Najm al-Din al-Tufi & his theory of Maslahah

Over the last two hundred years the world has witnessed many events which have led to rapid changes. Through two centuries of colonialism and two world wars, many ideas and concepts have been brought forward all claiming that they were the best for the progress of humanity. Secular democratic nation states have taken over most of the world trying to live peacefully with one another under the banner of international human rights. Unfortunately for the Muslim world the formation of the modern world was dictated by the West, which meant that certain aspects of Muslim orthodoxy ran in complete contrast to what was agreed as acceptable behaviour and practice. Because of this, some have even argued the impossibility of the re-establishment of the Sharia on a state level[1].

This growing tide of modernity gave rise to various responses from the Muslim world. Two centres from which many influential figures and groups emerged were Egypt and India. In 18th century India, the Mughal dynasty was at its decline while the British ‘East India Company’ was going from strength to strength. This fact was starting to concern the Ulamā (scholars) who began soul searching to discover the reasons to this decline. The most notable figure was the Delhi based Shāh Waliullāh (d.1175/1762). He wrote extensively in trying to bring change in a deteriorating Muslim society and thought that the solution lay in re-connecting the masses to the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet[2]. Shāh Waliullāh’s thought influenced a wide range of revivalist movements in the 19th century such as the militant al-Țarīqat al-Muhammadiyyah movement of Sayyid Ahmad of Barelly and the Ahl e Ĥadīth who rejected the adherence to the canonical legal schools of thought and all Sufi practices. The Deobandi school, established in 1867, was also connected to the thought of Shāh Walīullah and they believed that the solution to this decline was to educate the masses, hence they established Madrasahs all over India[3].

Despite the various methods of these 19th century movements, there was an agreement that the Qur'an and the Sunnah as understood by the pre-modern jurists were the basis of which right and wrong would be judged and any aspect of modernity which contradicted these primary sources would have to be rejected.

On the other hand, there were scholars who called for a re-assessment of the normative understanding of Islam to facilitate for the modern world. In India, as a counter movement to the revivalists mentioned above, Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan called for a reformation of Islam on very similar lines as the Christian Reformation. He dismissed the authority of the pre-modern jurists and promoted an alternative method than the traditionalists in accepting and rejecting Ĥadīth[4]. Various other figures had called for different methods to reform Islam in the 20th century. They generally argued that the aim of the Qur'an and the Sunnah was to uphold the Maşlaĥah (benefits) for humanity which meant that if a particular legal ruling had lost its ‘benefit’ then it would no longer be applicable in the modern world.

Opwis has noted four different pre-modern formulations of the concept of Maşlaĥah which have been utilized by some 20th century modernists. The first paradigm/model of Maşlaĥah was developed by Abū Ĥāmid al-Ghazālī (d.504/1111), followed by Shihāb al-Dīn al-Qarāfī (d.683/1284), Najm al-Dīn al-Țūfī (d.716/1316) and finally Abū Isĥāq al-Shāţibī (d.790/1388)[5].

In this essay we will analyse the famous text of al-Țūfī on Maşlaĥah and its usage by some modern scholars. We will analyse its epistemic value and present the views of the opponents.

Najm al-Dīn al-Țūfī was a Ĥanbalī scholar born in Baghdad who was acknowledged due to his expertise in the Arabic language, Usūl al-Fiqh (principles of Jurisprudence) and Islamic Philosophy. He was also a contemporary of the controversial Ĥanbalī scholar, Ibn Taymiyyah with whom he shared knowledge[6]. Despite al-Țūfī’s name being associated in recent times with modernist Muslim reformers, the pre-modern scholars were more concerned with his apparent inclination to Shi'a theology. A claim made by some pre-modern biographers such as Ibn Rajab (d.795/1393) and Şalāĥ al-Dīn al-Şafadī (d.764/1362). Although al-Şafadī reports al-Țūfī’s renunciation of Shi’ism[7], ibn Rajab classifies this renunciation as Taqiyyah (dissimulation)[8] a common accusation made by Sunnis upon Shi'as when the latter are assumed of lying[9]. Zayd has denied this accusation as being based on inadequate evidence by providing direct quotes from al-Țūfī actually criticizing Shi'a doctrine. He further argued that al-Țūfī is not mentioned in any of the Shi'a biographical literature (Tabaqāt)[10]. Al-Buţī counters Zayd’s analysis by stating that what Zayd classifies as inadequate is in fact the documentation of reliable biographers and as for al-Țūfī criticizing the Shi'a, then this adds to the volatile character of the man[11].

