<![CDATA[Abstract: The concept of maslahah ‘ammah (public welfare) occupies a significant position in Islamic jurisprudence by connecting legal reasoning with the realisation of collective benefit and the prevention of harm. This study comparatively examines how Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) conceptualises public welfare in relation to the jurisprudential traditions of the four Sunni legal schools (al-madhahib al-arba‘ah). Using a qualitative approach and deductive-comparative analysis, it investigates convergences and divergences in their definitions, normative foundations, substantive criteria, and methods of legal reasoning. The analysis reveals substantial agreement on the primacy of genuine public benefit, the prevention of harm, the objectives of Islamic law (maqasid al-shari‘ah), and the authority of recognised sources of Islamic jurisprudence, including the Qur’an, Hadith, ijma‘, and qiyas. The principal distinction concerns the explicit articulation of procedural safeguards in NU’s formulation, particularly the requirement that pursuing one public interest should not undermine an equal or greater public interest and that collective welfare should be assessed through shura and representative deliberation. By contrast, the four legal schools articulate public-interest reasoning through distinct but sometimes overlapping juridical instruments, including qiyas, istihsan, maslahah mursalah, sadd al-dhara’i, and maslahah mula’imah. The study argues that NU’s formulation is best understood not as a departure from classical Islamic jurisprudence but as an institutional articulation of its enduring concern with public welfare, collective deliberation, and responsible legal judgment in contemporary Muslim society. Keywords: Maslahah ‘Ammah; Nahdlatul Ulama; Islamic Jurisprudence; Maqasid Al-Shari‘Ah; Sunni Legal Schools; Public Welfare]]>
Copyrights © 2023
