social, intellectual and political significance)[23]. (Through this simple approach, Ash-Shafi’ī succeeded in generalizing the rigid populist theological formulas and making them applicable and even influential till the present day)[24]. In addition, he is the one who began to monopolize the legal and legislative positions, and after him the generations of traditional scholars[25]. Thus, he paved the way for the dominance of religion and Islamic doctrine over all areas of life[26], this is because, with his fundamentalist approach, he was influenced by the aim to (expand the scope of texts to narrow the scope of Ijtihād)[27]. This, (depending on religious reasons and Islamic texts, closed the door on reason, opinion, and Ijtihād. Thus, the Islamic reason, in the scope of Fiqh and legislation, has been completely banned and closed almost permanently. Ash-Shāfi’i’s conditions completely closed the door on Ijtihād since his time)[28]. His message was nothing but (a trick to spread this great illusion that Shariah has a divine origin)[29]. In addition, he is the theorist of the traditional methodology by saying (The source of knowledge is reports)[30]. He also twisted the interpretation of the Ayah: {Obey Allah and obey the Messenger!} (64:12)[31][32].

This is (the one who is known as a diligent Imam)[33]!! He was (the great legislator of the Arab reason)[34], because he made (the text the basic reference for the Arab reason. It is clear that a mind in such a state can create only by depending on another production)[35].

Nowadays, it is unacceptable to adhere to Ash-Shāfi’ī’s fundamentalist approach. Understanding the Quran and Sunnah in the light of Ash-Shāfi’ī’s understanding and interpretation only leads to a methodological dilemma that predecessors had never known[36].

These are some examples of the secularists’ stance towards Imam Ash–Shāfi’ī[37].

3- Al- Maṣlaḥah through the eyes of Aṭ-Ṭūfī

As the secularists intellectually highlighted Ash-Shāṭibī’ and his Maqāṣid, They also present Aṭ-Ṭūfī’s concept of Al- Maṣlaḥah. They emphasized that Aṭ-Ṭūfī is one of those who advocate prioritizing Al-Maṣlaḥah over the Text in case of contradiction[38]. He assumed the possibility of a contradiction between the Text and Al–Maṣlaḥah, so he suggested reconciling between them, but (in a way that does not manipulate neither Al-Maṣlaḥah nor the Text)[39]. He also believed that the definitive Maṣlaḥah should be prioritized over the definitive Text if reconciliation is not possible[40]; because he considered Al-Maṣlaḥah to be a fundamental principle that governs all other principles, including the Quran and Sunnah[41]. However, he differentiated between two aspects: He prioritized texts and Ijmā’ (consensus) in acts of worship and obligatory commands, and prioritizes Al-Maṣlaḥah  in transactions and other rulings[42].

According to the secular discourse, Aṭ-Ṭūfī follows the approach of abrogating texts and specifying them according to the Maṣlaḥah, because Al-Maṣlaḥah, for him, is the strongest evidence in Islamic legislation[43].

Aṭ-Ṭūfī said: (We believe that Al-Maṣlaḥah is one of the evidences of Islamic legislation, and it is the strongest one, so let us give priority to it in achieving the common good)[44].

In fact, Aṭ-Ṭūfī’s phrase is a great intellectual breakthrough[45] because Al-Maṣlaḥah is the basis of legislation and the Text is following it because the Text is fixed while Al-Maṣlaḥah is variable[46]. (This is the truth which represents the core of the Quranic rulings and the essence of Islam)[47].

4- Al-Manhaj and Al-Maqāṣid: A Parallelism

For the same purpose for which the issue of Al-Maqāṣid and Al-Maṣāliḥ was raised, the issue of Al-Manhaj (the approach) has been proposed by Abu al-Qāsim Ḥāj Ḥamad. It represents a new birth for the Arab human being (apart from the consecutive narrations of Ibn Katheer and the authentic and non-authentic narrations of the Prophetic Hadiths)[48]. As (the second Islamic world is not a renewal of the first, but it is a new, continuous history of civilization. In fact, the world, through its emergence and formation, takes from the Quran – for the first time – its comprehensive approach to benefit from its holism and breadth as much as possible)[49].

 This second Islamic world does not inherit from the first one its traditional and applied concept of the Quran, nor does it inherit from it its interpretive concept. Rather, it replaces the applied traditionalism and implicit hermeneutics with a new methodological concept of the Quran focusing on its unity and cosmic signs. In fact, this replacement is a result of a historical overcome of the backward Arab stage[50].

(Hence, the correct reflection on the comprehensive Quranic approach helps us reach the hidden meanings. It also reveals that the understanding of the Quran at a certain historical stage does not mean that it was a wrong understanding, but it only reflects their level of knowledge within the characteristics of their reality and its historical dimensions. What is wrong is applying this traditional experience to a reality with different characteristics and different historical dimensions. Putting into consideration these historical changes and the eternity of the Quran, Allah Almighty has made Al-Manhaj an echo of the prophetic model. He Almighty also allows us to follow Al-Manhaj to reach the hidden meanings as an alternative way to the traditional understanding of the Quran[51].

(It is not a second message[52] as some claimed, but rather a second world that deduces its new content not from traditional applications and concepts, but from a Quranic abstract approach that predominates the meanings understood in the previous stage)[53]. In fact, this abstract approach transcends all local characteristics, while the prophetic experience comes within the framework of full consideration of the historical, social and intellectual characteristics of a specific stage. This is because there is no stage that can completely encompass the Divine approach. In fact, Al-Manhaj is superior to Prophethood because its content is derived from the Quran[54].

Yet, what does Al-Manhaj mean? For Haaj Hamad, (it is the organizing system for producing united ideas) or (It is the mind’s exit from the state of self-production of concepts to the discovery of the reference system)[55]. In general, this is the meaning of Al-Manhaj for Haj Hamad, while the Quranic approach, for him, is a combination consisting of (Quranic meaning + Al-Manhaj + universal characteristics)[56].

According to the secular perspective, we can see the relativity of the Divine legislation according to different historical situations and social conditions. For example, punishments such as amputation and stoning were in effect in that historical era because they were suitable for the social conditions at that time[57]. The societies were nomadic and primitive and there were no prisons or walls, but rather tents. How can a thief be imprisoned? How can properties be preserved? A punishment must be prescribed to distinguish the thief to warn people. Yet, today the situation has changed[58].

The Quran clearly states the relativity of legislation in its connection with its historical environment, as Allah Almighty says, “… To each of you We prescribed a law and a method” (5:48)[59]. Thus, the constant is the principle of punishment or retribution, while the forms of application of this principle are chosen according to the conditions, customs, and values of each era. Thus, legislations remain application details related to the approach itself[60]. In this way, the Quran is always applicable in every age, and remains, as Allah intended, valid for every time and place[61].

