LAW

Published on
Shariah -Protection of Property (al-Māl)
  • Owning property is a basic need for humans.
  • Everyone wants safety and security for their belongings.
  • Islam commands that no one should take others’ property illegally.
  • Property must only be taken through a proper/legitimate contract.
  • Transgression of property is forbidden.



Sūrah Al-Baqarah — 2:188

“Do not eat up one another’s property unjustly… nor give bribery to judges so you may wrongfully consume part of others’ property while you know.”

Summary Notes
  • Do NOT take wealth by illegal means:
    • stealing
    • robbing
    • deceiving
    • cheating
  • Do NOT bribe rulers/judges to gain property wrongfully.
  • Taking any part of others’ wealth without right is sinful.

  • Qur’ān warns severe punishment in the Hereafter for those who take others’ property illegally.



Sūrah Al-Nisā’ — 4:10

“Those who unjustly eat the property of orphans, they eat only fire into their bellies, and they will be burnt in a blazing Fire.”

Summary Notes
  • Stealing/consuming orphans’ wealth is a major sin.
  • Such people will enter the Hellfire.
  • Allah warns strongly against oppressing orphans.



Sūrah Al-Nisā’ — 4:161

“…They took ribā (usury), though it was forbidden to them, and consumed wealth of people wrongfully. We prepared for the disbelievers a painful torment.”

Summary Notes
  • Taking ribā (interest/usury) is forbidden.
  • Wrongful consumption of others’ wealth brings painful punishment.
  • Exploiting others financially is a major sin.


Illegitimate ways of acquiring property
  • Islam prohibits:
    • Usury (ribā)
    • Cheating in transactions
    • Breaking trust in property matters
    • Stealing
    • Taking property of others by any wrong means
  • Sharī‘ah forbids all these practices because they harm society.


Punishment for Stealing
  • Islam imposes severe punishment for theft.
  • Cutting of the hand is the punishment for convicted thieves.



Sūrah Al-Mā’idah — 5:38

“Cut off the (right) hand of the male thief and the female thief as a recompense for what they committed — a punishment from Allah. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.”

Summary Notes
  • Punishment = cutting the hand (from wrist).
  • Applies to both men and women thieves.
  • It is a serious warning to protect society and property.
  • Allah is Wise in prescribing this ruling.


Overall Summary
  • Islam protects individuals’ property rights.
  • Taking others’ wealth without right is absolutely forbidden.
  • Forbidden acts include:
    • stealing
    • cheating
    • bribery
    • usury (ribā)
    • consuming orphan wealth
    • breaking trust
  • Severe punishments exist to protect society.
  • Qur’ān provides guidance to ensure fairness and justice.​
Picture
Published on
Shariah-The Complementary (al-Hājiyyat)
  • Al-Hājiyyat refers to complementary interests that support the five essential interests (al-ḍarūriyyāt).
  • These do not cause total disruption of life if neglected,
but their absence brings hardship to individuals or society.
  • Purpose: To remove difficulty and make life easier.


Examples of al-Hājiyyat

1)
‘Ibādah (Worship)
  • Sharī‘ah gives dispensations (rukhsah) for:
    • Travelers
    • Sick people
  • Examples:
    • Travelers may combine (al-jam‘) and shorten (al-qaṣr) their prayers.
    • Sick persons may:
      • Pray sitting or lying
      • Break their fast in Ramaḍān


2)
Economic Transactions (Mu‘āmalah)
  • Prohibition of iḥtikār (hoarding/profiteering)
→ protects society from exploitation.
  • Prohibition of selling alcohol to prevent consumption.


3)
Other Concessions
  • Basic permissibility (ibāḥah) of:
    • Enjoying food (victuals)
    • Hunting
→ These fall under al-Hājiyyat.
Summary of Purpose
  • Al-Hājiyyat eases life and reduces hardship.
  • Without them → life still continues,
but becomes difficult and burdensome.
  • These include special rulings that allow flexibility in:
    • Worship
    • Daily activities
    • Economic matters
Picture
Published on
Shariah -The Embellishments (al-Taḥsīniyyāt)
  • Al-Taḥsīniyyāt refers to interests that beautify and improve life.
  • They help achieve what is desirable, refined, and good conduct.
  • Their purpose is to improve quality of life and character.



