Evaluate Maqasid Syariah By Its Impact
M. Bakri Musa
Maqasid Syariah (the objectives of syariah) refers to measures and practices that advance the good of a community and protect it against evils and losses. Those are the imperatives of the Qur’an as well as the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, s.a.w.
Society’s needs and priorities vary with times and conditions. Measures that would be acceptable and appropriate during peacetime would be counterproductive if not dangerous and would result in the very opposite of maqasid syaraih if adopted during an emergency.
Maqasid syariah recognizes this central reality and differentiates between daruriyat (emergencies), hajiyat (meeting basic needs and necessities), and tahsiniyat (enhancements of a society). The harsh measures taken during the brutal Japanese Occupation or the deadly riots of May 13, 1969 would today be “un-Islamic” or haram. Back then those were needed for survival. Caliph Omar intuitively understood this fundamental wisdom when he suspended hudud (punitive Islamic law as with the cutting of hands for stealing) during a drought.
This implicit wisdom and distinction are often not appreciated. Worse, they are willfully ignored.
Maqasid syariah is to benefit society. We mock this noble intention if we miss this essence. Imam Ghazzali put the priorities of maqasid syariah as first, the preservation and enhancement of life together with intellect, and then far behind, the preservation of property, lineage, and religion. Everything else pales with the loss of life or intellect.
Ulama and scholars rely on ancient texts in evaluating whether something is maqasid syariah. Such an approach is problematic in at least three fundamental ways. One, there is no assurance that an initiative no matter how brilliantly conceived and executed would produce the intended beneficial results. There are traps, obstacles, and unintended consequences, some predictable, others not. Malays do not need this reminder; we are the victims of many such failed glorious promises.
Two, semantic. We cannot and should not simplistically equate such ancient terms as ribaa to today’s “interest payments” without understanding such modern concepts as the costs of capital and the time-value of money. In their arrogance compounded by ignorance, these ulama blissfully ignore or are unaware of these critical differences.
Consider indebtedness. During the Prophet’s time that was a sure path towards putting yourself and your family into indentured servitude if not outright enslavement. Today no one goes to jail for failing to repay his debt; we have bankruptcy laws. In Malaysia however, the Ah Longs could still break your leg as their standard operating procedure. Further, unlike during the Prophet’s era, the bulk of today’s lending and borrowings are between corporations, not individuals.
Three, the insular training and limited intellectual comprehension of these ulama do not prepare them well to make these important decisions. Yet these PhDs in Islamic Studies gladly certify certain banking and financial practices as syariah-compliant. Their lucrative consultants’ fees have much to do with that, making them oblivious of the heavy burden and other negative impacts these “Islamic” products exact on their consumers. These ulama and scholars are whoring themselves to the banks.
Maqasid syariah should not be evaluated prospectively (as is the current practice) but operationally, by the results and subsequent impact on the ummah. If Islamic mortgages are easier to obtain, less costly or risky, then they are maqasid syariah.
Georgetown University’s Sheherazade Rehman and Hossein Askari noted that following the Prophet’s death, Islam came under the control of rulers and clerics. They espoused a version of the faith that bears little resemblance to the teachings of the Qur’an. They have also placed themselves as the only legitimate interpreters of Islam. It is this collusion of the ruling and ulama classes that is the bane of the ummah. Maqasid syariah is what would benefit the rulers and ulama, not the ummah.
Rehman and Askari scrutinized the “Islamicness” of a society not by its labels but by its contents, values, and practices. Their Islamicity Index evaluates a nation’s economic activities, legal and governance structures, human and political rights, and international activities.
A regime cannot be Islamic if it is corrupt for then it cannot provide its citizens with clean potable water and other basic necessities. Exhibit A: Kelantan. Nor could leaders claim to be Islamic if they jail citizens without affording them due process. Mahathir missed this. It is also more difficult for the ummah to be Islamic if they are poor and destitute. As per the Prophet’s wisdom, poverty invites impiety.
Malays are swayed by labels, not content. We are obsessed with pursuing maqasid syariah and an Islamic state without having any idea as what to do once those are achieved. Former South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool had an apt metaphor for that, dogs chasing a car. It had no idea what to do with the car and ended up only peeing on the tires.