 Hajj Hamdi’s Manhaj is the same as Al ‘Ashmawi‘s, they both believe that (Islam is concerned with the human being and is not concerned with systems and theories)[62] (What is truly distinctive about Islamic Shariah is not its laws nor the rules deduced from these laws, but rather the dynamic approach which is capable of continuous renewal and suitability)[63]. In fact, Muslims deviated when they replaced the approach and the essence with the rules, texts and rulings. They replaced the genuine with the derivative[64].

 Al-Manhaj and the Shariah refer to the same thing. Shariah in the Quran means the approach, the entry and the path, not the specific laws and rulings[65]. This is because Al-Manhaj is constantly revolving with reality, while specific laws are changing according to their circumstances[66]. Therefore, many people mistakenly think that applying Shariah is achieved by applying its rulings. Yet, it is the application of its essence[67], and its essence is the constantly progressing approach[68]. Thus, the details of transactions and other details are not the Shariah, but rather the laws of the Shariah[69].

Furthermore, applying Shariah means spreading limitless mercy[70]; because the Quran is based on the approach of mercy or renewal and modernity[71]. As long as mercy is the approach, and the approach is mercy, the Egyptian law, including all its civil and commercial laws, is now following the religious legislation and the essence of the Quran[72]. For example, the usury system in Islam confirms this. The situation has changed and the matter is no longer as it was, exploiting the debtor’s need leading to his insolvency and bankruptcy[73]. There is no longer a usury system, but rather a system for calculating loan interests in a society whose lawgiver plays the role of monitoring transactions and determining the interest ratio in a way which avoids enriching the creditor and exploiting the debtor[74].

In addition, the Islamic punishment system (Ḥudūd) in Islam also confirms this. For example, conditions set by Muslim jurists to convict a thief or adulterer and impose a punishment on him/her are difficult to fulfill[75]. It seems also that the punishment of stoning can be applied only by Allah’s Messenger (PBUH)[76]. However, these punishments are not consistent with the essence of Islam and its rulings; because it represents Islam to the world as a religion of violence, extremism, and cruelty[77]. Therefore, applying these punishments in the name of the Quran is a betrayal[78]. Hence, the most correct way is to search for the essence[79], as we do not need to adhere to the literal meaning of the texts, but rather to their essence, intended meaning, and objectives. Through this, we can preserve the credibility of Islam[80], its validity for all times and places, and its suitability to the requirements of the modern conscience[81] and the modern feelings[82]. Obviously, there is no fear of opposing the universals under the pretext that they are necessary religious knowledge, as long as the loyalty is to the essence of the Message sent through the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)[83] and as long as legislation is achieving the essence of Islam[84].

5- The actions of ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him: A Deviated Interpretation

In this regard, secularists use ijtihad ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) to prove that Al-Maqāṣid or Al-Maṣāliḥ are superior to the Quranic text, so that the text is abrogated or suspended if a contradiction occurs between them. For them, ‘Umar’s bold opinions regarding modern issues are a good example, such as suspending the punishment of theft in the year of famine, removing the share prescribed for those whose hearts are reconciled, and accepting the threefold divorce in one utterance as an irrevocable divorce. In this regard, we mention some secularists’ comments on this:

– ‘Umar depended on the methodological reason in issuing this[85].

 –‘Umar abrogated some obligatory rituals and suspended some rulings[86].

 – ‘Umar removed the share of those whose hearts are reconciled to achieve the objectives of the Shariah[87].

–‘Umar, in some cases, suspended the application of authenticated fixed texts[88].

 – According to ‘Umar, absolute Ijtihād can specify the general, restrict the absolute, and suspend the application of authenticated fixed texts[89].

– ‘Umar invalidated the amputation of the offender’s right hand in the year of famine, removed the share of those whose hearts are reconciled, and invalidated the saying of “Prayer is better than sleep” in the call to prayer[90].

– ‘Umar abolished the punishment for theft and the share of those whose hearts are reconciled[91].

– ‘Umar’s rulings do not follow the Quran[92].

– ‘Umar became more flexible in dealing with (Divine) Texts[93].

– ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab suspended the punishment of theft and the share of those who reconciled their hearts[94].

–‘Umar did not follow the Quran regarding the share of those who reconciled their hearts, and the punishment for theft[95].

– ‘Umar invalidated the rulings of two Ayahs in the Quran, and this was a wise action[96].

– ‘Umar deduced different interpretation of the issue of marrying a Christian or a Jewish woman and set a law for it[97].

 – ‘Umar changed established legislations in the Quran and Sunnah, such as the punishment for alcohol, the punishment for theft, and the share of those who reconciled their hearts[98].

 – Religious discourse ignores the objectives of Shariah, as stated in the actions of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab when he abrogated the punishment for theft and the share of those who reconciled their hearts, although they are divinely-fixed rulings[99].

 -‘Umar suspended the punishment for theft in the year of famine, and the share of those who reconciled their hearts, even though the texts are fixed and not abrogated[100].

Second: Critical Reflection

Generalization, fabrication, fallacy and speculation[101] are practices which secularists feel no shame about. In fact, it is their style in most cases. The concepts discussed are among the most prominent examples proving this style.

1. Al-Maqāṣid (Objectives):

A– Ash-Shāṭibī and the early Usul scholars: Was Ash-Shāṭibī an innovator in the issue of Al-Maqāṣid? Was he a pioneer in this issue?

Al-Jābri’s statement that Ash-Shāṭibī’s thoughts were completely original is a kind of speculation if not recklessness. Undoubtedly, Ash-Shāṭibī had important innovative thoughts in the field of Al-Maqāṣid. However, he depended on foundations and rules established by the early predecessors, and this is what Ash-Shāṭibī himself is proud of, because it means that he is just an imitator, not an innovator. Thus, he believes that his thoughts (were based on Quran and Sunnah), and were supported by the righteous predecessors[102].

At the top of the predecessors are the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (who were fully aware of the objectives of the Shariah; as they collected them and established its rules)[103], then the Usul scholars such as Al-Juwayni and Al-Ghazālī, who divided Al-Maṣāliḥ into five necessities: Religion, Soul, Mind, Progeny, and Property[104]. Obviously, Al–Ghazālī is among the Usul scholars who were mentioned several times (more than forty times) by Ash-Shāṭibī in his book Al-Muwafaqāt[105]. Most of the time, he showed his agreement and support his thoughts, cited his opinions and referred to his books[106]. He also was greatly influenced by Ar-Rāzi, Al-‘Izz bin ‘Abdul Salām, and Al-Qarāfi[107].

