Inquiries on the Science of the Objectives of Sharia (Part 22)
D. Relevance
Definition and Types of Relevance:
Relevance is considered one of the methods to identify the cause of a ruling (Masalek illat). Ibn Hajib Maleki regarded relevance as the fourth method for discerning the causes of commands and prohibitions. In his opinion, relevance and Akhala (sometimes referred to as takhrij manat) are methods for establishing causality. Additionally, others from this school have interpreted reasoning, expediency, Akhala, mulayma, takhrij manat, and similar terms; each of these refers to different aspects of a single concept. For example, reasoning concerns the quality of using a suitable description, expediency pertains to the origin of relevance, and Akhala relates to the effect of this method on the mujtahid. The congruence between the ruling and its cause compels the mujtahid to engage in critical thinking.
Literal Meaning of Relevance:
The literal meaning of relevance encompasses compatibility, harmony, and agreement.
In Usuli terminology, various definitions of relevance exist, including: “Relevance refers to a description that aligns with the ruling from the perspective of reason.”
Abu Yazid Dabusi stated: “If a description is presented to reason and reason affirms its compatibility with the ruling, then it is termed a relevance description.”
However, if relevance in this sense is the benchmark for uncovering the cause of the ruling, any rational person may claim that their intellect finds a certain description compatible with a particular ruling, which could lead to ambiguity regarding the concept of relevance. The Usuli scholars respond that when referring to reason here, it specifically denotes consensus reason or “reason as reason,” meaning “reason untainted by whim or desire.”
In another definition, relevance denotes “a description that aligns with the interests of people.” Critics who deny the significance of interests and objectives in divine rulings claim that a relevance description is one that corresponds to the habits of rational individuals.
1. Description Consistent with the Purpose of the Lawgiver: Those Usuli scholars who regard the actions of the lawgiver as causal assert that, in their definition of relevance, the actions of the reasoned populace are less significant than the objectives of the lawgiver themselves. Thus, a relevance description is a specific description that, when based on it, facilitates the lawgiver’s intended goal.
2. Zarkashi added that in the term description, relevance is aligned with the lawgiver’s purpose and the ordering of the ruling regarding that description. The manifestation of this reasoning is seen in the principles rather than in any textual evidence or consensus. For example, if it is stated: “The reason for prohibiting wine is that it is intoxicating,” and “the reason for guardianship in marriage is that the daughter is a minor,” the relevance and compatibility here lies in the agreement between the description and the ruling. This agreement seeks to achieve the interest behind the legal ruling, which reflects the lawgiver’s objective of drawing in benefits and eliminating corruption.
Explanation: In the context of wine prohibition, intoxication and drunkenness are fitting descriptions because they lead to the impairment of intellect and loss of awareness. Thus, prohibiting the consumption of alcohol becomes necessary to preserve and protect reason.
The differences in the three definitions above highlight the various approaches within the science of Usul and theological thinking. There are three notable perspectives:
First, those who believe in the role of reason in discerning benefits and harms see the description’s compatibility with the ruling from a rational standpoint.
Second, those who view reason as inadequate for understanding, yet see divine rulings as aligned with actual benefits and harms, consider the description’s compatibility in terms of achieving the legislator’s goal, which can sometimes be derived from specific texts or a collection of legal evidence.
Third, some do not accept the idea that divine actions are aligned with interests or corruptions in jurisprudence; instead, they employ comparisons and analogies based on understanding that prioritize securing the interests of the public. The conclusion is that the differences among these definitions are largely nominal and do not significantly affect practical applications.
Relevance bears three types concerning validity:
1. Relevance with Respect to the Validity of the Lawmaker’s Achievement: This classification has two subtypes: certain and conjectural.
– Certain Relevance Description: A description explicitly stated by the lawmaker as the cause for a ruling, ensuring that a comprehensive alignment with the ruling is achieved according to the lawmaker’s perspective.
– Conjectural Relevance Description: This type refers to a description that a mujtahid considers compatible with the ruling based solely on supposition, rather than explicit pronouncement by the lawmaker.
Secondly, relevance is divided into true and convincing relevance descriptions based on the type of compatibility:
– True Relevance Description: A description confirmed as compatible with the Sharia ruling through rigorous discussion and deliberation. True relevance can be categorized into worldly or otherworldly matters, relating either to the primary goals or the secondary and supplementary objectives of Sharia.
– Convincing Relevance Description: Initially deemed compatible with the ruling, this description is later revealed to be deficient after thorough examination of the evidence.
Based on the validity of Sharia approval, relevance is further classified into three types:
– Valid Relevance: This is a description whose compatibility with the ruling is affirmed by Sharia evidence. If this compatibility is conclusively established by Sharia evidence, Usuli scholars interpret it as valid relevance. If there is only tentative support for this compatibility, scholars may differ in their categorization.
– Sentential Relevance: A description regarding which the lawgiver remains silent about its validity or invalidity, leaving interpretation to reason and customary practices.
– Abrogate Relevance: A description of a causal factor that has been invalidated by the lawgiver.
By admin2