The above debate, despite having no direct contact with this current paper, does demonstrate that al-Țūfī was a free thinker and not afraid to hold views considered ‘unorthodox’. So it is not surprising that his name has resurfaced hundreds of years later and became the centre of another controversy.

Al-Țūfī wrote an explanation on Muĥyī al-Dīn al-Nawawī’s (d.675/1277) collection of forty Ĥadīth[12]. The section which concerns this paper was al-Țūfī’s explanation of the Ĥadīth ‘There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm’. This section was first published by the famous Egyptian scholar Rashīd Riđā with the annotation of the ‘Salafī’ Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsmī (d.1914)[13] and then republished by ‘Abd al-Raĥīm al-Sāyiĥ with his own annotations.

Al-Țūfī begins his explanation of the Ĥadīth by stating that after extensive reading (Istiqrā) of the books of Uşūl there were nineteen evidences (Adillah) in establishing Islamic Law[14]. Interestingly, these nineteen evidences were mentioned and in the exact same order before al-Țūfī by the Mālikī jurist, Shihāb al-Dīn al-Qarāfī[15]. This implies the influence of al-Qarāfī on al-Țūfī and al-Qarāfī was amongst those who wrote extensively on the role of Maşlaĥah.

Out of all the various Adillah there were three which the jurists had accepted as the highest level of authority; the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the Ijmā’ (consensus). Al-Țūfī presents two possibilities,

1) the Qur'an or the Sunnah or the Ijmā’ are in accordance with the Maşlaĥah of the people;
2) the Qur'an or the Sunnah or the Ijmā’ oppose the Maşlaĥah.

Al-Țūfī states that the first possibility was self-evident but in the second possibility Maşlaĥah would take precedence[16]. The rest of the chapter is spent in attempting to show how Maşlaĥah is superior to all forms of Adillah. Al-Țūfī does qualify this statement by restricting this precedence of Maşlaĥah to Ᾱdāt (habits/social customs) and Mu’āmulāt (social or civil dealings), not ‘Ibādāt (worship) and Muqaddarāt (fixed stipulations)[17]. This is due to the fact that we can only know the actual forms of worship through revelation contrary to dealings and habits where we have the ability to apply our minds.

Although al-Țūfī provides examples of where he sees that Maşlaĥah has preceded the Qur'an and the Sunnah from the Ĥadīth corpus, he fails to provide any practical examples of the application of his theory in his time. This naturally makes it difficult for the jurist to apply al-Țūfī’s theory. Al-Ghazālī on the other hand provided clear examples of his usage of Maşlaĥah[18], when it can override a text and when it cannot, which provided the later jurist with a clearer framework.

Modernist reformers worked on different models of Maşlaĥah when attempting to perform new Ijtihād[19]. The foremost scholars who applied the model of al-Țūfī were Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsmī and Rashīd Riđā. Lauziěre convincingly regards al-Qāsmī for the inception of the term ‘Salafī’, refuting the popular attribution to Muhammad ‘Abduh (d.1905) and his mentor Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī (d.1897)[20]. Al-Qāsmī, with his associate Muhammad Shukrī Ᾱlūsī, rejected Taqlīd of the classical jurists and instead called for new Ijtihāds. Likewise Rashīd Riđā, despite praising the Deoband seminary in India (famously calling it the al-Azhar of India), lamented the fact that the Deobandi senior lecturer, Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī, advocated Taqlīd[21].

In regards to al-Țūfī’s theory of Maşlaĥah, neither al-Qāsmī nor Riđā expanded or built on it. Rashīd Riđā simply quotes excerpts from it in his Qur'anic exegesis[22] and I could only locate one place where al-Qāsmī utilizes this theory[23]. Although not directly mentioning al-Țūfī, Riđā does have a considerable amount of Fatāwā (verdicts) which are based on Maşlaĥah, from which we will analyse one.

Riđā was asked by a Muslim who complained that many American doctors were critical of the fact that the Qur'an permits a man to marry up to four wives (Qur'an 4:3). This is because to treat two wives with justice is impossible while the Qur'an only allows it for those men who would treat them with justice, hence making the verse of the Qur'an redundant[24].