Examples of al-Taḥsīniyyāt
  • Cleanliness in:
    • Personal appearance
    • Worship (‘ibādah)
  • Practicing moral virtues.
  • Avoiding:
    • Extravagance
    • Wastefulness
  • Measures to prevent:
    • False claims in court
    • Fraud

→ All fall under al-Taḥsīniyyāt.


Effect on Daily Life
  • If taḥsīniyyāt are lost:
    • Normal life continues
    • But comfort and refinement are reduced
    • Life becomes less pleasant
Summary
  • Al-Taḥsīniyyāt = optional but valuable improvements.
  • They make life better, cleaner, more refined.
  • They encourage:
    • Good manners
    • Neat appearance
    • Honesty
    • Avoiding excess
  • Their absence does NOT destroy life or cause hardship,
but removes comfort.


Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Abdulla v Birmingham City Council [2013] 1 All ER 649
Citation: [2012] UKSC 47
Court: Supreme Court
Judges: Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
Date: 11 July, 24 October 2012
Facts:
  • Claimants, mostly women, formerly employed by Birmingham City Council.
  • Brought an equal pay claim in the High Court, alleging breach of contract due to non-compliance with contractual obligations as modified by the equality clause implied by the Equal Pay Act 1970.
  • Claims were within the High Court's time limit but out of time for the Employment Tribunal.
  • Birmingham City Council sought a declaration under s 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970, arguing the High Court lacked jurisdiction or should not exercise it, contending the limitation issue in the tribunal was irrelevant.
  • The Council further argued that the reasons for claimants' failure to present timely complaints to the tribunal should be considered.
Issue:
  • Whether a claim regarding an equality clause can be "more conveniently disposed of" by an Employment Tribunal under s 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 if it is time-barred in the tribunal.
  • Whether the reasons for not bringing a timely claim before the tribunal are a relevant consideration.
Relevant Legislation:
  • Equal Pay Act 1970, s 2(3): Allows a court to strike out a claim regarding an equality clause if it can "more conveniently be disposed of separately by an employment tribunal" and refer the proceedings to the tribunal.
Held:
  • (Lord Sumption and Lord Carnwath dissenting) A claim cannot be "more conveniently disposed of" by the Employment Tribunal if it is time-barred there.
  • The reasons for the claimant's failure to present a timely claim to the tribunal are irrelevant to the notion of convenience under s 2(3).
  • The court emphasized that "conveniently" mandates a practical inquiry into the most suitable forum for investigating the merits, regardless of limitation periods.
  • However, the court retains the inherent jurisdiction to strike out a claim if it constitutes an abuse of process (e.g., deliberately avoiding the tribunal to gain an illegitimate advantage).
  • The court retains the power under s 2(3) to refer a question as to the operation of an equality clause to the tribunal, even if a claim would be time-barred.
  • A claimant's unreasonable failure to present a timely claim to the tribunal may be relevant to costs.
Ratio Decidendi:
The primary consideration under s 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 is the practical convenience of the forum for investigating the merits of an equal pay claim. A claim that is time-barred in the Employment Tribunal cannot be considered "more conveniently disposed of" there.
Impact/Significance:
  • Confirms that the High Court retains jurisdiction over equal pay claims even if they could have been brought in the Employment Tribunal but are now time-barred there.
  • Prevents employers from using s 2(3) to effectively shorten the limitation period allowed for claims in court.
  • Highlights the importance of considering the practical convenience of the forum for investigating the merits of the case.
Disapproved:
  • Ashby v Birmingham City Council [2011] 4 All ER 182
Distinguished:
  • Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada [1986] 3 All ER 843
Per Curiam (Obiter):
  • Parliament may wish to consider relaxing limitation periods for the Employment Tribunal in cases where an equal pay claim is brought in time before the court but could be more conveniently disposed of by the tribunal, were it not for the usual limitation period.​
Picture
Published on
Knightsbridge Development Ltd v WSP UK Ltd [2014] EWHC 43 (TCC) Study Guide
Case Overview:
  • Claimant: Knightsbridge Development Ltd (freehold owner of apartment block)
  • Defendant: WSP UK Ltd (designed the cold water system)
  • Issue: Negligence claim due to flooding caused by burst pipes. Claimant alleged the defendant failed to adequately design the system to prevent pressure surges.
Key Facts:
  • Serious flooding occurred in September 2005 due to burst pipes caused by abnormally high-pressure surges.
  • Claimant argued that the defendant should have realised the risk of pressure surges and recommended anti-surge valves.
Main Issues & Court's Analysis:
  1. Standard of Care (Negligence):
