Ahlus Sunnah
Among Ahlus Sunnah, no absolute distinction exists between the terms ʿillah and sabab. Their meanings vary according to field. A jurist follows the terminology of the fuqaha, while a scholar of usool adopts the usage of the usuliyyun. The two concepts often overlap, and the context determines their intended meaning.
Ibn Taymiyyah on the two meanings of ʿillah
First, the complete necessitating ʿillah is the full set that guarantees the ruling. When it exists, the ruling exists and never fails. This set includes the parts of the ʿillah, the conditions, and the absence of preventers.
If someone claims such a complete ʿillah, any case where the ruling appears without it shows that claim is false. Examples, shortening prayer is tied to travel, not to any excuse in general. Zakah is not due by ownership of the nisab alone until one lunar year passes. (Majmuʿ al Fatawa 20/167 to 168, 21/356 to 357)
Second, an implicative ʿillah is a meaning that calls for the ruling but does not by itself necessitate it. It may depend on conditions and the absence of preventers. Ibn Taymiyyah sometimes expresses this second sense with the word sabab. (Majmuʿ al Fatawa 21/356 to 357; Jaamiʿ al Masaail 6/207)
Relation between ʿillah and sabab in Ibn Taymiyyah’s wording
He sometimes says complete sabab and means the complete ʿillah. In general, when used without restriction, ʿillah may cover both the complete necessitating cause and the implicative cause.
When used without restriction, sabab usually refers to what brings the ruling when conditions are present and preventers are absent. If he says complete sabab, he means the complete ʿillah. (Majmuʿ al Fatawa 21/358; 21/356 to 357)
Positions of the usuliyyun
Most usuliyyun treat ʿillah and sabab as the same in practice. What is called sabab in one place is called ʿillah in qiyas.
Some, following grammarians and linguists, distinguish between them. They say the sabab leads to the thing while separation between them is possible and it does not itself effect the result, like a rope for drawing water. The ʿillah is that from which the effect proceeds directly, like wine for intoxication. (Nashr al Bunud 1/43; Jamʿ al Jawamiʿ 2/11)
Kalami usage reported by al Zarkashi
Al Zarkashi records two views.
- One: The sabab is what something occurs with its presence, not by it, while the ʿillah is that by which the thing occurs.
- Two: The effect follows the ʿillah without intermediary or condition, while the sabab yields the ruling through one or more intermediaries, so the ruling waits until conditions exist and preventers are absent. (al Bahr al Muhit 7/147)
Fuqaha practice in liability
The fuqaha often overlap the two words, but in liability they draw a line. Direct causation, mubaashirah, is treated as an ʿillah that carries liability. Indirect causation, sabb, is treated as a sabab and liability does not attach to it in the same way.
Philosophers’ usage
Philosophers do not distinguish. What they call ʿillah they also call sabab, and their definitions show interchange. (al Muʿjam al Falsafi 1/648)
Nobody made a clear distinction between the sabab (cause) and the illa (effective cause) from Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah. Our approach coincides with that of the fuqaha (jurists) and the usuliyyun (scholars of usul). Whoever among them is a jurist follows the jurists’ usage, and whoever is an usuli follows the usuliyyun.
However, Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) did speak on this issue. When he mentions sabab (cause) and illa (effective cause), he expresses a kind of difference between them in usage.
He said: “The word illa (effective cause) refers to the complete factor that necessarily entails the ruling, so that when it is present, the ruling is present and never absent. Thus, the word illa (effective cause) on this definition includes the completion of the illa (effective cause) and its conditions and the absence of any preventer.”
He means by “completion of the illa (effective cause)” what removes the deficiency of the incomplete illa (effective cause). The incomplete illa (effective cause) is a part or condition of the complete illa (effective cause). Thus, the completion of the illa (effective cause) refers to what completes the deficiency in it so that it becomes whole. For example, the cause for zakah being due on wealth is full ownership of the nisab, which is an incomplete illa (effective cause). Its completion is the passage of a lunar year over it, making it a complete illa (effective cause).
The origin of this matter is that the term illa (effective cause) may mean the necessitating illa, which is the complete one from which the ruling cannot be absent. This type cannot be specified, and if it is contradicted, it becomes invalid. Included within it are what is called a part of the illa, the condition of the ruling, and the absence of a preventer, so everything upon which the ruling depends is included within it.
The term may also mean what is an implicative cause that calls for the ruling, meaning that it has within it a meaning that calls for and seeks the ruling, even if it does not necessitate it. This latter type may depend on the existence of conditions and the absence of preventers.
