Maslahah and Mafsadah: Should I Seek Retaliation or Exercise Patience?

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

In Sharh Hilyah Talib Al-Ilm, page 197, Imam Muhammad Ibn Salih Al-Uthaymin, may Allah have mercy upon him, commented on the statement of the author, may Allah have mercy upon him, about manners. He said:

فَكَرَمُ الخُلُقِ هو : أنْ يَتَسَامَحَ في موضع التَّسَامُحِ، وَيَأْخُذَ بالعَزْمِ في موضع العزيمة…
ولهذا جاء الدين الإسلامي وسَطًا بينَ التَّسَامُحِ الذي تَضِيعُ به الحقُوقُ، وبين العَزِيمَةِ التي قَدْ تَحْمِلُ على الجَوْرِ ، فنضرب لذلك مَثَلًا بالقَصَاصِ، وهو قَتْلُ
النَّفْسِ بالنَّفْسِ.
وقد انقسمت شرائع بني إسرائيل في القَصَاصِ إِلى قِسْمَيْنِ: قِسْمِ أَوْجَبَ القَتْلَ ولا خيار لأولياء المَقْتُولِ فيه، وهي شَرِيعَةُ التوراة، لأن شريعة التَّوراة تميل
إلى الغِلْظَةِ والشِّدَّةِ.
وقسم آخر أوجب العفو، وقال: إنه إذا قُتِلَ الإنسان عمدًا فالواجب على أَوْلِيَائِهِ التَّسَامُحُ، مع أن الأصل أن شريعة الإنجيل هي شريعة التوراة، وقد قال
الله تعالى: وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ ﴾ [المائدة: ٤٥].
فجاءت شريعة الإسلام وسطا، وجُعِلَ الخِيارُ لأولياء المَقْتُولِ، إن شاءوا قَتَلُوا فَصَاصًا ولهم الحق، وإن شاءوا عَفَوا ، وإن شاءوا أَخَذُوا الدِّيةَ، فصار الأمر واسعًا؛ ومَعْلُومٌ أن كُلَّ عاقلٍ يُخَيَّرُ في مثل هذه الأمور سيختارُ ما فيه المصلحة العامة، ويُقَدِّمُها على كل شيء.

فمثلاً، إذا كان القاتل شِرِّيرًا وكان أولياء المقتول مُحتاجين إلى المال وقالوا: نُرِيدُ الدِّيَةَ، نقول: هذا ليس من الحِكْمَةِ، فَلْيُقْتَلِ القَاتِلُ، وانظروا للمصالح
العامة، وإذا تَرَكْتُمْ شَيْئًا لله عَوَّضَكُم الله خَيْرًا مِنْهُ.

He (the author) mentioned manners, which is to pardon in its rightful place when appropriate, and the necessity of showing strong resolve when needed. Islam came with the upright balance (upright approach) between forgiveness that may result in the loss of rights and strong resolve that could lead to oppression. An example of this upright approach can be seen in the matter of Qisaas, which involves life for a life.

Then, after mentioning that the laws of the Torah and the Injeel lean towards strictness and leniency, respectively, the Imam then stated that the Islamic Shariah established an upright middle ground, allowing the guardians of the victim to choose between seeking the death penalty for the murderer, granting forgiveness, or accepting blood money.

However, it is known that any rational (or sensible) individual who possesses the freedom to choose in such circumstances will opt for what serves the greater good (or is connected to the welfare of all) and prioritise it above all else.

For instance, if the murderer is a wicked person and the guardians of the victim require financial compensation and say, “We want blood money,” we respond, “This is not wisdom, so let the criminal be executed and take into account the public interest or the collective welfare. And if you forsake something for the sake of Allah (i.e., in this case, the blood money), Allah will replace it with something better.” [1]

On page 51, the Imam, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

وهذا أمرٌ مُهِمٌّ؛ وذلك لأنَّ الشَّريعةَ، كُلَّ الشَّريعةِ، إنَّما جاءت لجَلْبِ المصالح وتحصيل المصالح الدِّينيَّة والدُّنيويَّة، وبِدَرْءِ المفاسد أو تقليلها، سواء كانت المفاسد دينيَّةً أو دُنْيَوِيَّةً، وهذا تَجِدُ أنَّ الله -عز وجل- يُقَدِّمُ المصلحةَ العامَّةَ على المصلحةِ الخاصَّةِ شرعًا وقدرًا، ومثالُه: تَنْزِلُ الأمطارُ على الأرضِ، وهذا رجلٌ قد تَمَّ بُنْيانُهُ قريبًا وتَضَرَّرَ، لكنَّ العِبْرَةَ بعموم النَّفْعِ.

ومثال آخر: هذا الرَّجُلُ قَدْ وَدَّعَ أي: انتهى من السَّقْيِ، ومن المعروفِ: أنَّ الزَّرْعَ إذا أصابَهُ الماءُ مطرًا كان أو سَقْيًا بَعْدَ أَنْ يُوَدَّعَ، فيَضُرُّهُ؛ لكنَّ العِبْرَةَ بالعُمُوم

This is an important matter, and indeed that is because the Shariah—the entire Sharīʿah—came to bring about benefit and attain religious and worldly benefits, and to repel harms or reduce them, whether those harms are religious or worldly.

You will find that Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, gives precedence to the general benefit over a specific benefit, both in His divinely ordained laws and His universal decrees in creation.

An example of this is rainfall upon the earth. A man may have recently completed the construction of a building, and the rain causes damage to it. However, consideration is given to the benefit that is general (by way of the rain). (End of paraphrased quote)

Now, one question remains: Who decides this Maslahah or Mafsadah?

There is no doubt that it is the scholars who are able to see the greater or lesser harm or benefit regarding a matter, based on the time, place, and circumstances.

Abu Salih can go to an upright scholar to decide for him, and Abu Shu’aib can go to another upright scholar to decide for him, as long as both of them present the correct details to the upright scholars—scholars with cautious piety, who are well known for their sound creed and upright character.

It is not for Abu Salih or Abu Shu’aib to turn this into a dispute or antagonism when the issue is solely based on what they present to the scholars to advise them regarding the Maslahah and Mafsadah involved, unless one of them lies to receive the verdict he desires.

Also, it is not enough for Abu Salih or Abu Shu’aib to cite one example where a scholar either gave a verdict on this issue or acted in a certain way, then either of them seek to impose their views on each other or become antagonistic towards others in an affair that requires flexibility. In addition, the door is always open for honest dialogue in the likes of these issues, while returning to the upright scholars. And Allah knows best.