The effective cause (illa) in legal reasoning

العِلَّة

In the lexicon, illa means an illness, and also a cause; as a term of the jurists of legal theory it is an apparent and regular attribute that the Lawgiver attached to a ruling and set as a sign of it. It is distinct from the wisdom (hikma) of a ruling, which is the purpose it serves ¹. An illa differs from a sabab in that the ruling follows the illa without the illa itself having an effect in the ruling, and from a condition, whose suitability lies in something else, and from a preventer ². The illa is a pillar of analogical reasoning, and analogy fails if the reason cannot find the illa of the original ruling ². Its conditions are that it be an apparent, regular and extendable attribute that is not one of those the Lawgiver disregarded; where the real cause is hidden, the Lawgiver sets an apparent sign to stand for it ² ³ ⁴. It is established by explicit text, by an indication or allusion, by consensus, and by deduction, including the purification of the ground of ruling, and the method of examining and dividing attributes ³ ⁴ ⁵.

Summary

In the lexicon, illa means an illness, and also a cause. In legal theory it is an apparent and regular attribute that the Lawgiver attached to a ruling and set as its sign ¹.

Distinctions

The illa is not the wisdom (hikma) of a ruling, which is the purpose the ruling serves. It differs from a sabab (cause without its own effect), from a condition, and from a preventer ¹ ².

Conditions

The illa must be an apparent, regular and extendable attribute, not confined to the original case, and not one that the Lawgiver disregarded ² ³.

How it is established

It is established by explicit text such as a word of causation, by allusion and indication, by consensus, and by deduction, including the purification of the ground of ruling and the examination and division of attributes ³ ⁵.

Where to look further

The full conditions and methods of deduction are treated in the legal-theory appendix ⁵.

Sources

al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, Noor-Book copy (file named v3) , p.11793

al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, Noor-Book copy (file named v3) , p.11794

al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, Noor-Book copy (file named v3) , p.11795

al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, Noor-Book copy (file named v3) , p.11796

al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, Noor-Book copy (file named v3) , p.11797

Biting and the liability for injury it causes (add)

In the lexicon, add is gripping a thing with the teeth and holding it. If a person bites another without right and a wound results, the biter must pay the damages for the wound, assessed as a just award by experts. If one man bites another's hand and the bitten man pulls it free so that the biter's front teeth fall out, most jurists hold that there is no liability, relying on a prophetic judgement in such a case; the Shafi'is limit this to a bitten man who chose the easiest means of release, and the preferred Maliki view requires compensation.