Majmu‘ al-Fatawa By Ibn Taymiyyah (20/167-168)
The illa (effective cause) is divided into a complete necessitating cause, by which the effect certainly exists, and into an implicative deficient cause that depends on the presence of conditions and the absence of preventers. The word illa is used to refer to both of these meanings in usul al-din (principles of religion), usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), kalam (theological discourse), philosophy, and other fields.
Jaami’ Al-Masaail By Ibn Taymiyyah (6/207)
Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The uncovering of the nature of this disagreement shows that the word illa (effective cause) refers to the complete cause, which is the total combination of factors that necessarily entails the ruling, so that when it exists, the ruling exists and never separates from it. Included in the meaning of illa according to this terminology are the completion of the illa, its conditions, and the absence of a preventer, either because the absence of a preventer implies an affirmative attribute according to one view, or because nonexistence itself may serve as a completion to the cause according to another view.
Whenever such an illa becomes specified and is contradicted, so that the ruling is found without it, that indicates its invalidity. For example, if someone were to make the cause for shortening the prayer a general excuse, it would be said to him: this is false, for the sick and those with other excuses do not shorten their prayers.
Shortening is specific to the traveller alone, so the shortening of prayer revolves around travel, being present when it is and absent when it is not. The rotation of the ruling with the description in existence and absence proves that the ruling is connected to that description. Likewise, if one were to make the cause for the obligation of zakah mere ownership of the nisab, it would be said to him: this is contradicted by ownership that occurs before the passage of a year.
Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The term illa may also refer to that which calls for the ruling even if it depends on the existence of conditions and the absence of preventers. This may also be expressed with the word sabab (means or cause), as when it is said that the causes that establish inheritance are three: kinship, marriage, and allegiance.
According to Abu Hanifah and Ahmad in one narration, inheritance may also be established by a contract of allegiance and other means. Here, the illa may be prevented from producing its ruling by a preventer, such as slavery, killing, or difference of religion. So when the word illa is used in this sense, it may be qualified or specified due to the absence of a condition or the existence of a preventer.”
Majmu‘ al-Fatawa By Ibn Taymiyyah (21/356-357)
From this, we understand that Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) considered the word illa (effective cause) broader than sabab (cause). The illa (effective cause) can mean two things:
- The complete illa (effective cause), which includes everything that necessarily brings about the ruling. This is not called sabab (cause).
- What necessitates the ruling while dependent on the presence of conditions and absence of preventers. This may be called sabab (cause).
In some of his statements that Shaykh al-Islam refers to the “complete sabab” and defines it as the “complete illa (effective cause)” (Majmu‘ al-Fatawa 21/358).
So, it seems that illa (effective cause) in its absolute sense refers to both meanings, while sabab (cause), when used absolutely, refers only to what brings about the ruling with the presence of conditions and absence of preventers, unless restricted as “complete sabab (cause)”.
Second, the usuliyyun (scholars of principles): They differ on distinguishing between illa (effective cause) and sabab (cause). Some see no difference between them at all, and this is the view of the majority. Others differentiate between them, and they also differ on what the distinction is. The main two distinctions mentioned are:
- The sabab (cause) is that upon which a thing occurs, while the illa (effective cause) is that by which it occurs. (Nashr al-Sa‘d Sharh Marqi al-Su‘ud by Abdullah ibn Ibrahim al-Siliti 1/43; al-Bahr al-Muhit by al-Zarkashi 7/147; Jam‘ al-Jawami‘ by al-Subki 2/11).
This difference aligns with the position of the Ash‘ariyyah, who consider causes to have no real effect on their results.
- The sabab (cause) brings about the ruling through an intermediary or intermediaries, and for this reason the ruling is delayed until the conditions exist and preventers are absent. The illa (effective cause), however, brings about the ruling without an intermediary or condition, and the ruling does not delay from it. (al-Bahr al-Muhit by al-Zarkashi)
It appears that this distinction means they reserve the word sabab (cause) for what depends on the presence of conditions and absence of preventers, and the word illa (effective cause) for what brings about the ruling directly without such conditions. This actually returns to what Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned earlier.
The fuqaha (jurists): They often overlap between illa (effective cause) and sabab (cause). They use sabab (cause) to mean illa (effective cause) in some places but not in others. One area where they distinguish is in discussing sabb (causing harm indirectly) and mubāshirah (causing harm directly). The direct cause is considered an illa (effective cause), not a sabab (cause), and liability is attached to the illa (effective cause), not to the sabab (cause). This ruling depends on distinguishing between the two terms, as was explained earlier when defining sabab (cause) according to the jurists.
The falasifah (philosophers): These do not distinguish between illa (effective cause) and sabab (cause).
What they call an illa (effective cause) they also call a sabab (cause) without distinction. This is clear from their definitions of both terms. (al-Mu‘jam al-Falsafi by Jamil Saliba 1/648).
