An Analysis of the Determination of Maslaha in Islamic Legal Thought and Whether It Can Be Given Precedence Over the Textual Sources (Nusus)

Islamic law is a system developed by Muslims based on revealed texts (nass). From the era of the Companions onwards, considerable effort was made to place it on a reasonable and rational footing, leading to the development of methods such as qiyas, istihsan, and maslaha mursala. The application of these methods requires identifying the `illa (effective cause), hikma (underlying wisdom), and maslaha (benefit) underlying legal rulings, and engaging in reasoning in light of them. Closely related to this is the theory of maslaha, which some modern scholars regard as a solution to the difficulties faced by Muslims in the contemporary period, while others severely criticize it as a means of undermining the Sharia. This study, motivated by the view that the subject remains insufficiently examined, addresses two key issues within the theory of maslaha. The first concerns the criteria by which maslaha is to be determined, engaging with the differing opinions of classical scholars. The second examines whether maslaha can conflict with nass, and, if so, how such a conflict should be resolved. According to the prevailing view, maslaha is established by nass, and thus a conflict is inconceivable. However, some jurists argue that in worldly matters, maslaha is determined not through nass but through societal needs and reason, making conflict theoretically possible. Notably, Najm al-Din al-Tufi advanced this position, treating maslaha as an independent legal source that could be given precedence over nass and consensus (ijma`).