The pre-modern exegetes have explained that the justice (‘Adl) in the verse refers to distribution of wealth and nights[25], not love and affection. Riđā takes another approach and argues that a man having more than one wife is acceptable when judged historically, physiologically and socially[26]. It is only in modern times that Europe has begun to show the female an exaggerated sense of respect. Riđā sieves through the evidences purely based on Maşlaĥah and concedes that the ideal situation for a family is one man for one woman, but due to varying circumstances such as the population of women being more than men, women being able to reproduce for a shorter time etc. it is allowed (Mubāĥ) for a man to marry more than one woman as a dispensation (Rukhsah). This, he claims, is what the Qur'an was referring to when it spoke of ‘Adl[27]. He then concludes by listing the scenarios of where it would be impermissible (Ĥarām) for a man to marry a second wife and places therein the man who wants to marry a second wife merely to have another sexual partner[28].

Here Riđā reinterpreted the verse of the Qur'an to converge with his position based on Maşlaĥah. There are some problems this approach, the most glaring being that his arguments for polygamy are based largely on subjective evidences. So although polygamy was practiced historically, there are cases where polyandry was also practiced and even with some success (though rarer)[29]. Likewise the population of women being more than men, this may be true for large parts of the world but statistics illustrate a number of countries that have the opposite sex ratio[30]. If his arguments for Maşlaĥah are proven to the contrary would we have to reinterpret the verse? This weakens the epistemic value of his interpretation of the verse of the Qur'an and highlights a significant problem with al-Țūfī’s theory[31] due to its subjective and speculative nature.

Another example of al-Țūfī’s theory in practice is by the son of Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsmī, Dhāfir al-Qāsmī who had noticed that the Muslims in America were struggling to pray the Friday prayer (Şalāt al-Jumu'ah) on Friday because of their work commitments. Thus, he uses the theory of al-Țūfī grants permission for the prayer to be performed on a Saturday instead[32]. This Fatwā did seem to contravene al-Țūfī’s differentiating between ‘Ibādāt and Mu’āmulāt as the latter can only change because of Maşlaĥah.

It is evident why al-Țūfī’s theory of Maşlaĥah would have been appealing to reformers. It offered them a method to ‘update’ the Shari'a in an ever changing world. From the beginning of the 20th century the Muslim world was in a hurry to keep up with the West and Ulamā became an obstacle to the advancement. The elite rank of Ulamā was eroding away and there was a rise in the ‘lay Muslim intellectuals’[33]. So for Riđa and al-Qāsmī, who were both from the traditional Ulamā class, this theory of Maslaĥah was a means of showing the relevance of the Shari'a and the Ulamā in the modern world[34] by utilizing an ‘internal’ theory rather than using ‘foreign’ solutions.

Shortly after Riđā’s publishing of al-Țūfī’s work, many scholars criticized the theory. Al-Tufi was criticized because of his unorthodox creed (mentioned above) and volatile character by al-Kawtharī and al-Būţī who quoted sections from biographical works stating that he had a ‘better memory than understanding’[35]. Al-Kawtharī further pointed out that the differentiation of ‘Ibādāt from Mu’āmulāt was a baseless innovation[36] as both are in need of divine guidance. Other scholars accused him of utilitarianism[37] as he was using the fallible human mind to restrict God’s injunctions (ahkam)[38]. Yūsuf al-Qarađāwī has attempted to explain away al-Țūfī’s statement so that it falls in line with the general legal understanding. So when al-Țūfī is stating that a Nass (text from the Qur'an or the Sunnah) contradicts Maslaĥah then this Nass must be understood as Dhannī (speculative) not Qaţ’ī (definitive)[39] evidence. When al-Țūfī’s text is interpreted in this way, then it is not as radical as first thought.

Hallaq states that al-Țūfī’s theory was ‘epistemologically inferior to the average theoretical discourse’[40] due to the fact that he never ‘defines in any detail his concept of Maşlaha and its scope’. This weakness is manifested firstly in the few legal cases we have of scholars using the theory in deriving their Fatāwā and secondly when they have used it, many problems arise as mentioned above.

We would further add two more reasons for the failure of this theory in the reformist agenda. Firstly, there were more elaborate and detailed theories which the reformists adopted, namely al-Shāţibī’s Maqāsid al-Sharī’ah. Secondly, for the reformer to be successful, they must be able to get a following. Unfortunately al- Țūfī was never a celebrated figure within the Islamic tradition/milieu rather he was someone who had a controversial record. Turning to the likes of al-Ghazālī, al-Qarāfī and al-Shāţibī gave far more authority and legitimacy to the reformist’s views.

