Question about 'Masalah Mursalah'

[Break The Cross]

As Salaamu 'Alaykum

This principle of 'Masalah Mursalah', is this a well established principle or it is a disputed one? Is there anything written on this topic in English?

Also if this principle is correct than how can it be applied?

[Ibn Adam]

wa 'alaykum salam,

Kamali's book (attached) gives a relatively detailed insight into the topic in English. Other than that I think Nyazee's book also touches on it.

[jinnzaman]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/usul10.html

[abudurrah]

an observation
the link given seems to be sufi

anyway from the link it suggests that As shafi and imam ghazali was against the principle of 'Masalah Mursalah'
it also indicates that this principle also has roots in greek philosphy and has been of wide debate on its ecceptability between sholars and so it is not as accepted as it may seem

[Aburafay]

Assalamo AlaIkum

The conclusion says that the leading ulema of the four Sunni schools of thought are in agreement, in principle, that all genuine masalih which do not conflict with the objectives (maqasid)of the Lawgiver must be upheld.

Why do you say it is sufi. I did a course once, where this was the prescribed reading.

Haven't read it, but why do you say that it may be from greek philosophy. As far as I recall, Dr. Hashim Kamali has relied on the Qur'an and Sunnah, and has quoted from extremely reliable scholars.

Wassalam

[abudurrah]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/

if you look at the homepage of the link it says 'This page is devoted to Islamic topics, in particular Maliki jurisprudence (fiqh), Sufism (tasawwuf)'

it also has some quotes praising ibn al arabi (if you believe that ibn al arabi is a good then please defend him)

about the greek philosophy i take that back its just when i read this quote i made the link
it says 'It is strange that since the school of utility developed in Greek philosophy after Socrates, it has been subjected to this very attack, rather in even harsher terms.'

also he is saying that this principle is not as agreed upon as it may be made out
Now we want to give some details on this subject. Benefits which do not have a specific text which testifies that its category is considered is termed, al-masalih al-mursala, and whether or not it is is a legal principle is debated among the fuqaha'. Al-Qarafi claimed that all the fuqaha' use it and consider it evidence in partial decisions
i may have misunderstood this quote
he also says that al ghazali was against the principle
Al-Ghazali thought that only using benefit which has no testimony from the Lawgiver in a text or several indications was judging by whim. Al-Juwayni also objected to using benefits without searching for testimony and said that it is allowing the people to judge according to their whims and they avoid what they are averse to and that judgements would then differ with different individuals
also after reading it i can can see it says imam shafi did not hold this as a principle
Some think that the Shari'a contains the explication of everything which entails people's welfare, and so complete welfare can be found in its texts and that which cannot be taken by text can have a text applied to it by analogy, and the mujtahid cannot discover welfare when there is no testimony to it in the Shari'a.


but the treatise says that imam malik was following the pracitse of the companions which is where he derived it from:

-They collected the Noble QurÕan into a bound book – something which had not been done during the lifetime of the Messenger – because of the inherent benefit in it, dictated by the fear that the QurÕan might be forgotten through the death of those who had memorised it. When 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, saw many of the memorisers of the QurÕan fall in the Ridda War, he feared that the QurÕan might be lost through their deaths and so he suggested to Abu Bakr that it should be collected together into a book. The Companions agreed to that and were pleased with it.
The Companions of the Messenger agreed after his death that the hadd for wine-drinking should be 80 lashes in view of the principle of masalih mursala, since they observed that one of the consequences of intoxication was the slander of chaste women

-The Rightly-guided Khalifs agreed to make artisans responsible for any goods of other people they were working on, even though the basic position is that is the things in oneÕs possession are a trust (under Islamic law trustees are not responsible for unintentional damage to goods in their keeping). They did so because it was found that if they were not made liable for them they would make light of guarding other peopleÕs goods and property. So in this case public interest demanded that artisans should be made liable.
'Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, used to confiscate half of the wealth of governors who combined their personal wealth with government assets and then used their position as governor to make a profit on it. The benefit involved in that ruling was that he thought it that would reform the governors and keep them from exploiting the office of governorship for their own ends.

