One of the classical confusions regarding the subject of ‘Illah is the claim that the maqaasid (aims) of the Sharee’ah are the reasons (‘Illah) for the ahkams. This stems form the view that the Sharee’ah has come for the benefit (maslahah) of man. This benefit then is categorized into the five maqaasids or aims of the Sharee’ah which are; the protection of: Deen, life, mind, lineage and property. So if the Sharee’h as a whole seeks these aims then, it is concluded, that they must be the ‘Illah of the individual ahkaams. This is also established from a scrutiny (istiqraa) of the ahkams themselves which show that they seek these aims. So upon scrutiny one can see this from the results of the ahkams, the hikmahs and ‘Illahs contained within the text that these aims are sought. Thus it is concluded that aims or maSlaHa of the Sharee’ah are the ‘Illah of ahkaam. Those who followed this method of ascribing ‘Illahs to ahkams put conditions for this process. i.e. giving ‘Illahs to ahkams because they either contained a hikmah or a maslahah consistent with the maqaasid. They said the Sharee’ah must either acknowledge the maSlaHa or a text must not explicitly cancel it or there should be no text which stops us from considering its benefit. Hence they divided the benefits (maSaaliH) into three types:

Maslahamulgha

Maslahamu’tabarah

Maslahamurslaha

The first category is where the maSlaHa is canceled by the text itself. So when the text ordered jihad, for example, naturally this entailed the loss of life which contradicts the aim or maSlaHa of preserving life, but this maSlaHa is cancelled because of the text. However actions which have ahkams that do not explicitly cancel the maSlaHa fall under the second category of mu’tabarah where, it is claimed, their benefit is acknowledged by the Sharee’ah. So for example the maSlaHa or aim in the prohibition of drinking alcohol is acknowledged (mu’tabar) because it’s prohibition has a daleel. As for what that maslaha is, that is determined by the maqaasid. One of the maqaasid is the preservation of the mind so that becomes the maSlaHa of prohibiting alcohol and intoxication becomes its ‘Illah because it realizes the aim of preserving the mind. Naturally, this ‘Illah is extended to prohibit things other than alcohol which also intoxicate the mind. As for the third category; maSaaliH mursalah, this is where there is no specific daleel for the action so we cannot say its benefit has been canceled or that it has been acknowledged. However this action will come under the comprehensive daleel (daleel kulli), which they say are the five aims of the sharee’h. So if it realizes one of the aims of the Sharee’h then that is the maSlaHa of the action and on that basis the action would be legitimized. This is because the aims are treated as ‘Illahs, so if an action fulfils the aim then it is legitimate. Advocates of this view cite the example of when the Sahabah compiled the Qur’an. Here they say there is no specific daleel for that action but the action fulfils the maSlaHa of preserving the Deen and hence the action is obligatory. This is because the action fulfils the ‘Illah, which is the preservation of the Deen. Since the maqaasid have been arrived at through istiqraa i.e. scrutiny of the texts then they serve as the comprehensive evidence (dalil kulli) for actions which lack a specific daleel.

Thus, the above method is treated by some scholars as one of the ways (maslak) of identifying the ‘Illah. However if we examine the arguments we find their understanding is mistaken for the following reasons:

i. The maqaasid are aims of the sharee’ah as a whole and not the aims of the individual ahkams
The premise that the aims (maqaasid) are the aims of individual ahkaams is not correct. This is because the benefit of man is the ghaayh or aim of the Sharee’ah not the ‘Illah. For example: when Allah (swt) says:

“We have not sent you except as a mercy”

Here the mercy is a description of the message as a whole or in other words the Sharee’ah as a whole has come for the maSlaHa or good of man. However this does not mean the individual ahkaams have come as maslahah because there is no indication in the text which gave any consideration to the subject of benefit in harm. Rather, the ahkaams have come regardless of what the benefit or harm is. So man has to fight jihad even though he may lose his life and the hand of the thief is cut even though he may not be able earn his own living.

