What is the criterion for unlegislated public interest, and what is prescribed from it? And what is the difference between it and religious innovation?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: His EminenceThe Shaykh : We have heard from you a statement regarding unlegislated public interest; namely, that for a matter to be prescribed because it is a public interest, it is required that it be an exception in the original ruling. We ask you to clarify this, along with explaining the criterion for the public interest that permits what was not prescribed because some matters contain a public interest, but it is not prescribed, such as the use of images in magazines for an educational purpose or otherwise?
The Shaykh : I think our companion also has a tape on this, or do you not have one?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Do you not have one? We had discussed this in some detail. Yes?
Another questioner : In Makkah.
The Shaykh : In Makkah.
Regarding unlegislated public interests, there is scholarly disagreement among the scholars. Some affirm them, and some do not. Among those who affirm them are the scholars of the Maliki school, as well as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). Imam al-Shatibi also discussed this issue in his noble book, *Al-I'tisam*. On this occasion, I urge students of knowledge to acquire this book, for it is a unique and singular work with no equivalent in its subject matter. Everyone who has authored works on the principles of innovation after him is merely dependent upon it.
He addressed this research in that book because it is closely related to religious innovation. It meets innovation in the fact that innovation is a newly introduced matter that did not exist before, and likewise, unlegislated public interest is also a newly introduced matter that did not exist before. To distinguish between what is a misleading innovation and what is an unlegislated public interest, he delved into this great research in that noble book. Similarly, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) addressed this serious topic in his great book, *Iqtida' al-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat Ahl al-Jahim*.
The summary of their statement is that a means that is introduced and adopted to achieve a public interest for the Ummah is either of a type where the reason for adopting it existed during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), yet he did not adopt it, even if it achieved an obvious public interest. An example of this is that the adhan is intended, by divine legislation, to announce the entry of the times for the five daily prayers. We all feel that some other prayers, which are not obligatory every day and night, are obligatory once or twice a year, or are obligatory on specific occasions, such as the prayer of the two festivals. We feel that the prayer of the two festivals is more in need of an adhan to inform people of its time than the five daily prayers. This is because Muslims, due to their habituation to the five daily prayers and their familiarity with their times through practice, may not have a great need for the adhan. In contrast, the adhan for the two festivals is different. Thus, this was a means where the reason for adopting it existed during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to inform people of the entry of the time for the festival prayer. Since the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not adopt this means to achieve that public interest—which is the announcement—it is not permissible for us to adopt such a means to achieve a public interest. This is because this means existed during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), yet he did not legislate it. Therefore, introducing it is considered an innovation in the religion, and his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) applies to it:Sahih Muslim 1718a. This is if the means and its reason for adoption existed during his time (peace and blessings be upon him), but he did not adopt the reason for it, such as the adhan with the prayer of the two festivals.
However, if the reason for introducing a means did not exist during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), then the following detail is necessary. All of this is not from my own opinion; rather, it is from the benefit of the knowledge of the two men mentioned earlier: Imam al-Shatibi and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah al-Harrani.
If the motive for adopting the means is merely that the means achieves a public interest, and if the origin of the motive for adopting that means is the Muslims' neglect of some of the rulings of their religion, then it is not permissible in this case to adhere to this means. This is because they thought it achieved a public interest due to their turning away from religious matters through which that public interest is actually achieved. Thus, creating this means and adopting it to achieve the public interest is a practical diversion of Muslims from adopting the religious means to achieve that public interest.
An example of this is the funds of zakah. As we all know, these are religious matters that we have been commanded to observe; that is, the rich have been commanded to pay them. What is the result of applying this obligatory command, which is zakah? There is no doubt that this fills the treasury of the state, which spends these collected funds according to known principles, detailed in books of hadith and jurisprudence, to address and achieve the interests of Muslims. Among these interests—or among the most important of them—is that if some Islamic lands are attacked by an enemy, the Muslim ruler must prepare an army to drive the enemy out of the lands of the Muslims. This army, or this preparation for the army, undoubtedly requires a great deal of expenditure. Therefore, it was the wisdom of the Wise and All-Knowing that He legislated for Muslim rulers to collect types of zakah funds to be deposited in the Bayt al-Mal (Treasury) of the Muslims to address their interests, including driving out the enemy or repelling the enemy if it attacks the lands of the Muslims. If Muslim rulers neglect their duty to collect zakah funds, then this state will not be able to carry out the interests of the Muslim Ummah. What do they do in that case? They impose taxes to achieve those interests. Is this means to be adopted? The answer is no. Because there are lawful means, pleasing to the Lord of the Worlds, that if rulers adopted them, they would secure abundant wealth, and the treasuries of the state would be filled with zakah funds. Since they fell short in applying the Shari'ah of zakah, they were forced to seek an alternative, and this alternative is imposing taxes. Therefore, it is not permissible to adopt such a means, even if it achieves a public interest for the Ummah, because the reason for adopting this means is the Muslims' shortcoming in applying the religious means that collect wealth in the Bayt al-Mal of the Muslims. However, the matter is different if the Islamic government is fulfilling its duty to collect zakah every year, but we assume that an enemy attacks a part of the lands of the Muslims. The Muslim officials in charge of the state treasury look at the funds collected through the lawful means we mentioned earlier and find that the funds present in the state treasury are not sufficient to repel the threat of the enemy. In this case, it is permissible for the Muslim ruler to impose temporary, time-limited taxes to collect the funds sufficient to repel the enemy attacking some of the lands of Islam.