- It is also reported of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab that he poured away milk which had been diluted with water, as a punishment for cheating. That was for the general benefit in order that people might be protected from being cheated.
It is also transmitted that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab had a group of people executed for the murder of one person when they all participated in the murder, because public interest demanded that even though no text existed to support it. The benefit in this lies in the fact that it would otherwise become possible to shed inviolable blood with impunity, resulting in a loophole in the principle of retaliation. People would use assistance and partnership as a means to commit murder since it would be known that no retaliation would be demanded. If it is said that this is an innovative matter by which other parties than the killer are executed even when they were not all actually involved in the act of killing, the argument refuting this is that the killing group is a collective and so collective execution is the same as executing an individual, since killing is ascribed to the collective in the same way as it is ascribed to an individual. Therefore, individuals who join together with the aim of killing are considered as a single person. Public interest demands this since it involves the prevention of bloodshed and the protection of society.

Malik found all these things and a great fund of other legal judgements which had been left the fuqaha' of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. Since he followed their methods and adhered to their path it was impossible that he should stray from the aim and goal of the Lawgiver. His fatwas were given with the object of ensuring benefit in all matters, both public and private.

[jinnzaman]

That was such an assinine post, I don't even know where to begin to criticize it.

Instead, I'll just point out that the issue of maslaha was a problem mostly for the Asharis because they believed that good/evil couldn't be known independently of Wahi. However, if maslaha was to be construed into jurisprudence, this creates a problem because how does one know what good and evil is for the community when the wahi itself doesn't address certain problems? Thats the nature of the theological problem with this principle for Asharis and different Ashari scholars had different ways of treating the problem.

There is an excellent book about Imam Shatibi that engages in this discussion.

[Aburafay]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/

if you look at the homepage of the link it says 'This page is devoted to Islamic topics, in particular Maliki jurisprudence (fiqh), Sufism (tasawwuf)'

It is good that the greek philosophy issue has been cleared.

I think we are talking cross-purposes here. I assumed that you refered to the book link given by brother Abu Adam, and refered to it in my post. But what you had refered to was the site link given by brother jinnzaman

But, the quotation in my post is valid that all schools are in agreement.

[abudurrah]

i only quoted in my post and wrote what i understood from the quotes from the link

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...ey/usul10.html

[Break The Cross]

I read a few things on this topic, I pretty much deny these principles along with ijma' and qiyas for now. Im going to keep reading on these topics and see where i go from there :)

[Abuz Zubair]

I read a few things on this topic, I pretty much deny these principles along with ijma' and qiyas for now. Im going to keep reading on these topics and see where i go from there :)
Bro... are you seriously saying this?!

[Deenin']

Denying ijmaa'? Aint that considered kufr? Or didn't al-Imaam ash-Shawkaanee (rahimahullaah) deny it, well not actually deny it, but he tried to say it was weak or disprove it? Maaayn... Why can't things be simple.

[aboosafar]

How do you mean you deny ijma', do you mean the way most madhahib apply and understand it or do you mean you deny it in totality?

If it's the latter, I can only give you one of the evidences used in support of it which is the well known hadith "la tajtami'u ummati 'ala dhalalah" "my ummah will not unite upon error".

Maybe someone could quote from Kamali's book in reference to this, but I believe this is excepted by all madhahib and used to refer to the agreement in an ijtihad by a whole generation of scholars on a new matter that wasn't formerly agreed upon as they are the ones entitled to make ijtihad, thus their opinions are what count (ahl al hall wa 'aqd I belive it's called, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Although, according to Bilal Philips book on the topic, Imam ash Shafi'i at least doubted that this kind of agreement could be ascertained after the time of the sahaba, but he didn't rule it out totally.