It is worth noting that the science of the Islamic objectives was known long before Ash-Shāṭibi[108]. It was mentioned explicitly and implicitly by Al-Hakim Al-Tirmidhi (Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn ‘Ali), Al–Māturidi (d. 333 AH), and Abu Bakr Al-Qaffāl Ash-Shāshi [Al-Qaffāl Al-Kabir] (d. 365 AH.) Abu Bakr al-Abhari (d. 375) Al-Bāqalāni (d. 403 A.H.), Al–Juwayni (d. 478 A.H.), al-Ghazālī (d. 505 A.H.), Ar-Rāzi (d. 606 A.H.), Al-Āmidi (d. 361 A.H.), Ibn al-Ḥājib (d. 646 A.H.), al-Baydāwi (d. 685 A.H.), Al-Isnawi (d. 772 AH), Ibn al-Subki (d. 771 AH), ‘Izz al–Din ibn ‘Abdul Salām (d. 660 AH), and Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH)[109].

Imam Al-Juwayni is the first scholar to set the three-fold sections of the Divine objectives, dividing them into essential, necessary and desirable. In addition, he is also one of the first scholars to state the major necessities in the Shariah[110] [111].

B- Ash-Shāṭibī and Ash-Shāfi’ī : Did Ash-Shāṭibī  create, as the secularists claim, a (true epistemological rupture with the method of Ash-Shāfi’ī and the late Usul scholars)?[112].

In fact, (Ash-Shāṭibī mainly depended on scholars like Al-Juwayni, Al–Ghazālī, Ibn Al-‘Arabi, Ibn ‘Abdul Salām, and Al-Qarāfi)[113], and all the Usul scholars and righteous predecessors, as Ash-Shāṭibī himself mentioned[114]. Ash-Shāfi’ī said: (All new issues have a guiding evidence revealed in the Book of Allah)[115]. He also said that deducing evidence should depend on a Quranic text, or a Prophetic Sunnah, or Ijtihād as intended by Allah[116]. On the other hand, Ash-Shāṭibī said: The Quran contains an explanation of everything related to religious matters,and who knows it deeply (is acquainted with the essence of the Shariah, and this is sufficient for him.)[117] Accordingly, who wants to reach a deep understanding in an issue should depend on the Quran[118]. He also said: (Furthermore, if we reflect on the Shariah dependence on its moral universals, we will find that they have been perfectly included in the Quran, which are the essential, necessary and desirable)[119]. He said, citing the words of Ibn Ḥazm: (All the chapters of Fiqh is originated from the Quran and Sunnah and praise be to Allah we know them…)[120].

Ash-Shāṭibī always emphasized that the reason follows the transmission, contrary to what the secularists claim. In this regard, he said: (If transmission and reason agree upon religious issues, transmission must be followed by the reason. Reasoning is allowed only to the extent given by the transmission)[121]. (Reason mainly depends on the Islamic legislation)[122]. He said in a book entitled Al-I’tiṣām: (Reason is not independent at all, and is not built with no foundation; rather, it is built on an absolute superior foundation… There is no absolute foundation set except through the path of Revelation)[123]. (If the reason does not follow the Islamic legislation, it will mainly depend on whims and desires.)[124] Ash-Shāṭibī added, (If this is proven and legislation and whim are disputing the matter, the principle of the abstract reason will be negated. This means reason in this matter depends only on whim. Thus, legislating the rulings will depend on a pure whim)[125].

C- Ash-Shāṭibī and the Linguistic dilemma: Did Ash-Shāṭibī realize the fundamentalist linguistic problem formulated by Al-Jābri’s dilemma between wording and meaning? Did he go beyond the connotations of Arabic words in his theory of Al-Maqāṣid? How to reach Al-Maqāṣid according to Ash-Shāṭibī? Is it through the linguistic way of the Usul scholars or does he have a different approach?

Ash-Shāṭibī himself answered: “This blessed Shariah is purely Arabic and does not include any non-Arab languages.. This means that the Quran was revealed in the language of the Arabs. Thus, the only way to understand it is through that language. This is because Allah Almighty says: “Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran so that you may understand.” (12:2)[126]. He Almighty also says: “in a clear Arabic tongue”[127]. Thus, whoever wants to understand it (the Quran) should seek the Arabic language, as it is the only way to understand it)[128] Comparing this quote with Al-Jābrī’s opinion shows that it is completely the opposite!!

In addition, Ash-Shāṭibī reaffirmed the importance of strictly following the rules of the language in understanding the Divine objectives (because the Arabic language conveys the objectives of the Islamic legislation)[129]. Hence, Shariah (can only be correctly understood by the one who truly understands the Arabic language, because they are on the same line.. For example, a beginner in the Arabic language is a beginner in understanding Shariah, and an intermediate in the Arabic language is an intermediate in understanding Shariah. The intermediate has not reached the advanced level, but if he reaches it in the Arabic language he inevitably reaches the highest level in understanding Shariah… Thus, his understanding becomes dependable just as the understanding of the Prophet’s Companions and other eloquent people who understood the Quran. Thus, if one does not reach their level, he cannot reach their degree of understanding.)[130] (The one who wants to study Shariah and comment on its major and minor issues should first be an Arab or qualified enough to do so)[131].

Contrary to the majority of Usul scholars, Ash-Shāṭibī is strict on this issue in contrast to the Al-Jābrī’s application. In this regard, he believes that Al-Mujtahid in the field of Shariah should “reach in Arabic the level of the prominent scholars, such as Al-Khalil, Sibawayh, Al-Akhfash, Al-Jarmi, Al-Māzni, and others”[132].

As if addressing Al-Jābrī and other secularists, he said that the one who studies the Quran should “deduce from it and depend on its evidence following the Arabs’ style in determining meanings. Many people depend on reason-based evidence from the Quran rather than text-based evidence, and this leads to a great deviation, as it does not achieve the purpose of the Shariah”[133]. Thus, the method of Al-Jābrī and others in neutralizing Arabic language leads to a great deviation. The style of the Divine Discourse is the system that organizes the human reason if a person wants to break the chains of whims.

So, Ash-Shāṭibī did not deviate from the traditional fundamentalist linguistic system as he considered Arabic to be the cornerstone in seeking the objectives. In this regard, Ash-Shāṭibī said, following Ash-Shāfi’ī, his teacher: (The Quran was revealed in the Arabs’ language. I stress on this point that the Quran was revealed in the language of the Arabs and not in any other language. Thus, no one can clarify the science of the book, if he is ignorant of the breadth of the Arabic language and the multiplicity and diversity of its meanings.)[134].

 Ash-Shāṭibī also was influenced by Ar-Rāzi, his teacher, when saying: (Since the reference for knowing our legislation is the Quran and Reports, which are transmitted to us in Arabic conveying the Arabs’ grammar and morphology, the knowledge of our legislation depends on knowing these matters. When a duty not be fulfilled except by a matter– and it is within the power of the person held accountable- (that matter becomes a duty.)[135].

D. Regulations set for Al-Maqāṣid negate Secular Misinterpretation: Are the Islamic objectives so absurd as it’s presented by the secularists’ thought? Are they flexible with no limits and regulations? What are the criteria that determine Islamic objectives? How can it be accessed? On which reference can we depend to achieve this?

