|
Such
benefits may be direct, by way of harvesting or extracting the resource,
or they may be indirect, by way of access to its products. Each
individual is entitled to benefit from a common resource to the
extent of his need, so long as he does not violate, infringe, or
delay the equal rights of other members. I.n return for profiting
from the resource, he is obliged to maintain its original value;
If he causes its destruction, impairment, or degradation, he is
held liable to the extent of repairing the damage, because he has
violated the rights of every member of society.
(d)
To the extent that a common resource is not sufficiently abundant
for everyone to use it freely without impinging on others' rights,
the direct rights of usufruct are allocated according to considerations
which include the following:
i) The degree ofneed; needs are to
be distinguished from wants and precisely assessed both quantitatively
and qualitatively;
ii) The impact on the resource.
iii) Investment in the resource by way
of work and capital; and
iv) Priority of claim in time on the use
of the resource.
Finally,
rights of usufruct are linked to accountability for the proper use
and maintenance or conservation of the resource.
This
accords with the fundamental legal principle established by the
Prophet Mu- hammad, upon him be blessings and peace, "The benefit
of a thing is in return for the liability attaching to it,"7
and its converse, "Liability for a thing is an obligation accompanying
the benefit thereof."
(e)
Islamic law stipulates the interference of the ruling authorities
to secure the common welfare and to eliminate injuries to society.
This is their original and primary duty. The limits of such interference
are defined in Islamic public policy by the ultimate purposes oflslamic
legislation as well as by the actual, lawful tasks and responsibilities
assigned to them. The basic juristic rule in this connection is
"The management of subjects' affairs by the ruler shall be
according to their welfare." There is no doubt that a leader's
actions become illegitimate and unlawful if they are based on whim
or autocracy with no consideration for the common good. The legitimate
interference of the governing authorities is aimed at favoring the
actual and essential common interests, and at the protection of
those interests within the framework of balancing conflicting interests.
(f)
In Islam all acts are evaluated in terms of their consequences as
social goods and benefits (masalih) and social detriments and evils
(mafasid). Muslim planners,
designers, and administrators must always aim at the universal common
good of all created beings. This means that they must strive to
harmonize and fulfil all
interests. However, when it is impossible to satisfy all immediate
interests, the universal common good requires evaluation and prioritization
by weighing the welfare of the greatest number, the importance and
urgency of the various interests involved, the certaintyor probabilityof
benefit or injury, and the ability of those
affected to secure their interests without assistance.
The
basic principle has been articulated thus:
"What is requried is to safequared all benefits and bring them
to perfection, and to eliminate all detriments and minimize them.
And if they prove irreconcilable, it is to safeguard the greater
good by the exclusion of the lesser, and to remove the greater harm
by acceptance of the lesser. This is the mandate of the Law."
8
The
interests of the Islamic nation and the society as a whole take
priority over the intersts of individuals and various groups when
they cannot be reconciled. Among the Juristic principles
of Islamic law are: "Priority is given to preserving the universal
interest over particular interests," and "The general
welfare takes priority over individual welfare." From this
basis is derived the principle that : "A private injury is
accepted to avert a general injury to the public." Similarly,
sacrificing private interest for the purpose of achieving and protecting
the common interest of the public is related to the juristic principles
that "The lesser of two evils shall be chosen," "Severe
damage shall be removed by means of , lighter damage," and
"If one of two opposing detriments is unavoidable, thevmore
injurious is averted by the commission of the less injurious."
Social
goods or interests are to be assessed according to their importance
and urgency. There are necessities (daruriyat) which are absolutely
indispensable
to preserve religion, life, posterity, reason, and property; then
needs (hajiyat) which if unfulfiled will lead to real hardship and
distress; and finally supplementary benefits (tahsiniyat) which
involve the refinement and perfection of ethics and the enhancement
of life. Preference and priority are given to fundamental necessities
if these conflict with less acute needs or supplementary benefits.
In the same way, preference and priority are given to the lesser
needs if these conflict with supplementary benefits.
Interests
differ in degree of actuality and certainty. There are actual or
definitely known interests, and projected or probable interests.
Priority is to be given
to actual or known interests in case of conflict with projected
or probable interests ofsimilar importance.
Consideration is to be given to the abilities ofvarious groups to
secure their welfare without the government's intervention. The
governing authorities are obliged to protect and care for the disadvantaged
and less influential groups in accordance with the juristic principles
that "The averting of harm from the poor takes priority over
the averting of harm from the wealthy, " and "The welfare
of the poor takes priority over the welfare of the wealthy."9
Some
actions may help to achieve certain interests, but unavoidably bring
about damage and destruction of similar or even greater magnitude.
The juristic principle in this connection is, "The averting
of harm takes precedence over the acquisition of benefits,"
for indeed the first step towards the achievement and realization
of the common good is to eliminate damage and destruction.
|