As for the dhahiri's I recall reading in Kamali's book that they held that it had to be an agreement of the whole ummah including the laymen, scholars, students etc. which pretty much rules out it's possiblity.

The sahaba's pracitce seems to endorse it going by the ijtihad of mujtahidin scholars only.

If I'm not mistaken, (this is a question more so than a statement) the areas where the dhahiri's contradicted the other four madhahib are often contradicting the practice of the sahaba as well as the principles of the four madhahib have their basis in the practice and application of the sahaba, such as 'Umar, 'Ali, etc.

I don't know if ibn 'Umar used much ijtihad or masalih wa mursalah, but I don't know if he was in a position to either (may Allah be pleased with him) so maybe there were other reasons why he didn't in the event that he didn't, especially seeing as how Imam Malik inherited much of his knowledge through nafi' and he used, if not coined the principle, maslahah mursalah.

This is just from my observation from reading various sources on usul and is not to be taken in any way as for anything except discussion and to be corrected (I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly so I put this out to be corrected and elaborated on, not taken as knowledge).

[Break The Cross]

Salam Alaikum


Bro... are you seriously saying this?!
Yes for now but Im not stable in regards to the ijma' thing b/c of one hadeth about the Ummah not uniting upon error which is the only proof for the validity for ijma' and it too can be disputed. I have to do things on my own or it will become a bad habit to follow other people blindly.


Denying ijmaa'? Aint that considered kufr? Or didn't al-Imaam ash-Shawkaanee (rahimahullaah) deny it, well not actually deny it, but he tried to say it was weak or disprove it? Maaayn... Why can't things be simple.

No its not kufr at all since no mans words are binding upon us except that of the Messenger of Allaah [saw]. I dont know what imam Shawkani [rah] said but since you brought it up Im interested to see :). Islam is simple, most things are black and white but there are some grayish things and best thing to do is avoid them. Hence thats what im doing as for now since I really hate blind following others and I dont like following the "crowd" either. I rather do my own research so I can learn and find my faults. Sometimes I will intentionally disagree just for the sake of argument to see the evidences and than pray istikharah that Allaah guides me to what is right. But I always respect REAL Sunni scholars opinions, and I dont declare people deviant on little differences as long as there is authentic text behind it. Deen is based upon proof and not what we think is right. Im no scholar or not even close, I still ride the school bus to go to school :o


How do you mean you deny ijma', do you mean the way most madhahib apply and understand it or do you mean you deny it in totality?

What made me set doubts about ijma was when I read the translation of Imam Juwayni's statement "Ijma is the strap and support of the Share'ah and to it the Share'ah owes its authenticity." Now either I misunderstood it or to me what he said was that Share'ah is defined to be true (authentic) only from what is recognized by a rationale opinion of the people. This statement to me is extreme and could lead to kufr, depending upon what he meant. And what is sad that there are other people who go to more extremes when they speak about ijma, like the Maliki al Qarafi. But either way, Share'ah isn't proven to be wrong on the simple fact that a group of people disagree to it. Our criteria are the Qur'an and Sunnah, this is Islam and no one can negate it nor add to it. Whatever we have received from text is proof and binding upon us to follow and nothing else.

If it's the latter, I can only give you one of the evidences used in support of it which is the well known hadith "la tajtami'u ummati 'ala dhalalah" "my ummah will not unite upon error".

Yes but that can be disputed with the ahadeth that speak about sects. Also there has to be clear cut evidence from Qur’an and Sunnah for something to be taken as a ruling. Its obvious the Sahaabas wouldn’t agree on anything that wasn’t from Islam. They only followed the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Maybe someone could quote from Kamali's book in reference to this, but I believe this is excepted by all madhahib and used to refer to the agreement in an ijtihad by a whole generation of scholars on a new matter that wasn't formerly agreed upon as they are the ones entitled to make ijtihad, thus their opinions are what count (ahl al hall wa 'aqd I belive it's called, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Im lost, are you still talking about ijma?


