What do you say about the statement of those who say that there is no public benefit (maslahah) without evidence that is not from the sources of the Shari'ah, and that the Qur'an contains clarification for everything?

The questioner : I want to return to the topic of public benefit (maslahah).

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : What is your opinion regarding some statements that deny public benefit (maslahah) and say that it is not among the primary sources, and they argue with the well-known evidence of Ibn Hazm, which is the saying of Allah the Exalted: And they said: The Shari'ah has not left anything without addressing it, and what they claim and say about there being a public benefit (maslahah) is only under a Shari'ah ruling. For example, the compilation of the Qur'an; there are Shari'ah rulings under it, and it is not an unrestricted public benefit (maslahah), meaning the Shari'ah did not send this issue. And another question is...

The Shaykh : Excuse me, excuse me, let us give it a little at a time. What is the evidence for the compilation of the Qur'an?

The questioner : They said: What is not completed without is obligatory.

The Shaykh : Okay, so they returned to the statement regarding unrestricted public benefit (maslahah). What is the difference?

The questioner : And they said...

The Shaykh : Do not list to me what they said; let us study one by one. "What is not completed without is obligatory." We gave two opposite examples earlier: one is contrary to the Shari'ah, which is systematic taxes, okay? And we gave an example of taxes imposed due to an emergency circumstance; do you remember? So, do these taxes of the second type not fit the description of "what is not completed without is obligatory"? So, call it what you will. Call it unrestricted public benefit (maslahah) on the basis that it is a cause sent for a time that was not mentioned in the past, neither in the Book nor in the Sunnah, and apply to it the rule "what is not completed without is obligatory." The one who speaks of unrestricted public benefit (maslahah), my brother, does not want to say that he is legislating something that the Book and Sunnah do not permit. No. But like analogical reasoning (qiyas), analogical reasoning is a source; it is the fourth source of the four sources. But not everyone masters this analogical reasoning; rather, only some special people master it. But it is a source of legislation; its knowledge is for the one who knows it, and its ignorance is for the one who does not know it. So, the unrestricted public benefit (maslahah) that is spoken of is included in the rule that the one who denied unrestricted public benefit (maslahah) has accepted. Is this the person who acknowledges the correctness of this famous saying attributed to some scholars: "What is not completed without is obligatory"? This is a statement without any doubt. So, does the one who believes in this statement find an unrestricted public benefit (maslahah) that he says is permissible, which the one who speaks of unrestricted public benefits (masalih) does not include in this rule, "what is not completed without is obligatory"? You just heard me give some opposite examples: taxes that are not permissible and taxes that are permissible. We clarified the direction of the invalidity of the impermissible taxes because they take the place of means that Allah has legislated, clear? And permissible taxes because they realize a public benefit (maslahah) that must be realized, and realizing this public benefit (maslahah) is among the obligations. So, where is there a public benefit (maslahah) that some people call unrestricted public benefit (maslahah) that cannot be included in the rule "what is not completed without is obligatory"? Do you remember anything of this when they discuss this issue?

The questioner : They may have said that the unrestricted (mursalah) means the Shari'ah sent it, and there is no Shari'ah ruling, and they said that Islam has not left anything without establishing a Shari'ah ruling for it.

The Shaykh : A Shari'ah ruling that is explicitly stated? Explicitly stated in a text where Allah said, or the Messenger of Allah said? Or also by way of derivation?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, there is no disagreement. I say to some of the people who are enthusiastic about taking knowledge with its evidence, I feel that we need a text, for example, what do we say about the prohibition of smoking? And I feel that this man is afflicted with smoking and it is difficult for him to leave smoking. He says to me: Is there a text prohibiting smoking? What do I say to him when I feel that he is of this type? I say to him: By Allah, just as you want a text that smoking is forbidden for my Ummah, there is no such hadith, let alone a verse. But there is a hadith that says: It has such and such, and so on. We reached the intended meaning of the prohibition of smoking, but not in the way that comes to the minds of the common people, but in the way known to the people of knowledge. So now, unrestricted public benefit (maslahah) is like this. The Legislator sent it, but it does not mean He sent it in the sense that He neglected it. No. He left it to be acted upon when the justifying cause for taking it exists. Look, I have said to our brothers repeatedly and repeatedly on some occasions, and I think some of the attendees remember that, I said earlier: The principles of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh) and the principles of hadith. Included in the principles of jurisprudence is a branch that those who study the principles of jurisprudence today in universities and discuss the principles of jurisprudence do not hear of, neither in focus nor in name, which is the principles of religious innovation (usul al-bid'ah). There are no principles of religious innovation in the science of the principles of jurisprudence, even though this is a necessary matter. In the principles of religious innovation, when this person masters this principle, he knows that something is not permissible to do and something is permissible to do, just as I said about taxes, two contradictory answers, but everything is in its proper place. Now, take the example of what many imams do after the prayers: they face the people and supplicate and raise their voice in supplication, and those around them say "Ameen." And this is an example of what I said earlier in this gathering: who is the one who can say that this was or was not? It is the one who followed the Sunnah of the Messenger. So, what is the ruling of this supplication that they call the closing of the prayer? Because the closing of the prayer, as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: This is the closing of the prayer. Produce for us a closing of the prayer in a style and manner by which we know for certain that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was not upon it. So, what is the ruling of this collective supplication after the prayers? We say it is a religious innovation (bid'ah). What is the ruling of what individuals do after the prayer: "May Allah accept, may Allah accept," and so on? We say: It is a religious innovation (bid'ah). Sometimes my companion tells me that he prayed, for example, in such-and-such mosque on Friday or otherwise. I say to him: May Allah accept. I do not do a religious innovation (bid'ah) when I say to him on this occasion "May Allah accept." Why? Because this is supplication, and supplication is prescribed in general. But this supplication, when you place it in a place and adjust it and make it as if it is a consistent Sunnah, it takes the ruling of religious innovation (bid'ah). Where did we know this? From the principles of religious innovation. So, the same thing may be prescribed and may not be prescribed. We do not have a hadith here that is prescribed and here that is not prescribed, as most people want, for example, like smoking. But we have the jurisprudence of the Book and the Sunnah, which gives us this distinction between what is permissible and what is not permissible. Likewise, it is said exactly about unrestricted public benefits (masalih): some of it is prescribed and some of it is not prescribed. And if the name has deceived us or misled us, as it is said, there is no dispute over terminology, we leave the statement about unrestricted public benefits (masalih) and we settle on the rule: "What is not completed without is obligatory." This is it. Do you allow us to go?