In conclusion we can observe that al-Țūfī’s theory itself contained much vagueness and implied a radical change to Islamic Law. These may be the reasons for this theory not receiving any attention for hundreds of years until the time of Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsmī and Rashīd Riđā. These two scholars failed to expand and apply the theory which in turn received damning criticisms from the rest of the Ulamā. Furthermore, more robust theories were preferred to the one of al-Țūfī’s which limited the impact of his theory amongst modernist reformers.

---

[1] See Hallaq, Wael (2014) ‘The impossible State: Islam, Politics, and Modernity's Moral Predicament’, Columbia University Press

[2] See Dallal, Ahmad (1993) ‘The Origins and Objectives of Islamic Revivalist Thought, 1750-1850’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 113, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1993), pp. 341-359, p.344-349

[3] For the early history of the Deobandi school, see Metcalf, Barbara (1982) ‘Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860-1900’, Princeton University Press

[4] See Siddiqi, Mazheruddin (1967) ‘Religious Thought of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan’, Source: Islamic Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3 (SEPTEMBER 1967), pp. 289-308. Sir Sayyid notes that although the Ahl e Ĥadith claim to reject Taqlīd (imitation) of the 4 schools, they still work within the realm of the opinions of the pre-modern scholars.

[5] For an analysis of their views on Maslaĥah, see Opwis, Felicitas (2005) ‘Maṣlaḥa in Contemporary Islamic Legal Theory’, Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2005), pp. 182-223

[6] Demiri, Lejla (2013) ‘Muslim Exegesis of the Bible in Medieval Cairo’, Leiden: Brill, p.3-8

[7] Al-Şafadī, Şalaĥ al-Dīn (2000) ‘al-Wāfī bi al-Wafayāt’, Beirut: Dār Iĥyā’ al-Turāth, Ed. Aĥmad al-Arna’ūţ and Turkī Muşţaphā, (29 vol) 19/43

[8] For more details on the Shi'a concept of Taqiyyah, see Dakake, Maria (2006) ‘Hiding in Plain Sight: The Practical and Doctrinal Significance of Secrecy in Shi'ite Islam’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 74, No. 2, Religion and Secrecy (Jun., 2006), pp. 324-355

[9] Ibn Rajab, Zayn al-Dīn (2005) ‘Dhayl Țabaqāt al-Ĥanābilah’, Riyadh: Maktabat al-‘Ubaykān, Ed. ‘Abd al-Raĥmān al-‘Uthaymīn, (5 vol) 4/404-421

[10] Zayd, Mustafā (1954) al-Maşlaĥah fī al-Tashrī’ al-Islāmī, Egypt: Dār al-Yusr, p.59-70

[11] Al-Buţī, Ramađān Sa’īd (2007) ‘Đawābiţ al-Maşlaĥah fī al-Sharī’at al-Islāmiyyah’, Damascus: Dār al-Fikr, p.217-219

[12] The collecting of forty Ĥadīth on varying topics has been a common practice by Ĥadīth scholars for centuries. This is based on a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad which encourages learning forty sayings of his. This tradition is considered dubious by the Ĥadīth scholars but has not prevented them from utilizing it. For more details see Brown, Jonathon A C (2009) ‘Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World’ Oxford: Oneworld Publications, p.55-56

[13] Al-Sāyiĥ, Aĥmad ‘Abd al-Raĥīm in the introduction to al-Țūfī, Najm al-Dīn (1993) ‘Risālat fī Ri’āyat al-Maşlaĥah’, N/A, p.8-9

[14] Ibid, p.13

[15] Al-Qarāfī, Shihāb al-Dīn (1973) ‘Sharĥ Tanqīĥ al-Fuşūl’, Egypt: Shirkat al-Țabā’at al-Funniyyat al-Muttaĥidah, Ed. ‘Abd al-Ra’ūf S’ad, p.445

[16] al-Țūfī, ‘Risālat fī Ri’āyat al-Maşlaĥah’, p.23-24

[17] Ibid, p.47

[18] Al-Ghazālī, Abū Ĥāmid (1993) ‘Al-Mustaşfā’, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Ed. Muhammad ‘Abd al-Salām ‘Abd al-Shāfī, p. 177. The oft cited example which has been utilized by various Jihadist groups is al-Ghazālī’s stating the permissibility to kill Muslims who have been made as human shields by the enemy arm, considering there is serious threat of life to the Muslim population. For more details see Opwis, Felicitas (2005) ‘Maṣlaḥa’, p. 194

[19] A good and concise definition of Ijtihād is provided by Robert Gleave ‘an individual jurist’s effort to discover a legal ruling in a particular case, is associated with independent reasoning and the potential for a jurist to discover new solutions to (both novel and established) issues’, Gleave, Robert (2010) in the introduction to Calder, Norman ‘Islamic Jurisprudence in the Classical Era’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.3

[20] Lauziěre, Henri (2010) ‘The Construction of Salafiyya: Reconsidering Salafism from the Perspective of Conceptual History', International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 42, No. 3 (August 2010), p. 369-389, p.375. This is based on that fact that ‘Abduh and al-Afghānī hardly utilize the term Salafī, contrary to al-Qāsmī.