ii. Maqaasid are results of ahkaam and not their ‘Illah

As for the five maqaasids they are the results of certain ahkam and not the ‘Illah of these ahkams. For example Islam permitted polygny without providing an ‘Illah. However the reality of applying the hukm of polgany is that certain problems are solved. For example if the wife cannot bear children or the number of women in society is greater than men; these problems can be solves as result of applying the rule of polygany. Hence the hukm of polygamy brings certain results but these are not the ‘Illah of the hukm. The same goes for the rest of the ahkaams from which the maqaasid are extracted.

iii. The Hikmah are the aims sought by the lawgiver and not the ‘Illah of ahkaam

This is because the hikmah is the result desired by the Lawgiver and not the Lawgiver’s reason for legislation of the rule. So when Allah (swt) said:

“That they may witness things that are of benefit to them” [TMQ 22:28]

The benefits here are the results sought after the rule of hajj has been legislated. They are not the reason why hajj has been legislated otherwise hajj would not be necessary after the benefits have been acquired, which is absurd.

It is worth pointing out that the results and hikmah of ahkaam have nothing to do with the process of legislation and extraction of ahkaam as they come after the legislation of the rule. Only the ‘Illah is of significance because it is what causes the legislation to come into existence. Thus, the subject of hikmah and maqaasid are irrelevant when it comes to legislating rules.

iv. Finally, the maqaasid are not daleel kulli (comprehensive rules) which can serve as Illah’s for actions which lack a specific daleel.

As for the argument of istiqraa i.e. because the maqaasid have been taken from a scrutiny of the texts and hence this is a daleel kulli (comprehensive rule) to cover actions which do not have a specific daleel. This is wrong from two perspectives. Firstly, the maqaasid are merely a description of the reality of the ahkams and not the dalil kulli. Secondly, the dalil kulli is not a description of the reality of ahkams but a principle contained in a single or collection of daleels. So the principle of hiring is taken from the ayah about suckling. This is not the same for the maqaasid. They are the results and aims of the specific ahkaams from which they have been deduced, these results and aims cannot be used as evidences for other actions because the hukm shar’I is taken from a daleel or collection of daleels but not from the results and aims of daleels. So the fact that drugs like cocaine and heroin are Haraam is taken from the daleel like the Hadith:

“Every intoxicant is khamr and every khamr is Haraam.” [Abu Dawud, Sunan, III, 1043, Hadith no. 3672.]

The daleel for their prohibition is not the aim of protecting the mind, which is merely a result of certain ahkaam and hence cannot serve as a daleel.

as-Sabr wat taqseem or tanqeeh al manaat

Another erroneous means of extracting the ‘Illah is the process known as sabr wt taqseem (examination and isolation of the attributes) or tanqeeh al-manaat (isolating the ‘Illah). This is when the mujtahid examines, isolates and then eliminates those attributes (awsaaf) which could serve as ‘Illah for the hukm. For example khamr has a number of attributes; grape juice, it is a liquid and it can intoxicate. So the mujtahid like a detective tries to isolate the attribute (wasf) which best fits the conditions of the ‘Illah. He dismisses the first attribute because it is not extendable i.e. it cannot be applied to other things. As for being a liquid this cannot be the ‘Illah because it is not mu’atthirah ie it does not effect the hukm ie there is no rational link between the prohibition and the fact that it is a liquid. In the end he will go for the last attribute ‘intoxicant’ because it is munaasib ie agrees with the aim (maqsad) of preserving the mind. This process is wrong for the following reasons: Khamar is a noun and not an attribute and so to isolate the attributes that khamar has without the text indicating their consideration is incorrect. The text did not indicate whether explicitly or implicitly that intoxication is the ‘Illah for prohibition. As for the maqaasid, as we said above they are but results and aims of certain ahkaam and cannot be used to determine whether a certain attribute is an ‘Illah or not. The only way to do this is if the text itself gives an attribute which has a causal link to the hukm. Otherwise, one would be merely shooting in the dark and the result would be arbitrary.