Intellect as an independent source for deducing Sharia rulings may be of two types:
1)Independent intellectual proofs It is when intellect deduces a Sharia ruling without appealing to any Sharia
premise. In
logic, any
Syllogism is made of two premises (minor and major premises) and a conclusion. If both premises are intellectual then it is an independent intellectual proof. For example: - Justice is rationally good. - Whatever is good rationally is obligatory according to Sharia • Therefore, Justice is obligatory according to Sharia Another example: - Injustice is rationally evil. - Whatever is evil rationally is
prohibited according to Sharia. • Therefore, Injustice is prohibited according to Sharia. Studying the views of Usūlīs here shows that the only Independent intellectual ruling is the issue of essential intellectual good and evil. In these arguments, the minor premise deals with the goodness or evil being of things and the major premise is the co-implication between the ruling of Sharia and that of intellect. Thus, there are two points to be explained: A. what is counted as perfection and positive characteristic for man can be called good and contrary to it what is regarded imperfection is considered evil. For example, knowledge, bravery, kindness is good and ignorance, forgery, betrayal is evil. All scholars agree that intellect can specify this kind of good and evil. B. what causes pleasure or is to the interest of man is considered by intellect to be good and what is unpleasing or is disadvantageous is taken to be evil. For example, exercising is good and drinking is evil. The scholars agree that intellect can specify this kind of good and evil as well. C. those deeds that are befitting and admired by the intellect are considered to be good and their doers deserve rewards for doing them, like
justice. On the contrary, the disagreeable, unappealing, inappropriate conducts are considered evil that their doers are to be blamed and punished such as injustice. Good and evil by this meaning are the subjects of debate here. B. Some of the actions are demanding and require goodness or evil in normal conditions but they can lose this character under a specific condition, like truthfulness or lying. It means that truthfulness is good by itself but on some occasions, it might be evil, like a condition that telling truth may lead to the death of someone. This type of act is called accidental good and evil. C. Some actions are neutral in normal conditions and under specific conditions may be good or bad, like walking. Walking is not good or bad by itself. However, if one walks to go and help people, it turns good and if it is for hurting others, it becomes evil. As it is seen, the first meaning of good and evil is the matter of discussion here and the debate revolves around answering two questions: -regardless of Sharia statements, are there essential good and evil in man's conduct? -assuming the existence of essential good and evil in man's conduct, is the intellect capable to discover them? Shia,
Muʿtazila, and some
Ashʿarī scholars believe in the essential good and evil in man's conduct, regardless of the Shari rulings. On the other hand, the majority of Ashʿarīs believe that the deeds of man have no value other than what Sharia ascribes to them. Thus, what Sharia considers to be good is good and what it regards as evil is evil. The first group appeals to man's
conscience-based-based cognition from any
religion or thought to find justice good and injustice evil. So that it is beyond the teachings of religions. Besides, without essential good and evil, even one cannot prove the truthfulness of
prophets and they cannot be trusted, because if we deny essential good and evil, then it is not evil to lie, and also injustice is not evil. Therefore, the person who claims to be a prophet can lie and
Allah can give miracles to liars and this injustice and misguidance are not evil. Then, how can we trust prophets and follow them? Concerning the second question, Shia Usūlīs believe that man can discern essential good and evil through the intellect without referring to the statement of Sharia.
c)Co-implication between the ruling of intellect and Sharia We first need to clarify the meaning of co-implication and then suggest proof for it. 1. To understand the meaning of this co-implication look at the example one more time: - Justice is rationally good. - Whatever is good rationally is obligatory according to Sharia Therefore:Justice is obligatory according to Sharia In the major premise, it has been claimed that what intellect deduces is implied by Sharia so there is an implication or co-implication between the ruling of intellect and Sharia. Thus, deduction of the Shari ruling out of intellect depends on accepting this implication. 2. The proof for the co-implication is rational as well. When intellect finds certain expediency and goodness in doing an action or when it is certain on evil being of another action and had a certain ruling for necessity of performing or abandoning that action, then the intellect will have another ruling beside it; that is to say: any rational and wise law-giver has to find this action obligatory or prohibited as well.
2)Dependent intellectual proofs It is when intellect
deduces a Sharia ruling by appealing to some Sharia premises. So that some of the
premises are Sharia and some of them are intellectual. For instance: -Allah has commanded to perform
Salāt in the
Quran (Sharia) - The command of Allah denotes obligation (intellectual rule) Therefore: Salāt is obligatory. Another example: - Salāt is obligatory (Shari) - Whatever is obligatory then its preliminaries (Muqaddamāt) are obligatory too. (Intellectual) Therefore: The preliminaries of Salāt are obligatory according to Sharia Concerning dependent intellectual proofs, Usūlīs discuss the following issues separately: • The problem of preliminary of the mandatory act • Implication of invalidity by prohibition (Iqtidhā' Al-Nahy li-lfisād) • The problem of the opposite (Dhid) • Conjunction of command and prohibition • Replacement/ Sufficiency (Ijzā) == See also ==