Utility and MAṢLAḤA : Extend and Limitations

Muslim jurisprudents widely believe that God’s injunctions are purposeful in ensuring the maṣlaḥa (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 maṣlaḥa Aligned with this understanding, scholars assert that anything which safeguards the five essentials of humanity (religion, life, intellect, offspring, and property) constitutes maṣlaḥa, and anything which hinders their attainment is deemed a mafsada. Thus, maṣlaḥa 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 maṣlaḥa, the more acceptable it is, while judgments leaning towards mafsada are unlikely to be accepted. The application of maṣlaḥa in determining right from wrong in Islamic juristic law (i.e., iṣtiṣlāh) bears similarities to the utility principle of the utilitarian moral theory.

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 maṣlaḥa and utilitarianism, questioning whether both maṣlaḥa 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 maṣlaḥa and utilitarian philosophy, the thesis investigates several modern cases involving the employment of maṣlaḥa and maqāṣid to assess whether the modern discourse adheres to classical models of maṣlaḥa or expand beyond them, and what would that entail for the Islamic legal system as a whole.