There is a main difference between Islamists and secularists in searching for Islamic objectives. Islamists are seeking the objectives of the Legislator, Glory be to Him, and the intended meaning, while the secularists are seeking their own objectives, thoughts and whims.

Al-Maqāṣid is not a word or a motto, but it is a fundamental principle that has its own regulations and standards, so that it does not become a tool used to abrogate or hollow out the text. Determining the Divine objectives is not based on unreasonable suspicions and guesses[136]. Ash–Shāṭibī, whom the secularists considered the founder of the science of Al-Maqāṣid and whom they praised, is the one who sets these regulations. Do the secularists accept them?!

The Most Significant Regulations

• Regarding the worshipping acts, the person should perform them without searching for the wisdom behind them. Regarding the social rules, it is necessary to search for the wisdom behind them[137].
• The general objectives of worshipping are: to totally submit to the commands of Allah Almighty, and believe in the Oneness of Allah, glorify His Majesty, and turn to Him[138].
• Shariah aims to prevent the person from following his whim and to help him be a true servant of Allah willingly by his choice just as he is a servant of Allah unwillingly[139].
• Shariah was established so that the servants’ whims should follow the intended objective of the Legislator. Allah has permitted a large scale for servants’ desires which is sufficient for them to be away from corruption or hardship[140].
• The difficulty of going against one’s whims is not considered a hardship and there is no concession for it at all[141].
• The Al-‘Azimah (obligation) is the original ruling, while Rukhsah (concession) is an exception. Therefore, Al-‘Azimah is intended by the Legislator as an original objective, while concession is intended as a secondary objective[142].
• The Legislator did not intend to impose hardship or sufferance[143]. Undoubtedly, the Legislator imposes a level of hardship, but He has not intended the hardship itself. Rather, he has intended the benefits gained by the person held accountable[144].
• If the hardship is beyond the ordinary, to the extent that the person suffers religious or worldly deviation, the Legislator, then, aims to completely reduce the burden[145].
• Whoever seeks a benefit not from the legitimate path is working against that benefit[146].

These are some of the laws and rules that govern Al-Maqāṣid, but how are objectives reached or known? Here are also some rules for this:

1. Referring to the language of the text, the rules of its discourse, and the fundamentals of convention that were agreed upon by Arabs, whose language is the language of revelation. We have seen both Ash-Shāfi’ī and Ash-Shāṭibī emphasizing this[147].
2. Using the entire Quran to interpret some of it. The entire Quran is like one verse Ayah. Thus, It is not possible to apply a part leaving the others.[148].
3. The command requires a Divine order to carry out this act, and the prohibition requires Divine prevention to avoid the prohibited act[149].
4. The explicit clear connotation that cannot be translated into any other meaning in the Holy Quran, such as the Saying of Allah Almighty: “O believers! Fasting is prescribed for you as it was for those before you so perhaps you will become mindful ˹of Allah˺“ (2:183)[150], and His saying: “…Allah does not like corruption.” (2:205)[151], and His saying: “Do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly…” (2: 188)[152].
5. The successively narrated Hadiths (Mutawatir Sunnah), and this becomes clear in two cases:

• A moral successiveness: The majority of the Companions witnessing the actions of the Prophet (PBUH), thus gaining knowledge of the legislation of that matter. This includes the necessary religious knowledge.
• A practical successiveness: Singular narrations (Aāḥād) by the Companions who repeatedly watched the actions of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH)[153].

6- The causes for the rulings indicate the intended meaning of the Legislator, so wherever they are found, they are followed[154].

7- Every original ruling that is appropriate to the Divine will, and whose meaning was taken from a set of evidence that are definitive, can be built upon and referred to, even if no specific text supporting it[155].

8-If the Legislator has not set a specific ruling about a matter even though there is a reason to set it, this indicates that it is an order to stop at the borders of His limits[156].

9- The Istiqrā’ (induction) through the whole evidence of Shariah from the Quran and Sunnah is definitive. This is because the Shariah are not based on a single piece of evidence, but on a set of evidence that conveys a single meaning, so that it becomes definitive[157]. Ibn ‘Ashour considered Istiqrā’ the first method of setting objectives[158]. This is an important way to know the objective, because the Quran is integral and the Quran has no contradictions.

This is the most effective response to the secularists who want us – according to their writings- to abandon the details and subtleties of the Shariah in order to preserve its spirit, meaning, objectives or essence, as they claim. The parts are related to the whole, and the whole supports the parts. In this regard, Ash-Shāṭibī clearly stated: “If a general principle is established in the Shariah regarding essential, necessary and desirable, then singular narrations could not abrogate it. “Similarly, we say: If a general principle is proven in the Shariah regarding these three or one of them, then it must be preserved to achieve this general principle. This is also the same for the particulars. The particulars are necessary for establishing the general. If the general is not achieved, thus the objective of its legislation is abandoned… Thus, achieving particulars is very significant, without considering some of them better than other. All of them should be fulfilled.)[159]. (The particularity of particulars must be taken into account while taking into consideration their general principles, and vice versa. This is the ultimate goal of Mujtahids)[160]. He confirms this again – as if he is facing the secular misinterpretation – when he says: (Whoever depends on the particulars, rejecting the general, has made a mistake. And, whoever depends on the general, rejecting the particulars, has also made a mistake…. This proves that the aim is to apply the Divine objective. In fact, the significance of the general and the particular is the same, so they should be taken into consideration in all issues.)[161].

Thus, it is obvious that Al-Maqāṣid, according to Ash-Shāṭibī, is meant to control reasoning and not to hallow it out. In addition, focusing on the general does not lead to abandon the particulars as secularists promote. It seems that Ash-Shāṭibī is addressing secularists and Al-Jābrī specifically as they want to twist the truth by considering him the founder of the system of reason instead of the style of discourse, when saying: (The majority of innovators (Ahlul-Bid’ah) mainly depend on Taḥseen and Taqbeeḥ (goodness and repugnance). It is their cornerstone on which they build the Shariah and the main concept in their approach. They do not doubt reason, but doubt evidence if it apparently seems to disagree with the meanings they follow… However, reason-based opinions are not inevitably true)[162].

Hence, if the secularists ignore these laws and regulations set by the scholars, they do not have the right to speak in the name of the Al-Maqāṣid. This is ironic! Whosoever follows a slogan he did not invent must adhere to the laws of that slogan in order to be one of its followers.

If secularists had taken into account the system of Al-Maqāṣid; its rules and laws, they would not have come up with misinterpretations attributing them to the religion of Allah Almighty. For example, If Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd had learned the regulations of Al-Maqāṣid, he would not have said that women are equal to men in inheritance in this era depending on the main purpose. According to what he said, the woman was totally deprived of her right to inherit during pre-Islamic eras. Then, Islam gave her half of the share of the male heir, which is what is understood from the apparent meaning of the Ayat. But the main purpose is that we should give her in the future the same share of the male heir[163].