As for the dhahiri's I recall reading in Kamali's book that they held that it had to be an agreement of the whole ummah including the laymen, scholars, students etc. which pretty much rules out it's possiblity.

I have Kamali’s book, but it has some pages missing so I kind of stopped reading it cuz it got annoying. Even if the entire Ummah today agreed on something, without text the agreement cant be made fard upon someone.


The sahaba's pracitce seems to endorse it going by the ijtihad of mujtahidin scholars only.

If I'm not mistaken, (this is a question more so than a statement) the areas where the dhahiri's contradicted the other four madhahib are often contradicting the practice of the sahaba as well as the principles of the four madhahib have their basis in the practice and application of the sahaba, such as 'Umar, 'Ali, etc.

I don't know if ibn 'Umar used much ijtihad or masalih wa mursalah, but I don't know if he was in a position to either (may Allah be pleased with him) so maybe there were other reasons why he didn't in the event that he didn't, especially seeing as how Imam Malik inherited much of his knowledge through nafi' and he used, if not coined the principle, maslahah mursalah.

Im still reading on Masalih wa Mursalah and not much convincing about it. It seems like it’s the same thing as Istihsan and istihsan is not some thing I would look at in a nice way, since it’s like a form of tashri’.

allahu Alim

[aboosafar]

Akhuwi al karim, I don't think it's a major problem as long as you accept the ijma' of the companions as a proof.

After them, there is much dispute as to whether ijma' could have existed and if so, what cases it existed in etc.

Also, ijma' only counts for something there isn't a clear evidence from Qur'an and hadith in. It doesn't overrule Qur'an and hadith.

We only turn to ijma' for an issue which there are not clear aayat and ahadith addressing.

This was the practice of the companions during the khilafah of Abu Bakr and 'Umar (I forgot if it was the same during 'Uthman's khilafah, but I think that was when many of the 'ulama' of the sahaba started moving around the Islamic state to other regions making ijma' difficult to ascertain).

But anyway, as long as you accept the ijma' of the sahaba as a proof, you can't be far off, if at all.

And the above part where you weren't sure what I was talking about, I was speaking of ijma' but mentioning how some scholars define it.

Kamali's book is an excellent reference, as is Bilal Philips book on the madhahib and 'Abdul Wahhab Khallaf's book on Usool al Fiqh goes into this as well and it is in very simple arabic, and I can understand a lot of it and my arabic is very elementary.

[Break The Cross]

Akhuwi al karim, I don't think it's a major problem as long as you accept the ijma' of the companions as a proof.

Oh I would never go against the Sahabas, Im not a filthy Raafida kafir.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

I still ride the school bus to go to school :o





MAy Allah bless you akhee and may He give you sabr and firmness in your Deen. Remember that one of those who will be in the shadow of Allah on the judgement Day, is someone who would be religious from a young age. This means that its a trial, and a great one indeed especially if yoy live in a kafir society. Masha Allah, you have a great potential insha Allah, if you keep firm with sabr. You remind me of my cousin, and he started practising very early, and by 18 he had very great trials which many much older people wouldn't be able to pass. But alhamdulillh, Allah made a way out for him, from a situation which seemingly there was no way out, or not in at least 10 years.

[Abuz Zubair]

Bro... with all due respect... I think we should all know our limits and do not try to be like mujtahids in fiqh, let alone Usul, when we haven't even yet begun to study the basics of Islam.

Denying Ijma' is misguidance, and none denied it except al-nadham from the mu'tazila and the rafidha. al-Shawkani came much later on and his opinion is rejected and not to be followed like many other prominent scholars in Islamic history who made blunders. The difference between someone like me and al-Shawkani is that the latter was a mujtahid, and for his ijtihad he would be rewarded. I am not AT ALL a mujtahid, and coming to such dangerous conclusions would be very detrimental for my faith.