    • Whether competent engineers with similar experience would have acted the same way. Did the defendant meet the required standard of care?
    • Defendant argued their actions were in line with industry practice at the time (pre-2005).
    • Court held: The defendant should have appreciated the risk of high-pressure surges.
  2. Causation:
    • Even if the defendant should have recommended anti-surge valves, would the claimant have acted on that advice?
    • Court held: No evidence the claimant would have followed the advice. Even if they had, it's unlikely the valves would have been installed in time to prevent the flooding.
Court's Decision:
  • Claim dismissed. Although the defendant was found to have been negligent, their negligence did not cause the damage.
Key Legal Principles Applied:
  • Bolam Test ([1957] 2 All ER 118): A professional is not negligent if their actions align with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of skilled persons, even if there's a contrary opinion.
    • The opinion must have a logical or rational basis.
    • The Bolam test may not apply when a risk is not identified or foreseen.
  • Standard of Care for Professionals:
    • Professionals don't guarantee success.
    • Negligence arises if a professional's actions or advice are not in accord with a responsible body of opinion within their discipline, and that opinion lacks a logical basis.
    • Evidence of what other engineers were doing in similar situations is relevant.
  • Causation: The defendant's negligence must be the cause of the damage. If the damage would have occurred regardless of the negligence, the claim fails.
Cases Considered:
  • Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118 (Standard of Care for Professionals)
  • J D Williams & Co Ltd v Michael Hyde & Associates Ltd [2001] BLR 99
  • Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Hett, Stubbs & Kemp (a firm) [1978] 3 All ER 571
  • Nicholson v Smiths Shiprepairers (North Shields) Ltd [1984] 2 WLR 522
Key Takeaways:
  • This case highlights the importance of identifying and mitigating potential risks in engineering design.
  • Even if negligence is established, proving causation is crucial for a successful claim.
  • The Bolam test provides a defence for professionals acting in accordance with accepted industry practice, but it's not a complete shield. The underlying reasoning of that practice can be challenged.
  • The claimant's actions (or inactions) can break the chain of causation.​
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Land Securities Ltd v Fladgate Fielder: Study Guide
Citation: Land Securities Ltd and others v Fladgate Fielder (a firm) [2010] 2 All ER 741
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Facts:
  • Claimants (Land Securities) were developers seeking planning permission for two developments: PH (retail, office, residential) and WP.
  • Defendants (Fladgate Fielder, a law firm) were concerned the PH development would negatively impact their property value.
  • Defendants believed the Claimants intended to offset a lack of affordable housing in the PH development by "over-providing" affordable housing in the WP development.
  • Defendants sought judicial review of the planning permission granted for the WP development.
  • Claimants revised the PH application, making the WP affordable housing irrelevant, and received planning permission for the PH site.
  • Defendants withdrew their judicial review claim.
  • Claimants sued for abuse of process, alleging the judicial review was brought to pressure them into assisting the Defendants' office relocation.
  • The deputy judge granted summary judgment for the Defendants, dismissing the action.
Issue:
  • Can the tort of abuse of process be extended to judicial review proceedings in this context?
Held:
  • No. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the summary judgment for the Defendants.
  • There is no basis for extending the tort of abuse of process to the defendants' proceedings for judicial review
Reasoning:
  1. Malicious Prosecution:
    • There is no general tort of malicious prosecution of civil cases; it's confined to specific heads of damage.
    • Essential ingredients of malicious prosecution include the absence of reasonable and probable cause and the proceedings ending in the claimant's favor.
  2. Abuse of Process (Historically):
    • Historically, abuse of process claims have succeeded only in cases involving blatant misuse of a specific process (e.g., arrest, execution) within existing proceedings.
    • In these cases, reasonable cause and the outcome of the proceedings are irrelevant.
  3. Broader Application (Rejected):
    • Statements suggesting a broader application of abuse of process are obiter dicta.
    • No clearly accepted approach exists for identifying what is sufficiently "collateral" to establish the tort.
  4. Policy Concerns:
    • Extending abuse of process to all cases of economic loss, even with good cause of action, undermines the limitations on malicious prosecution.
    • It would deter pursuing honest claims and create parallel litigation.
