Masalih Also Justify Breaking Alliances

Just as masalih (public interests) may justify specific alliances, masalih also justify breaking or loosening those alliances (without committing treachery and by explicitly informing the other side about it).

Let us assume for the sake of argument that influential Muslim figures were initially ‘technically correct’ when deciding to form specific alliances because, at the time they did so, there was no indication of what kind and extent of mafasid (public harms) were bound to occur. Whether this is due to an irresponsible lack of foresight or because changes happened at a pace unforeseeable to everyone is not the crux of the point here. The point is that today, it is clear to everybody that the mafasid being witnessed in our times was not initially factored into the equation at the point of initial decision-making.

Let us also say that the masalih (including prevention of potential mafasid) during the point of initial decision making were discovered over time to have been greatly exaggerated (e.g., Muslims will be locked up in far-right controlled concentration camps in the future if they do not appease the far left), or not as significant to override the detrimental mafasid. So what is the right thing to do now?

Should those influential Muslim figures consistently stick to the principle they have been advocating all along and break or loosen those alliances out of maslaha for the spiritual welfare of the Muslim community? Should they recognize that “fatwas change with time and place” and thus concede that their alliances are no longer as effective (assuming they ever were, to begin with) and should thus reevaluate what to do?

Or should they cherry-pick when they abide by these principles of “seeking masalih” and “fatwa adaptability over time” and continue concocting unconvincing worn-out excuses to justify their earlier decisions?

This is something to think about, as many Muslims tend to conflate between the masalih of individuals, organizations, certain regional communities, and the overall Ummah at large.

These highly contentious actions should be continuously monitored to see whether any promised masalih are being delivered measurably.

Many corporate folks know objectives should be SMART (Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Realistic/Relevant, and Time-bound). A manager will not accept some vague promises about what an employee intends to deliver; otherwise, how would he expect his performance to be evaluated to determine whether he is a good performer or one who needs to improve? Whether he is worthy of that annual bonus or not?

When it comes to our deen and decisions that impact the Ummah and where we have an influential say as a community, why do our standards abruptly drop? Why is that critical “corporate professional” thinking absent suddenly?

Indeed, the whole discipline of balancing between masalih and mafasid requires a deep analysis and is regulated by several maxims that are not easy to abide by, let alone delineate. So I am not suggesting that any of us is qualified to undergo this task independently. However, when dealing with controversial issues where mafasid are rampant and literally smacking us directly in the face, there is a point where we need to actually put our critical hats on and start carefully assessing the arguments on both sides of these contentious debates, given the considerable impact such actions have on our lives, and those of our friends and families.