Please read this article:
http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1168

[Break The Cross]

MAy Allah bless you akhee and may He give you sabr and firmness in your Deen. Remember that one of those who will be in the shadow of Allah on the judgement Day, is someone who would be religious from a young age. This means that its a trial, and a great one indeed especially if yoy live in a kafir society. Masha Allah, you have a great potential insha Allah, if you keep firm with sabr. You remind me of my cousin, and he started practising very early, and by 18 he had very great trials which many much older people wouldn't be able to pass. But alhamdulillh, Allah made a way out for him, from a situation which seemingly there was no way out, or not in at least 10 years.

Jazakullah bro, but Im not all that really. i have alot of stuff to improve and my Eman isnt strong at all. All my friends are older than me and they are good mashAllah, so I try copying whatever good they be doing lol. Some of them are gone though so only a few left and InshAllah I hope I can try to be stable and go learn before something bad happens. Right now Im just lost, I dont like school, I dont like hanging out, i dont like doing anything except just read and play with my toys and just imaginate my mind away from here inshAllah put it into reality. Someone told me to get married but erm I dono about that, girls are weird. inshAllah I hope your cousin is fine now, what is he doign now? Maybe I can get some future advice b/c im really lost on what to do.

[Break The Cross]

Bro... with all due respect... I think we should all know our limits and do not try to be like mujtahids in fiqh, let alone Usul, when we haven't even yet begun to study the basics of Islam.

Denying Ijma' is misguidance, and none denied it except al-nadham from the mu'tazila and the rafidha. al-Shawkani came much later on and his opinion is rejected and not to be followed like many other prominent scholars in Islamic history who made blunders. The difference between someone like me and al-Shawkani is that the latter was a mujtahid, and for his ijtihad he would be rewarded. I am not AT ALL a mujtahid, and coming to such dangerous conclusions would be very detrimental for my faith.

Please read this article:
http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1168



Im not trying to be a mujtahid, Im just questioning a few things which i have the rigth to do and I just learned that Im not the only one with this type of opinion. I dont want to be one of those regular dude's who pretty much run around blindly follow people. Is ijma' a creedal issue for a person to be misguided?

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

Someone told me to get married but erm I dono about that, girls are weird. inshAllah I hope your cousin is fine now, what is he doign now? Maybe I can get some future advice b/c im really lost on what to do.


Keep in a company of good brothers, and be sincere with Allah and He will make a way for you sooner or later. For now you maybe getting married is not a bad idea, even though this will make you more attached. My cousin got married at 18, but it didn’t work out, and they divorced after six month or so. Apparently she was one of those modern sisters, who while wear hijab, want to go to cinemas restaurants etc., and my cousin was different. But anyway he had some fun before being imprisoned. The main reason being his too much tawakul and not enough “tying of the camel” and basically talking too much. Before his parents even found which structures took him, he was severly tortured for a few days, and they even took him into forest and made him dig his own grave twice, but he didn’t sign a confession of being a mujahed. Then he was put on trial which went on for about a year, and all of this time he had spent in prison which a very bad, and which has caused great harm to his health. However, there were some intresting things that happened in prison. For example there was one drug addict of over 50 years old, who had never prayed a single salah, and who was just an outright criminal throughout his life. So he was from a wealthy family and they had done everything they could to rehabilitate him from heroin addiction, but to no avail. So when my cousin met him in a cell, he did daawa to him, and the man stopped using drugs, started to do salah, and basically he said that getting into this prison was the best thing that happened to him in his life. Also his relatives would call and were very thankful to my cousin for what he did. Such was my cousins conviction, yaqeen, and the way he speaks is very powerful, even though he might not have much knowledge and didnt study ilm specifically anywhere. Even much older people listen when he speaks, and he used to speak like a machine gun and with such conviction that after spending half an hour with him your Iman would increase greatly. However, now he has become careful, and does a much more addressed daawa.

In the end the court cleared him of all accusations and he was released, and now he is recovering his health and looking for a wife :)