Utility and <i>MAṢLAḤA</i> : Extend and Limitations

<p dir="ltr">Muslim jurisprudents widely believe that God’s injunctions are purposeful in ensuring the <i>maṣlaḥa</i> (well-being) of the human race. The implication for these jurisprudents is that when deriving legal rulings (al-aḥkām al-shar‘iyya) related to human actions, these rulings should aim to promote <i>maṣlaḥa</i> Aligned with this understanding, scholars assert that anything which safeguards the five essentials of humanity (religion, life, intellect, offspring, and property) constitutes <i>maṣlaḥa</i>, and anything which hinders their attainment is deemed a <i>mafsada</i>. Thus, <i>maṣlaḥa</i> has evolved to represent not only the spirit of Islamic legal rulings but also serves as a criterion against which jurisprudents gauge their legal judgments. Put simply, the closer a legal judgment aligns with <i>maṣlaḥa</i>, the more acceptable it is, while judgments leaning towards <i>mafsada</i> are unlikely to be accepted. The application of <i>maṣlaḥa</i> in determining right from wrong in Islamic juristic law (i.e., <i>iṣtiṣlāh</i>) bears similarities to the utility principle of the utilitarian moral theory. </p><p dir="ltr">The latter proposes that the principle of right and wrong be based on maximizing utility for as many people as possible. This thesis will explore the parallels between <i>maṣlaḥa</i> and utilitarianism, questioning whether both <i>maṣlaḥa</i> and utility share the same nature and objectives. It also seeks to assess the moral world in both camps and the scope of application of these two concepts. Following a theoretical discussion on the overlaps and distinctions between <i>maṣlaḥa</i> and utilitarian philosophy, the thesis investigates several modern cases involving the employment of <i>maṣlaḥa</i> and <i>maqāṣid</i> to assess whether the modern discourse adheres to classical models of <i>maṣlaḥa</i> or expand beyond them, and what would that entail for the Islamic legal system as a whole.</p>