[21] Zaman, M. Qasim (2010) ‘Evolving Conceptions in Ijtihād in Modern South Asia’, Islamic Studies, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Spring 2010), pp. 5-36, p.7-9

[22] Riđā, Rashīd (1990) ‘Tafsīr al-Manār’, Egypt: al-Hai’at al-Mişriyyah al-‘Ᾱmmah li al-Kitāb, (12 vol), 7/162

[23] Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsmī (1997) ‘Maĥāsin al-Ta’wīl’, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Ed. Muhammad Bāsil, 8/115. This example is to do with the permissibility of giving a specifically harsh punishment to men involved in gang rape; al-Qāsmī allows it based on al-Țūfī’s theory of Maşlaĥah.

[24] Riđā, Rashīd (2005) ‘Fatāwā al-Imām Rashīd Riđā’, n/a: Dār al-Kitāb al-Jadīd, Ed. Şalāĥ al-Dīn al-Munajjad, (6 vol), 1/118

[25] See al-Maĥallī, Jalāl al-Dīn and al-Suyūţī, Jalāl al-Dīn (n/a) ‘Tafsīr al-Jalālayn’, Cairo: Dār al-Ĥadīth, p.98

[26] Riđā, Rashīd (2005) ‘Fatāwā al-Imām Rashīd Riđā’, 1/119-125

[27] Ibid, 1/126

[28] Ibid, 1/126-127

[29] Berreman, D Gerald (1962) ‘Pahari Polyandry: A Comparison Author’, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 64, No. 1, Part 1 (Feb., 1962), pp. 60-75

[30] www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html

[31] For a traditional response to the polygamy question and an indirect response to Riđā’s assertions, see Kawtharī, Zāhid (2009) ‘Maqālāt al-Kawtharī’, Cairo: Dār al-Islām,167-172

[32] I could not locate the original Fatwā but found it in an online article by the Egyptian scholar, Yūsuf al-Qarađāwī www.qaradawi.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6183:43-&catid=225&Itemid=444

[33] Brown, Jonathan A C (2014) Is Islam Easy to Understand or Not? Salafis, The Democratization of Interpretation and the Need for the Ulema, Journal of Islamic Studies (2014) pp. 1-28, p. 1

[34] Opwis, Felicitas (2005) ‘Maṣlaḥa’, p.199-201

[35] Kawtharī, Zāhid (2009) ‘Maqālāt al-Kawtharī’, p.201, Al-Buţī, Ramađān Sa’īd (2007) ‘Đawābiţ al-Maşlaĥah’, p.217-218

[36] Kawtharī, Zāhid (2009) ‘Maqālāt al-Kawtharī’, p.200

[37] For a discussion on the various theories of utilitarianism, see Barnes, Gerald (1971) ‘Utilitarianism’, Ethics, Vol. 82, No. 1 (Oct., 1971), pp. 56-64

[38] Opwis, Felicitas (2005) ‘Maṣlaḥa’, p.201

[39] Al-Qarađāwī, Yūsuf (2008) ‘Dirāsat fī Fiqh Maqāsid al-Sharī’ah’, Cairo: Dār al-Shrūq, p.109-115

[40] Hallaq, Wael (1999) ‘A History of Islamic Legal Theories’, Cambridge University Press, p.152

---

Books

Brown, Jonathon A C (2009) ‘Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World’ Oxford: Oneworld Publications

Al-Buţī, Ramađān Sa’īd (2007) ‘Đawābiţ al-Maşlaĥah fī al-Sharī’at al-Islāmiyyah’, Damascus: Dār al-Fikr,

Demiri, Lejla (2013) ‘Muslim Exegesis of the Bible in Medieval Cairo’, Leiden: Brill,

Al-Ghazālī, Abū Ĥāmid (1993) ‘Al-Mustaşfā’, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Ed. Muhammad ‘Abd al-Salām ‘Abd al-Shāfī