    • These concerns apply strongly to judicial review proceedings, where the court has already granted permission for the review.
Key Principles Affirmed:
  • Narrow Scope of Abuse of Process: The tort is limited and should not be expanded easily.
  • Balance of Interests: Courts must balance the right to bring legal claims with the need to prevent misuse of the legal system.
  • Judicial Review Scrutiny: Permission to bring judicial review provides a level of initial scrutiny, making an abuse of process claim more difficult.
Cases Applied:
  • Grainger v Hill (1838) 4 Bing NC 212
  • Gilding v Eyre (1861) 10 CBNS 592
Cases Considered:
  • Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Co v Eyre (1883) 11 QBD 674
  • Gregory v Portsmouth City Council [2000] 1 All ER 560
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Crawford Adjusters v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd [2013] UKPC 17: Study Guide
I. Case Overview
  • Citation: [2013] UKPC 17, [2014] AC 366
  • Court: Privy Council (England and Wales)
  • Judges: Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson and Lord Sumption
  • Date: 13 June 2013
  • Issue: Scope of the torts of abuse of process and malicious prosecution in the context of a withdrawn civil claim.
II. Factual Background
  • Parties:
    • Crawford Adjusters (Appellants/Paterson): Loss adjuster (AP) and associated companies.
    • Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd (Respondent/Sagicor): Insurance company.
  • Context: Hurricane damage to a residential development ("the village") in Grand Cayman, insured by Sagicor.
  • Sequence of Events:
    • Paterson appointed by Sagicor as loss adjuster.
    • Hurlstone (building companies) contracted for repairs.
    • Sagicor made advance payments to Hurlstone.
    • D joined Sagicor as senior VP; disliked Paterson.
    • D fired Hurlstone and stated intention to ruin Paterson professionally.
    • P (chartered surveyor) instructed to assess Hurlstone's work; produced reports valuing work lower than previous estimates.
    • Sagicor and the proprietors initiated proceedings against Paterson and Hurlstone, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit, and conspiracy.
    • Proprietors later amended claim against Hurlstone only for breach of contract.
    • Sagicor discontinued the action against Paterson and Hurlstone shortly before trial.
    • Sagicor ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis.
    • Paterson amended counterclaim to include abuse of process. Hurlstone brought a separate claim for malicious prosecution, inter alia.
III. Issues on Appeal to the Privy Council
  • Did the lower courts err in finding that:
    1. Sagicor had not committed malicious prosecution?
    2. Sagicor had not committed abuse of process?
IV. Holding
  • Appeal allowed in part.
    1. Malicious Prosecution: Sagicor did commit malicious prosecution.
    2. Abuse of Process: Sagicor did not commit abuse of process.
V. Reasoning
  • Malicious Prosecution:
    • Scope of the Tort: The tort of malicious prosecution extends to civil proceedings, particularly where the basis of the civil claim could have been a criminal charge.
    • Elements Established: All elements of the tort were present (unchallenged by Sagicor if the tort applied to civil proceedings).
    • Malice: D's predominant purpose (destroying Paterson professionally) amounted to malice.
    • Lack of Reasonable Cause: No reasonable cause for believing Paterson defrauded Sagicor.
    • The court referenced Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Co v Eyre (1883) 11 QBD 674 and Gregory v Portsmouth City Council [2000] 1 All ER 560 in its reasoning.
  • Abuse of Process:
    • Predominant Purpose: D's intent to harm Paterson was primarily achieved through the successful (or perceived successful) prosecution of the action.
    • Scope of the Action: D intended to bring the action to trial, even if based on flawed reports.
    • No Finding of Abandonment: The court did not find that D had no intention of bringing the action to trial. Therefore, D's purpose was considered within the scope of the action.
VI. Outcome
  • Judgment entered for Paterson in the sum of CI$1.335m for the tort of malicious prosecution.
VII. Key Takeaways
  • Malicious Prosecution in Civil Proceedings: This case confirms that the tort of malicious prosecution can apply to civil proceedings.
  • Focus on "Predominant Purpose": The distinction between malicious prosecution and abuse of process hinges on the predominant purpose of the action. If the primary goal is to achieve a legitimate outcome through the legal process, it's less likely to be abuse of process.
VIII. Terms & Definitions
  • Abuse of Process: Using legal proceedings for an ulterior purpose, other than that for which they are designed.
  • Malicious Prosecution: Initiating legal proceedings (criminal or, in this case, civil) without reasonable cause and with malice.
  • Loss Adjuster: A professional who investigates insurance claims and determines the amount of compensation to be paid.
  • Indemnity Basis: A method of awarding costs in legal proceedings where the party is entitled to recover all of their reasonably incurred costs.​


Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-OBG Ltd v Allan; Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3); Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young
Key Concepts & Issues:
  • Economic Torts: The case addresses claims for economic loss caused by intentional acts, specifically focusing on:
    • Inducing Breach of Contract
    • Causing Loss by Unlawful Means
    • Conversion
    • Breach of Confidence
  • Unified Theory of Economic Torts: The central issue is whether a single, unified theory can encompass all economic torts, particularly the relationship between inducing breach of contract and causing loss by unlawful means.
  • Accessory vs. Primary Liability: Distinguishes between torts based on accessory liability (dependent on the wrongful act of another) and primary liability (direct wrongdoing).
  • "Unlawful Means": Defining what constitutes "unlawful means" in the tort of causing loss by unlawful means.
  • Intention: The required intent for each tort, specifically the target (claimant/third party) and the type of harm intended (breach of contract or broader economic loss).
Key Judgments & Principles:
  1. Rejection of Unified Theory: The House of Lords rejected the idea that procuring breach of contract is simply a subset of a broader tort of interference with contractual rights. The Lumley v Gye principle (inducing breach of contract) remains a distinct tort.
  2. Distinction Between Inducing Breach of Contract and Causing Loss by Unlawful Means:
    • Liability Type: Unlawful means is a tort of primary liability. Inducing breach of contract is accessory liability, requiring a breach by another party.
    • "Unlawful Means" Requirement: Unlawful means requires independently unlawful conduct against a third party. Inducing breach of contract only requires participation in the breach.
    • Relationship to Contract: Unlawful means does not require a contract. It is sufficient that the intended consequence is damage to economic expectations. Inducing breach of contract requires a breach of contract.
    • Intention: Unlawful means requires intending to cause damage to the claimant (often to benefit the defendant). Inducing breach of contract requires intending to cause a breach of contract.
    • Direct vs. Indirect Interference: The distinction between direct and indirect interference was deemed unsatisfactory.
  3. Definition of Unlawful Means: Unlawful means involves acts intended to cause loss to the claimant by interfering with a third party's freedom in a way that is unlawful against that third party and intended to cause loss to the claimant. The act must be actionable by the third party (or would be if the third party had suffered a loss).
Application to the Specific Appeals:
  • OBG Ltd v Allan: The receivers were not liable for inducing breach of contract because there was no breach of contract, nor for causing loss by unlawful means as they did not employ unlawful means and did not intend to cause the claimant any loss.
  • Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3): The magazine OK! was entitled to bring proceedings for breach of an obligation of confidentiality as the photos were deemed information of commercial value the celebrity couple had sufficient control over.
  • Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young: The defendant was not liable for inducing breach of contract as he did not intend to cause a breach. Nor did he cause loss by unlawful means.
Dissenting Opinions:
  • Conversion: Strict liability should not be extended to cover choses in action, especially given the restricted nature of economic torts.
  • Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3): Agreed with the court.​
Picture
Published on
Shariah-General Objectives of Sharīʿah (Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah)