If he had read Ash-Shāṭibī’s opinion mentioned above (If the Legislator has not set a specific ruling about a matter even though there is a reason to set it, this indicates that it is an order to stop at the borders of His limits.)[164], he would not have said that and he would have respected the limits of Allah Almighty. In fact, Allah, the Legislator, did not give us any evidence, indication, or clue supporting the purpose he claimed. In addition, if Dr. Muhammad Shahrour was aware that one of the main Divine objectives is to preserve honour and keep chastity, and consequently one of its secondary objectives that helps in achieving this is to protect women and her decency, he would not said that it is permissible for a woman to go out naked except with a tape that covers her private parts[165]!! There are many examples showing similar advocates.

Therefore, applying Al-Maqāṣid without regulations or standards is nothing but a way to eliminate Shariah, exclude the Holy Quran from leadership and reference, justify the solutions of modern approaches, and pass on the values required by modernity[166]. Ali Harb explicitly discussed this by stating: (The deep Quranic reflections are not those which reveal the intended meaning of the text, but those which reveal the undiscussed, excluded, or neglected.) [167] He also stated: (Creative reflection is that which goes beyond what is stipulated and spoken)[168].

Thus, it is clear that Ash-Shāṭibī did not make an epistemological barrier with Ash-Shafi’ī’s fundamentals, as Al-Jābrī’s saying [169]which is supported by Parrott[170]. Rather, he proudly followed in his footsteps and was influenced by his rules and fundamentals.

2. Al-Maṣāliḥ (Public Interest)

Secularists intend to deny the Quran as a source of legislation through Al-Maqāṣid, on which we primarily depend to know the meaning intended by Allah Almighty and to seek His pleasure. With greater reason, Al-Maṣāliḥ, on which we depend to know the nature of man and what is good for him, is more suitable for these people to seek in their approach.

The problem is not to declare the necessity of Al-Maṣlaḥah. Everyone agrees that public interest is the aim of the legislation. The problem is: Which public interest do we mean? When do we consider something beneficial (Maṣlaḥah), and when do we consider it evil (Mafsadah)? When do we consider it useful, and when do we consider it harmful? When do we consider it preponderant, and when do we consider it outweighed? When do we consider it real and dependable, and when do we consider it unreal and neglected[171]?

What is the standard that governs Al-Maṣlaḥah? In fact, what is considered to be beneficial for one person may be harmful to another person, and what is considered to be beneficial for one person now, may be harmful later?

In addition, Al-Maṣlaḥah is divided into necessary, desirable, and essential. They may contradict or overlap. The difference may lead to various estimations. Thus, this must be taken into consideration to seek Al-Maṣlaḥah[172]. Furthermore, is the text superior to Al-Maṣlaḥah or vice versa? Is there any contradiction between Al-Maṣlaḥah and the text? If there is a contradiction, what is the solution?

Aṭ-Ṭūfī claimed that Al-Maṣlaḥah and the text may conflict in matters other than acts of worship. In this case, Al-Maṣlaḥah must be followed because it is definitive, as it is the aim for those held accountable[173]. However, Aṭ-Ṭūfī (did not mention one real example of the contradiction he assumed between the text and Al-Maṣlaḥah. Thus, his opinion is merely a theoretical assumption)[174].

Most importantly, our professor, Dr. Muhammad Saeed Ramadan Al-Bouti, mentioned five regulations for Al-Maṣlaḥah:

First: It should be among the objectives of Shariah.

Second: It should not contradict the Quran.

Third: It should not contradict the Sunnah.

Fourth: It should not contradict Qiyas (analogical reasoning).

Fifth: It does not belittle a more important benefit[175].

3. Conscience

Abdul Majeed Al-Sharafi believes that whenever there is harmony between a Muslim’s conscience and his life, religion plays a positive role, and whenever they are separated, religion is merely an expression of hope and nostalgia[176]. This is because a Muslim’s conscience is the first moderator that guides a person to respond to the Divine guidance. Accordingly, (It is not a problem for any Muslim not to see the obligations of worshipping acts and transactions, however they are very few, anything but a reflection of the era of the Messenger (PBUH) and the surrounding Hijazi environment)[177].

The question that arises here is the same question that was raised while talking about Al-Maqāṣid: What is meant by conscience? Is it the public or the personal conscience? I mean, is it the collective conscience or the individual conscience? Is the conscience intended in the philosophical sense or psychological-emotional sense which is manifested by feelings of comfort and contentment? Conscience here does not have a specific concept among researchers, philosophers, or people in general. In fact, it is a vague and ambiguous concept that differs from one person to another and has no standards.

The psychological contentment represented by the acceptance of the prevailing social customs, which is what he calls harmony or compatibility with the age, does not indicate deep honesty. This only reflects the superficial psychological level of direct behavior devoid of the sense of conscience required for every moral commitment. Thus, mental harmony should be achieved between principles, commitment and practical reason, which requires freedom from psychological motives and reliance on formal rules in criticizing practical reason, as mentioned by Kant. In this regard, one should be free from psychological motives to accept the codes of conduct.

From a secular perspective, conscience makes behavior a qualitative matter. No one bears responsibility outside his perceptions. What is important is to keep everyone satisfied with his behavior. For example, many criminals are not only satisfied after committing their crimes, but rather feel euphoria and happiness and can justify their behavior[178].

If we assume that the author’s presentation of the issue of conscience is acceptable, can the honesty of yesterday reflect that of tomorrow if the sign of honesty is psychological comfort? Is there what exceeds this type of conscience? Is it possible to build fixed moral rules or a moral obligation on this? Then, if this is the standard, then those who are criticized for their religious perception and application are the ones who have the most peaceful conscience. In addition, rejection does not bother them, as they are enjoying their own reality. In fact, the conscience intended by the author is naive, and in reality, it is a strategy to abandon Islamic Rulings with its obligations and related practices[179].

Finally, the concepts set by secularists, such as Al-Maqāṣid, Al-Maṣāliḥ, main purpose, etc. are nothing but empty slogans intended to achieve secular intellectual goals which target the Islamic mind.

In conclusion, Al-Maqāṣid, from an Islamic perspective, is inferior to the text and all its related matters, such as Ijmā’ (consensus), Qiyas (analogical reasoning), Istiḥsān (discretion), and so on. In addition, it is limited by an unseen afterlife vision. On the other hand, Al-Maqāṣid, from a secular perspective, reflects whims, desires, lusts, and everything related to humans’ pure earthly needs.

Translated by:

Rehab Jamal Bakri***

*****

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

* The article was published in Al-Muslim Al-Muaser Magazine. E. 114. 2004. pp. 21- 52.

This study is taken from a doctoral dissertation entitled “Mawqif Al-Fikr Al-‘Araby Al-‘Almany mina An-Nas Al-Qura’ny” (The Stance of Arab Secular Thought on the Quranic Text), which was discussed in 2003 at the Faculty of Dar Al-‘Ulum – Cairo University.