In this case, the situation is entirely different, for this means is obligatory; because it realizes a temporary, urgent benefit. However, this means did not arise from the Muslims' negligence in applying the prescribed means; rather, it arose because the new circumstance—the attack by an enemy with a large number and abundant weaponry—requires more money than is available in the treasury. Therefore, this benefit necessitates the creation of a means that did not exist before. Once the benefit is realized, this means ceases, and the Muslim ruler continues to collect funds in the Islamic manner. If the means is, in some cases, a newly introduced one and the motive for it is the Muslims' negligence, then it is not prescribed. In other cases, if the motive is not their negligence, then it is prescribed. We have derived three types from this discussion regarding means: some are prescribed and some are not. The means that is not prescribed is that for which the necessity to adopt it existed during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), yet he did not adopt it; it is therefore not permissible and not prescribed, and it is classified as a misguided innovation. Also classified with this is the means that realizes a benefit, but the reason for adopting it is the Muslims' negligence in applying the rulings of the religion; this is also classified with the first means; it is not prescribed and is considered a newly introduced matter in the religion.
The third and final means is that which is necessitated by a temporary benefit, but the means did not originally exist during the time of the Messenger, and the necessity to adopt it was present, yet adopting it was not necessitated by the Muslims' negligence in some of the Sharia rulings. This is the means that falls under the category of unlegislated public interest.
Therefore, unlegislated public interest sometimes coincides with misguided innovation and sometimes diverges from it. It coincides with misguided innovation in the first two cases, and differs from it in the third case. The essence of the distinction between unlegislated public interest and misguided innovation is that unlegislated public interest is adopted to realize a collective benefit for the Ummah, and it is not intended to increase closeness to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). Meanwhile, misguided innovation is adopted by the general public permanently and eternally from the perspective of increasing closeness to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) closed this door by explaining the noble verse:[Al-Ma'idah 5:3]; where he said (peace and blessings be upon him): . Therefore, reports from our righteous predecessors came in succession enjoining the following of the Sunnah and forbidding innovation in the religion. Among these is the saying of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him): "Moderation in the Sunnah is better than exertion in innovation."
This is what comes to my mind now regarding the discussion of unlegislated public interest.
Yes.
The Shaykh : I think our companion also has a tape on this, or do you not have one?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Do you not have one? We had discussed this in some detail. Yes?
Another questioner : In Makkah.
The Shaykh : In Makkah.
Regarding unlegislated public interests, there is scholarly disagreement among the scholars. Some affirm them, and some do not. Among those who affirm them are the scholars of the Maliki school, as well as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). Imam al-Shatibi also discussed this issue in his noble book, *Al-I'tisam*. On this occasion, I urge students of knowledge to acquire this book, for it is a unique and singular work with no equivalent in its subject matter. Everyone who has authored works on the principles of innovation after him is merely dependent upon it.
He addressed this research in that book because it is closely related to religious innovation. It meets innovation in the fact that innovation is a newly introduced matter that did not exist before, and likewise, unlegislated public interest is also a newly introduced matter that did not exist before. To distinguish between what is a misleading innovation and what is an unlegislated public interest, he delved into this great research in that noble book. Similarly, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) addressed this serious topic in his great book, *Iqtida' al-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat Ahl al-Jahim*.
The summary of their statement is that a means that is introduced and adopted to achieve a public interest for the Ummah is either of a type where the reason for adopting it existed during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), yet he did not adopt it, even if it achieved an obvious public interest. An example of this is that the adhan is intended, by divine legislation, to announce the entry of the times for the five daily prayers. We all feel that some other prayers, which are not obligatory every day and night, are obligatory once or twice a year, or are obligatory on specific occasions, such as the prayer of the two festivals. We feel that the prayer of the two festivals is more in need of an adhan to inform people of its time than the five daily prayers. This is because Muslims, due to their habituation to the five daily prayers and their familiarity with their times through practice, may not have a great need for the adhan. In contrast, the adhan for the two festivals is different. Thus, this was a means where the reason for adopting it existed during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to inform people of the entry of the time for the festival prayer. Since the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not adopt this means to achieve that public interest—which is the announcement—it is not permissible for us to adopt such a means to achieve a public interest. This is because this means existed during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), yet he did not legislate it. Therefore, introducing it is considered an innovation in the religion, and his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) applies to it:
'A'isha reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: He who innovates things in our affairs for which there is no valid (reason) (commits sin) and these are to be rejected.
