Dr. Nasim Rehmatullah - Naib Amir USA & Chairman Markazi Al Islam Team
Published: November 9, 2025
In Islamic legal theory, understanding the difference between illat and hikmat is essential for properly applying divine commandments.
Illat is the effective cause or defining characteristic that triggers a legal ruling. It is the specific, identifiable feature that makes a law applicable to a situation. The illat must be: 1) Clearly determinable without ambiguity 2) Present or absent in an objective, verifiable manner 3) Consistent across all applications of the law
Hikmat is the underlying wisdom, philosophy, or intended benefit behind a divine command. It represents the purpose or rationale that Allah considered when establishing the law, though it may not always be immediately apparent or present in every instance.
Actions that are haram result in harm, and are therefore considered a sin if carried out by a Muslim. Harm is individual physical or mental injury or spiritual decadence or societal decadence.
The application of Islamic law depends on the presence of the illat, not the hikmat. Even when the hikmat cannot be observed or seems absent in a particular case, the law remains fully applicable if the illat exists.
Consider traffic regulations: The red light is the illat: when it appears, vehicles must stop. The hikmat is preventing accidents. Even on an empty road with no traffic and zero accident risk, the law requires stopping at a red light because the illat (the red light itself) is present, regardless of whether the hikmat (accident prevention) is relevant in that moment.
The Quran prohibits liquor with intoxication as its illat. The hikmat is explained in Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:92): preventing enmity, hatred, and heedlessness of Allah.
One cannot argue: "I drink but never fought with anyone, so the prohibition shouldn't apply to me." The prohibition remains because the illat (intoxication) exists, even if the hikmat (preventing enmity) hasn't manifested in that individual's experience.
In prohibiting riba, the Quran mentions zulm (injustice/oppression) as hikmat; explaining why this prohibition serves human welfare. However, zulm is not the illat. The illat is the contractual stipulation of excess over the principal in a loan transaction.
This distinction matters because zulm is inherently subjective and contested. What one economic system deems exploitation, another considers legitimate profit. Capitalist and communist frameworks fundamentally disagree on what constitutes injustice in economic relations. Such an ambiguous, relative term cannot function as illat because its presence or absence would be perpetually disputed, undermining the law's clarity and applicability.
The illat of riba prohibition is the predetermined surplus charged on a loan, an objective, identifiable feature that exists regardless of whether observers perceive injustice in a particular transaction.
The system of Wasiyyat (the institution of making a will and dedicating a portion of one's wealth) as implemented in the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community provides another illuminating example of this distinction.
The illat of Wasiyyat is the making of a financial contribution, a concrete, measurable action that objectively determines whether one has entered into this covenant. This is the defining characteristic that makes the institution applicable. An added feature is that they would be buried in a special graveyard with other such righteous people after their demise.
The hikmat, however, operates at a profoundly spiritual level: Wasiyyat serves as the catalyst that elevates and strengthens our faith. (9:111) This understanding recognizes that faith itself is the true currency of divine reserves. The more we place our trust in Allah, the more He bestows upon us of His bounties. When this realization dawns upon us, it becomes clear that the quality of our faith quantifies the divine blessings we receive.
At an even broader level, Wasiyyat sustains quality Khilafat. Khilafat-e-Ahmadiyya stands as the most tangible manifestation of God's love and mercy for mankind today. The financial commitment (illat) thus connects to a vast spiritual architecture (hikmat) that encompasses personal transformation, institutional strength, and divine guidance for humanity.
One cannot claim exemption from the financial commitment by arguing they already possess strong faith or that Khilafat would continue regardless. The illat must be fulfilled. Yet simultaneously, the profound hikmat reveals why this institution carries such weight, it interweaves personal spiritual growth with the preservation of divine guidance through Khilafat.
This framework acknowledges that human reason, while valuable, has limitations. Reason can be conflated with desire, and unhealthy inclinations can masquerade as rational arguments. Divine revelation provides guidance precisely in those areas where human reasoning proves insufficient or becomes compromised.
As the Quran states (3:8), those firmly grounded in knowledge say, "We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord"; recognizing that divine wisdom encompasses realities beyond ordinary human comprehension. The role of reason is to appreciate divine wisdom, not to judge or override explicit divine injunctions.
When Allah declares something haram, that prohibition stands on the authority of divine knowledge, which encompasses factors inaccessible to limited human perception. The presence of the illat, not our recognition of the hikmat, determines the law's application.
Some may argue deliberate omission of a rigid definition of riba (by the Holy Qur'an) as a mercy for mankind. This argument appears to presume that the Holy Qur'an normally gives definitions of the acts prohibited by it, but in the case of riba the Holy Qur'an deliberately omitted to give a rigid definition. The fact, however, is that the Holy Qur'an has hardly given a legal definition to any one of its prohibitions. No definition is given for khamr (liquor), nor for qimar (gambling) nor for zina (adultery or fornication) nor for theft, nor for robbery, nor for kufr. Similarly the Holy Qur'an did not define its imperatives like Salat, Sawm (fasting), Zakah, Hajj or Jihad. Should we, then, say that none of these concepts has a specific meaning and all these injunctions are therefore subject to ever-changing whims based on "space-time situations"? The Holy Qur'an, in fact, did not give legal definitions to these concepts because their meanings were too obvious to need an express definition. Some ancillary details of these concepts might have not been so clear and might have given rise to differences of opinion, but it does not mean that the basic concept of all these injunctions has been floated in void or vacuum, having no specific sense at all.
The correct principle, therefore, is that once a particular transaction is held by Allah to be haram, there is no room for disputing it on the basis of pure rational argumentation because Allah's knowledge and wisdom encompasses all those points which are not accessible to ordinary reason. If the human reason was fully competent to reach the correct decision unanimously in each and every issue, no divine revelation would be called for. There is a wide area of human conduct in which the Creator did not give a specific command. It is this area where human reason can well play its role under the divine leadership of Khilafat, but it should not be burdened to play the role of a rival to the express divine injunctions.