**  He is a former professor at Damascus University, Faculty of Shariah and the Former President of Al-Sham International University. Currently, he is a professor at Free Aleppo University (FAU).

[1] محمد عابد الجابري في مواطن كثيرة من كتابه (بنية العقل العربي) على سبيل المثال ص. 61-46، 550، 551، 564، 543، ومحمد الطالبي (أمة الوسط) ص. 137، 126 وله أيضًا (عيال الله) ص. 143، 114، ومحمد جمال باروت، الاجتهاد: النص الواقع المصلحة ص. 96 / 97، وعبد المجيد الشرفي (الإسلام بين الرسالة والتاريخ) ص. 80، 66، محمد أركون (تاريخية الفكر) ص. 170، وآسيا المخلبي (مبحث التأويل) في الفكر العربي المعاصر: نصر حامد أبو زيد نموذجًا) ص. 54 – جامعة نواكشوط – كلية الآداب والعلوم الإنسانية – قسم الفلسفة – موريتانية، وحسن حنفي (حوار المشرق والمغرب) ص. 36. والمراد بمقاصد الشريعة: الغاية منها، والأسرار التي وضعها الشارع عند كل حكم من أحكامها. انظر: د. أحمد الريسونى (نظرية المقاصد عند الشاطبي) ص. 6.

[2] حسن حنفي (حوار المشرق والمغرب) ص. 195، وانظر الصادق بلعيد (القرآن والتشريع) ص. 309، 30، ومحمد جمال باروت (الاجتهاد: النص الواقع المصلحة) ص. 162، 165، 138، 105، 133، ونوال السعداوي (المرأة والدين والاخلاق) ص. 52، وانظر: نصر حامد أو زيد (الخطاب والتأويل) ص. 207.

[3] الشرفي (الإسلام بين الرسالة والتاريخ) ص. 61، 8، وطيب تيزني (الإسلام والعصر) ص. 24، 26 وحسين أحمد أمين (دليل المسلم الحزين) ص. 146، 147، والصادق بعليد (القرآن والتشريع) ص32.

[4] الشرفي (الإسلام بين الرسالة والتاريخ) ص. 5 وانظر: المنصف بن عبد الجليل (في قراءة النص الديني) ص. 39.

[5] عبد المجيد الشرفي (الإسلام بين الرسالة والتاريخ) ص. 72، 73، 195.

[6] العشماوي (أصول الشريعة) ص. 178، 117، 113، وله أيضًا (جوهر الإسلام) ص. 36، 15.

[7] العشماوي (أصول الشريعة) ص. 180، و (جوهر الإسلام) ص. 18: 21.

[8] الجابري (بنية العقل) ص. 36.

[9] الجابري (بنية العقل) ص. 37، وانظر: مبروكة الشريف جبريل (الخطاب النهضوي) ص. 311.

[10] Ibid. P.547.

[11] الجابري (بنية العقل) ص. 58.

[12] Ibid. P. 562

[13]الجابري (بنية العقل) ص. 539، 552، 551، 550.

[14] Ibid. P. 542.

[15] الجابري (بنية العقل) ص. 538، وأركون (تاريخية الفكر) ص. 170، وطيب تيزيني (النص القرآني) ص. 422، ونصر حامد أبو زيد (الخطاب والتأويل) ص. 201، ومحمد جمال باروت (الاجتهاد والنص الواقع المصلحة) ص. 112.

[16] نصر حامد أبو زيد (الخطاب والتأويل) ص. 201.

[17] الجابري (بنية العقل) ص. 502، وانظر: أحمد الريسوني (نظرية المقاصد عند الإمام الشاطبي) ص. 262- دار الحكمة- المنصورة- مصر- الطبعة الأولى- 1997م- 1418هـ.

[18] محمد جمال باروت (الاجتهاد والنص الواقع المصلحة) ص. 112.

[19] الشرفي (الإسلام بين الرسالة والتاريخ) ص. 80.

[20] آسيا المخلبي (مبحث التأويل في الفكر العربي المعاصر نصر حامد نموذجًا) ص. 54.

[21] This is the title of a Book:

نصر حامد أبو زيد (الإمام الشافعي وتأسيس الايديولوجية الوسيطة) دار سينا – القاهرة.

[22] أبو زيد (الإمام الشافعي وتأسيس الإيديولوجيا الوسيطة) ص. 26، 27، 29، – طبعة القاهرة 1992، وانظر: د. عمارة (التفسير الماركسي للإسلام) ص. 91.

[23] Ibid. P. 101. Also see:

عمارة (التفسير الماركسي) ص. 82.

[24] أركون (تاريخية الفكر) ص. 73.

[25] Ibid. P.213.

[26] نصر حامد أبو زيد (النص السلطة، الحقيقة) ص. 212.

[27] أبو زيد (الإمام الشافعي وتأسيس الأيديولوجيا الوسيطة) ص. 68 نسخة دار سينا، وانظر: رفعت فوزي عبد المطلب (نقض كتاب نصر حامد ودحض شبهاته) ص. 110.

[28] العشماوي (معالم الإسلام) ص. 153، 155، 109، ود. عمارة (سقوط الغلو العلماني) ص. 105.

[29] أركون (تاريخية الفكر) ص. 297.

[30] الصادق بلعيد (القرآن والتشريع) ص. 11.

[31] The Noble Quran- Surat At-Taghabun (The Mutual Disillusion): 12

[32] بلعيد (القرآن والتشريع) ص. 276.

[33] أركون (نافذة على الإسلام) ص. 99.

[34] الجابري (بنية العقل) ص. 22، وله: (تكوين العقل) ص. 106.

[35] الجابري (تكوين العقل العربي) ص. 105.

[36] عبد المجيد الشرفي (لبنات) ص. 143.

[37] محمد شحرور (نحو أصول جديدة) ص. 11، وعبد الهادي عبد الرحمن (سلطة النص) ص. 184، 185، ومحمد جمال باروت (الاجتهاد الواقع المصلحة) ص. 83، 82.

[38] محمد جمال باروت (الاجتهاد: النص الواقع لمصلحة) ص. 290. انظر: الطوفي (رسالة في رعاية المصلحة) ص. 23 تحقيق د. أحمد عبد الرحيم السايح – الدار المصرية اللبنانية ط1 / 1413هجرى / 1993 م.

[39] رسالة الطوفي في رعاية المصلحة ص. 45، وانظر: باروت السابق ص. 103.

[40] الطوفي السابق ص. 45، وباروت السابق ص. 103.

[41] Ibid.

[42] الطوفي السابق ص. 44- 46، وانظر: باروت (الاجتهاد: النص، الواقع، المصلحة) ص. 104.

[43] باروت (السابق) ص. 105.

[44] الطوفي (رسالة في رعاية المصلحة) ص. 47.

[45] العشماوي (الإسلام السياسي) ص. 191.

[46] نوال السعداوي (المرأة الدين الأخلاق) ص. 52.