مَن أحدث في أمرنا هذا ما ليس منه فهو ردٌّHowever, if the reason for introducing a means did not exist during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), then the following detail is necessary. All of this is not from my own opinion; rather, it is from the benefit of the knowledge of the two men mentioned earlier: Imam al-Shatibi and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah al-Harrani.
If the motive for adopting the means is merely that the means achieves a public interest, and if the origin of the motive for adopting that means is the Muslims' neglect of some of the rulings of their religion, then it is not permissible in this case to adhere to this means. This is because they thought it achieved a public interest due to their turning away from religious matters through which that public interest is actually achieved. Thus, creating this means and adopting it to achieve the public interest is a practical diversion of Muslims from adopting the religious means to achieve that public interest.
An example of this is the funds of zakah. As we all know, these are religious matters that we have been commanded to observe; that is, the rich have been commanded to pay them. What is the result of applying this obligatory command, which is zakah? There is no doubt that this fills the treasury of the state, which spends these collected funds according to known principles, detailed in books of hadith and jurisprudence, to address and achieve the interests of Muslims. Among these interests—or among the most important of them—is that if some Islamic lands are attacked by an enemy, the Muslim ruler must prepare an army to drive the enemy out of the lands of the Muslims. This army, or this preparation for the army, undoubtedly requires a great deal of expenditure. Therefore, it was the wisdom of the Wise and All-Knowing that He legislated for Muslim rulers to collect types of zakah funds to be deposited in the Bayt al-Mal (Treasury) of the Muslims to address their interests, including driving out the enemy or repelling the enemy if it attacks the lands of the Muslims. If Muslim rulers neglect their duty to collect zakah funds, then this state will not be able to carry out the interests of the Muslim Ummah. What do they do in that case? They impose taxes to achieve those interests. Is this means to be adopted? The answer is no. Because there are lawful means, pleasing to the Lord of the Worlds, that if rulers adopted them, they would secure abundant wealth, and the treasuries of the state would be filled with zakah funds. Since they fell short in applying the Shari'ah of zakah, they were forced to seek an alternative, and this alternative is imposing taxes. Therefore, it is not permissible to adopt such a means, even if it achieves a public interest for the Ummah, because the reason for adopting this means is the Muslims' shortcoming in applying the religious means that collect wealth in the Bayt al-Mal of the Muslims. However, the matter is different if the Islamic government is fulfilling its duty to collect zakah every year, but we assume that an enemy attacks a part of the lands of the Muslims. The Muslim officials in charge of the state treasury look at the funds collected through the lawful means we mentioned earlier and find that the funds present in the state treasury are not sufficient to repel the threat of the enemy. In this case, it is permissible for the Muslim ruler to impose temporary, time-limited taxes to collect the funds sufficient to repel the enemy attacking some of the lands of Islam.
In this case, the situation is entirely different, for this means is obligatory; because it realizes a temporary, urgent benefit. However, this means did not arise from the Muslims' negligence in applying the prescribed means; rather, it arose because the new circumstance—the attack by an enemy with a large number and abundant weaponry—requires more money than is available in the treasury. Therefore, this benefit necessitates the creation of a means that did not exist before. Once the benefit is realized, this means ceases, and the Muslim ruler continues to collect funds in the Islamic manner. If the means is, in some cases, a newly introduced one and the motive for it is the Muslims' negligence, then it is not prescribed. In other cases, if the motive is not their negligence, then it is prescribed. We have derived three types from this discussion regarding means: some are prescribed and some are not. The means that is not prescribed is that for which the necessity to adopt it existed during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), yet he did not adopt it; it is therefore not permissible and not prescribed, and it is classified as a misguided innovation. Also classified with this is the means that realizes a benefit, but the reason for adopting it is the Muslims' negligence in applying the rulings of the religion; this is also classified with the first means; it is not prescribed and is considered a newly introduced matter in the religion.
The third and final means is that which is necessitated by a temporary benefit, but the means did not originally exist during the time of the Messenger, and the necessity to adopt it was present, yet adopting it was not necessitated by the Muslims' negligence in some of the Sharia rulings. This is the means that falls under the category of unlegislated public interest.
Therefore, unlegislated public interest sometimes coincides with misguided innovation and sometimes diverges from it. It coincides with misguided innovation in the first two cases, and differs from it in the third case. The essence of the distinction between unlegislated public interest and misguided innovation is that unlegislated public interest is adopted to realize a collective benefit for the Ummah, and it is not intended to increase closeness to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). Meanwhile, misguided innovation is adopted by the general public permanently and eternally from the perspective of increasing closeness to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) closed this door by explaining the noble verse:
This day I have perfected for you
اليوم أكملت لكمI have not left anything that brings you closer to Allah except that I have commanded you with it, and I have not left anything that distances you from Allah and brings you closer to the Fire except that I have forbidden it to you
ما تركت شيئًا يُقرِّبكم إلى الله إلا وأمرتكم به ، وما تركت شيئًا يُبعِّدكم عن الله ويُقرِّبكم إلى النار إلا ونهيتكم عنهThis is what comes to my mind now regarding the discussion of unlegislated public interest.
Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.