Main Purpose of Sharīʿah
  • The main goal of Sharīʿah is to bring benefit to humans in:
    • This world
    • The Hereafter
  • Sharīʿah aims at:
    • Securing good
    • Preventing corruption and evil
  • The Qur’an highlights these aims.


Qur’an: Al-Anbiyā’ 21:107

Allah sent Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) as mercy for all creation (humans, jinn, everything).

Meaning:
  • The message of Islam goes beyond boundaries of race, nation, or language.
  • Allah wants mercy and goodness for all human beings.
  • “Rahmatan” includes:
    • Compassion
    • Kindness
    • Good treatment
    • Benefits for others
  • Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah:
    • Sharīʿah protects people’s interests
    • Prevents harm
    • Necessary for human well-being


Importance of Benefit
  • If the Qur’an did not bring benefit, it would harm humanity.
  • Revelation would have no purpose if it did not help people.
  • “Rahmatan” means:
    • Anything that benefits humans
    • Anything that prevents harm
    • Harmonises with human needs

Islamic Systems
  • Different systems in Islam (e.g. ʿibādah, muʿāmalah, jināyah) were revealed:
    • To benefit humans
    • To protect them from harm
  • These systems reflect Allah’s mercy to mankind.


Another Qur’anic description

Qur’an: Yūnus 10:57

Sharīʿah is:

  • Good advice from Allah
  • Commands what is good and forbids evil
  • A remedy for spiritual diseases (ignorance, doubt, hypocrisy)
  • Guidance
  • Mercy
  • Explanation of what is lawful and unlawful
  • A blessing for believers


al-Shāṭibī’s View
  • In al-Muwāfaqāt fī Uṣūl al-Sharīʿah, he states:
    • Maṣlaḥah (benefit) is the main objective of Sharīʿah.
    • Maṣlaḥah is broad enough to include all beneficial measures.
  • He focused heavily on maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah (objectives of Islamic law).
  • He said Allah revealed Sharīʿah for:
    • Human benefit in this life
    • Human benefit in the next life
  • This is a main objective of Allah (the Lawgiver) and is seen across all Sharīʿah rulings.


Scholars’ Agreement
  • Most scholars agree that:
    • Sharīʿah rulings have purposes and reasons.
    • These objectives are rational and can be recognised.
  • Exception:
    • Some rulings in worship (ʿibādah) have reasons known only to Allah.
    • Humans do not need to know the reason in those cases.


Main Principle
  • Sharīʿah benefits humans completely.
  • Allah gains nothing; humans benefit.
  • Qur’an – Al-Naml 27:40
Gratitude benefits only the person; Allah needs nothing.


Objectives in Qur’anic commands

1)
Prayer (al-ṣalāh)
  • Qur’an – Al-‘Ankabūt 29:45
  • Prayer prevents:
    • Immorality
    • Evil behaviour
  • Prayer protects believers from sin.
  • If done properly, it acts as a shield against evil.


2)
Qisās (Law of Equality in Punishment)
  • Qur’an – Al-Baqarah 2:178–179
  • Qisās provides:
    • Justice for murder cases
    • Fairness between all parties
  • Families can forgive for blood money.
  • Purpose:
    • To save lives
    • To prevent crime (when punishment is witnessed by others)
  • Even though one life is taken (the murderer), many lives are saved.


Sharīʿah Encourages Ease
  • Qur’an explains that Allah does not want to make religion difficult.

Qur’an – Al-Ḥajj 22:78

No hardship is placed on you in religion.

Qur’an – Al-Baqarah 2:185

Allah wants ease for you, not hardship.


KEY POINT SUMMARY
  • Sharīʿah’s primary goal: benefit + protection from harm.
  • Prophet sent as mercy to all creation.
  • Sharīʿah = compassion, guidance, healing, and protection.
  • All categories of law aim to benefit humans.
  • Maṣlaḥah is the central objective.
  • Scholars agree most rulings have clear purposes; worship may be an exception.
  • Examples:
    • Prayer → prevents evil
    • Qisās → saves lives
  • Islam does not burden people; Allah wants ease.
Picture
Published on
Shariah -The Objectives of Sharī‘ah – Categories
  • The objectives (purposes) of Sharī‘ah are divided into three categories:
    1. Essentials (al-Ḍarūriyyāt)
    2. Complementary (al-Ḥājiyyāt)
    3. Embellishments / Beautifications (al-Taḥsīniyyāt)
  • All Islamic rulings aim to achieve at least one of these three goals.

1. The Essentials (al-Ḍarūriyyāt)
  • These are the most important needs of religion and daily life.
  • If they are not protected:
    • Society falls into chaos and disorder.
    • It may lead to corruption and destruction.
  • These essentials must be protected.
  • Protection can be done by:
    • Individuals
    • Government authorities
  • The essentials consist of five fundamental values (al-Ḍarūriyyah al-Khamsah):

The Five Essentials
  1. Protection of Religion (al-Dīn)
  2. Protection of Life (al-Nafs)
  3. Protection of Dignity / Lineage (al-‘Irḍ)
  4. Protection of Intellect (al-‘Aql)
  5. Protection of Property (al-Māl)
  • Protecting these values means taking necessary steps to preserve them and removing anything that threatens them.
  • Sharī‘ah provides guidelines to ensure their protection.​
Picture

Author

Learn the fact about law