[47] الصادق بلعيد (القرآن والتشريع) ص. 310.

[48] حاج حمد (العالمية الإسلامية الثانية) 2 / 332، وانظر: (البعد الزماني والمكاني وأثرهما على التعامل مع النص الشرعي) ص. 99.

[49] حاج حمد (العالمية الثانية) 2 / 334 و (البعد الزماني) ص. 99.

[50] حاج حمد (العالمية الثانية) 258.

[51] Ibid. 257.

[52] Referring to the book:

محمود طه (الرسالة الثانية من الإسلام).

[53][53] حاج حمد (العالمية الثانية) ص. 257.

[54] حاج حمد (العالمية الثانية) ص. 250.

[55] حاج حمد (منهجية القرآن المعرفية) ص. 22، 23ـ و (البعد الزماني) ص. 129.

[56] العالمية الثانية ص. 291، 294.

[57] العالمية الثانية ص. 278، 279.

[58] الجابري (وجهة النظر) ص. 57- 60، وانظر: حسين أحمد أمين (دليل المسلم الحزين) ص. 146، 147.

[59] The Noble Quran- Surat Al-Ma’idah (Table Spread with Food): 48.

[60] حاج حمد (العالمية الثانية) ص. 249.

[61] Ibid. P. 378, 379.

[62] العشماوي (معالم الإسلام) ص. 61، 62، 279، 281.

[63] العشماوي (أصول الشريعة) ص. 108، 109، وانظر: د. عمارة (سقوط الغلو العلماني) ص. 222.

[64] العشماوي (أصول الشريعة) ص. 178.

[65] العشماوي (أصول الشريعة) ص. 117، وانظر له: (جوهر الإسلام) ص. 15، 13.

[66] العشماوي (أصول الشريعة) ص. 113، وانظر له: (جوهر الإسلام) ص. 21.

[67] العشماوي (جوهر الإسلام) ص. 39، 18، 19.

[68] Ibid. P.36.

[69] Ibid. P. 18,19,15.

[70] Ibid. P. 21.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Ibid. P.42, 47.

[73] العشماوي (أصول الشريعة) ص. 117.

[74] Ibid. P.119.

[75] Ibid. P. 122, 124.

[76] Ibid. P. 123.

[77] الصادق بلعيد (القرآن والتشريع) ص. 198.

[78] عبد الرازق هوماس (القراءة الجديدة في ضوء ضوابط التفسير) ص. 86، 179، ويحيل إلى مصدر لأركون باللغة الفرنسية.

[79] بلعيد (القرآن والتشريع) ص. 32.

[80] عبد المجيد الشرفي (الإسلام بين الرسالة والتاريخ) ص. 60، 61.

[81] Ibid. P.5.

[82] Ibid. P. 195.

[83] Ibid. P. 8.

[84] حسين أحمد أمين (دليل المسلم الحزين) ص. 146، 147.

[85] (العالمية الثانية) ص. 271.

[86] القمني (رب الزمان) ص. 43.

[87] حسين أحمد أمين (حول الدعوة إلى تطبيق الشريعة) ص. 205، 206.

[88] القمني (رب الزمان) ص. 237.

[89] محمد جمال باروت (الاجتهاد: النص الواقع المصلحة) ص. 136، 137.

[90] فتحي القاسمي (العلمانية وانتشارها شرقًا وغربًا) ص. 193.

[91] (القمني الفاشيون والوطن) ص. 214، 215، 89.

[92] الصادق بلعيد (القرآن والتشريع) ص. 24، 47، 309.

[93] عبد الهادي عبد الرحمن (سلطة النص) ص. 52.

[94] طيب تزيني (النص القرآني أمام إشكالية البنية والقراءة) ص. 219.

[95] أنور خلوف (القرآن والتفسير والتأويل والمنطق العقلي) ص. 25، 65.

[96] طيب تيزينى (النص القرآني) ص. 375.

[97] نائلة السيلني (تاريخية التفسير القرآني) ص. 80.

[98] حسين أحمد أمين (حول الدعوة إلى تطبيق الشريعة) ص. 27.

[99] نصر حامد أبو زيد (مفهوم النص) ص. 117. آسيا المخلبي (مبحث التأويل في الفكر العربي المعاصر نصر حامد أبو زيد نموذجاً ص. 55 – جامعة نواكشوط – كلية الآداب والعلوم الإنسانية – قسم الفلسفة – بحث لنيل الشهادة المتريز في الفلسفة 1994، 1995 م.

[100] العشماوي (الإسلام السياسي) ص. 48، و (أصول الشريعة) ص. 139.

[101] Speculation here means to be judgmental and expressing their opinions with no evidence or proofs.

[102] الشاطبي (الموافقات) 1/26 دار المعرفة – بيروت ط 1 /1415 هجري – 1994م تحقيق د. عبد الله دراز، وانظر د. أحمد الريسوني (نظرية المقاصد عند الإمام الشاطبي) ص. 235 – دار الكلمة المنصورة – مصر ط1 /1997 م، 1418 ه.

[103] الموافقات 1 /23، وانظر: د. الريسونى (نظرية المقاصد عند الإمام الشاطبي) ص. 253.

[104] د. الريسونى (نظرية المقاصد) ص. 254.

[105] Ibid.

[106] Ibid. P. 256.

[107] Ibid. P. 254, 257.

[108][108] Ibid. P.259.

[109] د. الريسونى (نظرية المقاصد) ص. 24 – 46.

[110] Ibid. P. 32.

[111] د. أحمد الريسونى (نظرية المقاصد عند الإمام الشاطبي) ص. 235 فيما بعد، وانظر د: طه عبد الرحمن (تجديد في المنهج في تقويم التراث) ص. 97 فما بعد – المركز الثقافي العربي بيروت الدار البيضاء ط /د، ت. وانظر: د. عبد الرحمن إبراهيم كيلاني) (قواعد المقاصد عند الإمام الشاطبي) (دار الفكر – دمشق، وأيضاً: حمدي العبيدي (الشاطبي ومقاصد الشريعة) منشورات كلية الدعوة الإسلامية – طرابلس.

[112] الجابري (بنية العقل العربي) ص. 540، وانظر: باروت (الاجتهاد: النص والواقع المصلحة) ص. 107 مناظرة مع د. الريسونى.

[113] د. الريسونى (الاجتهاد النص الواقع والمصلحة) ص. 151.

[114] انظر: الشاطبي (الموافقات) 1 /26، بل إن الشاطبي خلافاً لكثير من العلماء كان لا يأخذ الفقه إلا من كتب الأقدمين، ولا يرى لأحد إن ينظر في هذه الكتب المتأخرة. أنظر: الموافقات 1/86.

[115] الإمام الشافعي (الرسالة) ص20 – بيروت – دار الكتب العلمية د. ت.

[116] (الرسالة للإمام الشافعي) ص. 21، 22.

