and one may sometimes put forward, concerning unrestricted considerations of benefit, statements contrary to the revealed texts. Many of them, meanwhile, have neglected benefits that the Sharia requires them to consider, on the grounds that the Sharia has made no provision for them. They have thus missed obligatory and recommended acts, or fallen into prohibited and disliked acts, although the Sharia may have addressed the matter without their knowing it.
The first person’s argument is that this is a benefit, and the Sharia does not neglect benefits; rather, the Quran, the Sunnah, and scholarly consensus establish that they must be taken into consideration. The second person’s argument is that the Sharia has provided no basis for this matter, either through an explicit text or through analogy.
Appealing to unrestricted considerations of benefit often leads to instituting as religion what Allah has not authorized. In some respects, this resembles juristic preference, rational judgments of goodness, reasoned opinion, and similar approaches. For istihsān (juristic preference) means seeking what is good or better, on the same linguistic pattern as istikhrāj (extraction). It means regarding something as good, just as finding something objectionable means regarding it as bad. Goodness is benefit; thus, juristic preference and reasoning on the basis of benefit are closely related. Rational judgments of goodness rest on the view that reason can discern what is good. Nevertheless, there are distinctions between these approaches.
The comprehensive principle is that the Sharia never neglects any benefit whatsoever. Rather, Allah Most High has perfected our religion for us and completed His favour upon us. There is nothing that brings us closer to Paradise without the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, having told us about it. He left us upon a clear path whose night is as bright as its day; none deviates from it after him except one who is doomed to perish. But as for what reason considers beneficial, even if