Gleave, Robert (2010) in the introduction to Calder, Norman ‘Islamic Jurisprudence in the Classical Era’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hallaq, Wael (2014) ‘The impossible State: Islam, Politics, and Modernity's Moral Predicament’, Columbia University Press

Hallaq, Wael (1999) ‘A History of Islamic Legal Theories’, Cambridge University Press

Ibn Rajab, Zayn al-Dīn (2005) ‘Dhayl Țabaqāt al-Ĥanābilah’, Riyadh: Maktabat al-‘Ubaykān, Ed. ‘Abd al-Raĥmān al-‘Uthaymīn, (5 vol)

Jamāl al-Dīn al-Qāsmī (1997) ‘Maĥāsin al-Ta’wīl’, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Ed. Muhammad Bāsil

Kawtharī, Zāhid (2009) ‘Maqālāt al-Kawtharī’, Cairo: Dār al-Islām

Al-Maĥallī, Jalāl al-Dīn and al-Suyūţī, Jalāl al-Dīn (n/a) ‘Tafsīr al-Jalālayn’, Cairo: Dār al-Ĥadīth

Metcalf, Barbara (1982) ‘Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860-1900’, Princeton University Press

Al-Qarađāwī, Yūsuf (2008) ‘Dirāsat fī Fiqh Maqāsid al-Sharī’ah’, Cairo: Dār al-Shrūq

Al-Qarāfī, Shihāb al-Dīn (1973) ‘Sharĥ Tanqīĥ al-Fuşūl’, Egypt: Shirkat al-Țabā’at al-Funniyyat al-Muttaĥidah, Ed. ‘Abd al-Ra’ūf S’ad

Riđā, Rashīd (1990) ‘Tafsīr al-Manār’, Egypt: al-Hai’at al-Mişriyyah al-‘Ᾱmmah li al-Kitāb, (12 vol)

Riđā, Rashīd (2005) ‘Fatāwā al-Imām Rashīd Riđā’, n/a: Dār al-Kitāb al-Jadīd, Ed. Şalāĥ al-Dīn al-Munajjad, (6 vol)

Al-Şafadī, Şalaĥ al-Dīn (2000) ‘al-Wāfī bi al-Wafayāt’, Beirut: Dār Iĥyā’ al-Turāth, Ed. Aĥmad al-Arna’ūţ and Turkī Muşţaphā, (29 vol)

Al-Sāyiĥ, Aĥmad ‘Abd al-Raĥīm in the introduction to al-Țūfī, Najm al-Dīn (1993) ‘Risālat fī Ri’āyat al-Maşlaĥah’, N/A

Zayd, Mustafā (1954) al-Maşlaĥah fī al-Tashrī’ al-Islāmī, Egypt: Dār al-Yusr


Articles

Barnes, Gerald (1971) ‘Utilitarianism’, Ethics, Vol. 82, No. 1 (Oct., 1971), pp. 56-64

Berreman, D Gerald (1962) ‘Pahari Polyandry: A Comparison Author’, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 64, No. 1, Part 1 (Feb., 1962), pp. 60-75

Brown, Jonathan A C (2014) Is Islam Easy to Understand or Not? Salafis, The Democratization of Interpretation and the Need for the Ulema, Journal of Islamic Studies (2014) pp. 1-28,

Dakake, Maria (2006) ‘Hiding in Plain Sight: The Practical and Doctrinal Significance of Secrecy in Shi'ite Islam’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 74, No. 2, Religion and Secrecy (Jun., 2006), pp. 324-355

Dallal, Ahmad (1993) ‘The Origins and Objectives of Islamic Revivalist Thought, 1750-1850’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 113, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1993), pp. 341-359

Lauziěre, Henri (2010) ‘The Construction of Salafiyya: Reconsidering Salafism from the Perspective of Conceptual History', International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 42, No. 3 (August 2010), p. 369-389

Opwis, Felicitas (2005) ‘Maṣlaḥa in Contemporary Islamic Legal Theory’, Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2005), pp. 182-223

Siddiqi, Mazheruddin (1967) ‘Religious Though of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan’, Source: Islamic Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3 (SEPTEMBER 1967), pp. 289-308

Zaman, M. Qasim (2010) ‘Evolving Conceptions in Ijtihād in Modern South Asia’, Islamic Studies, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Spring 2010), pp. 5-36


Online Resources

www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html (last accessed 21/05/2015)

www.qaradawi.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6183:43-&catid=225&Itemid=444 (last assessed 21/05/2015)