[117] الشاطبي (الموافقات) 3 /333.

[118] الشاطبي (الموافقات) 3 /339.

[119] Ibid. 3/ P. 331- 332.

[120] Ibid. 3/ P. 335.

[121] الشاطبي (الموافقات) 1/ 36.

[122] الشاطبي (الموافقات) 1/ 36.

[123] الشاطبي (الاعتصام) 1 / 45 تصحيح الشيخ محمد رشيد رضا – مطبعة المنار بمصر لا توجد أي بيانات إضافية.

[124] الشاطبي (الاعتصام) 1 / 50.

[125] الشاطبي (الاعتصام) 1 / 52 – 53.

[126] The Noble Quran- Yusuf: 2.

[127] The Noble Quran- Ash-Shu’arā (The Poets): 195.

[128] الشاطبي، الموافقات 2 / 375.

[129] الشاطبي، (الموافقات) 4 / 667.

[130] الموافقات 4 / 485، وانظر د. الريسونى (نظرية المقاصد) ص. 236.

[131] الشاطبي (الاعتصام) 2 / 239.

[132] الإمام الشاطبي (الموافقات) 4 / 485.

The majority of Usul scholars agreed that it is not necessary for the Mujtahid to be well-versed in Arabic like the prominent Arab scholars. The Arabic level which qualifies him is that level which helps him understand the Quran and Sunnah. Al-Ghazālī said: “The second (qualification) is knowing the language and grammar in a way that makes it easy for him to understand the speech of the Arabs, and consequently the meaning of the Quran and Sunnah.. To make it more easy, it is not required to attain the level of Al-Khalil and Al-Mubarrad. It is not also required to know all the secrets of the language and delve deeply into grammar. A certain level is required to understand the Quran and Sunnah). See:

المستصفى 2 / 351 – 352.

Al-Āmidi stipulated that he should be (knowledgeable in language and grammar, and it is not required to reach the level of Al-Aṣma’i in linguistics or Sibawayh and Al-Khalil in grammar. Yet, he should reach a level which help him understand the conditions of the Arabs and their customs through their speeches..). See:

الإحكام في أصول الأحكام 4 / 142.

Abu Al-Ḥasan Al-Baṣri stipulated that (the person searching for supporting evidence should know what the discourse delivers in the scope of the language, custom, and legislation, so that he could reach the intended meaning…). See:

المعتمد للبصرى 2 / 358.

Al-Baṣri’s words seem to indicate that it is not required to master Arabic language.

[133] الموافقات 1 / 41 وانظر: د. الريسونى (السابق نفسه).

[134] الإمام الشافعي (الرسالة) ص. 50.

[135] الرازي (المحصول) 1 / 375.

[136] (الموافقات) 1 / 80، ود. الريسونى (نظرية المقاصد) ص. 277.

[137] الموافقات 2/ 585، والاعتصام 2 / 135، ونظرية المقاصد ص. 275.

[138] الموافقات 2 / 586.

[139] الموافقات 2 / 469 و 455.

[140] الموافقات 1/ 299.

[141] الموافقات 1 / 300.

[142] الموافقات 1 / 266 – 268.

[143] الموافقات 2 / 427.

[144] الموافقات 2 / 429.

[145] الموافقات 2 / 457.

[146] الموافقات 1 / 310.

[147]P. 307.

[148] الزركشي (البرهان) 2 / 17 – دار المعرفة – بيروت 1972 / ط 3.

[149] الموافقات 2 / 667، 3 / 111، 112، 114، وانظر: د. الريسونى نظرية المقاصد ص. 277.

[150] The Noble Quran- Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow): 183.

[151] [151] The Noble Quran- Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow): 205.

[152] The Noble Quran- Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow): 188. See:

ابن عاشور (مقاصد الشريعة الإسلامية) ص. 21، ود. الريسونى (نظرية المقاصد) ص. 130.

[153] ابن عاشور (السابق) ص. 21 أيضاً.

[154] الموافقات 2 / 668.

[155] الموافقات 1 / 37.

[156] الموافقات 2 / 681 – 683، والاعتصام 1 / 361.

[157] الموافقات 1 / 29، 30 و 2 / 322، 362، 364 و د. الريسونى (نظرية المقاصد) ص. 245.

ابن عاشور (مقاصد الشريعة الإسلامية) ص. 20 – الشركة التونسية للتوزيع والنشر – تونس – الشركة الوطنية للكتاب الجزائر د، ط / د، ت. [158]

[159] الموافقات 2 / 371 – 373، وانظر: هراوة (البعد الزماني) ص. 60.

[160] الشاطبي (الموافقات) 3 / 12.

[161] الموافقات 3 / 7 – 9 وانظر: هرواة (البعد الزماني) ص. 60.

[162] الشاطبي: الاعتصام ص. 1 / 184، 185.

[163] نصر حامد أبو زيد (نقد الخطاب الديني) ص. 223، 225.

[164] الشاطبي (الموافقات) 2/ 681- 682.

[165] محمد شحرور (الكتاب والقرآن، قراءة معاصرة) ص. 606، 607.

[166] عبد الرحمن حللي (استخدام المناهج الحديثة في دراسة الإسلام قراءة في كتاب الإسلام بين الرسالة والتاريخ لعبد المجيد الشرفي) مجلة الحياة الثقافية- ص. 46 عدد 129 لسنة 26 نوفمبر 2001 تونس.

[167] علي حرب (نقد النص) ص. 20.

[168] Ibid. P.21.

[169] د. الجابري (بنية العقل) ص. 540.

[170] محمد جمال باروت (الاجتهاد: النص، الواقع، المصلحة) ص. 107.

[171] د. الريسونى (الاجتهاد: النص الواقع المصلحة) ص. 33.

[172] Ibid. P. 36, 37.

[173] الطوفي (رسالة في رعاية المصلحة) ص. 44 – 45.

[174] الريسونى (الاجتهاد: النص، الواقع، المصلحة) ص. 38.

[175] محمد سعيد رمضان البوطي (ضوابط المصلحة في الشريعة الإسلامية) ص. 107 فما بعد.

We also refer here to the following books that address the issue of Al-Maṣāliḥ in a sufficiently comprehensive manner. See:

 د. مصطفى زيد. و (أصول التشريع الإسلامي) الأستاذ على حسب الله. و (نظرية المصلحة في الفقه الإسلامي) حسين حامد حسان.

[176] د. عبد المجيد الشرفي (الإسلام بين الرسالة والتاريخ) ص. 47.

[177] Ibid. P. 61.

[178] عبد الرحمن حللي (استخدام المناهج الحديثة في دراسة الإسلام. قراءة في كتاب (الإسلام بين الرسالة والتاريخ لعبد المجيد الشرفي) ص. 54، 55 مقال في مجلة (الحياة الثقافية العدد 129 السنة 26 نوفمبر 2001 م تونس.

[179] Ibid.

*** Egyptian Researcher and Translator.