Freedom in the west is a goal in and of itself that acts as a moral compass when judging tools and products. Islam values freedom, but it is not a end goal, nor is it a moral precept to base your ethics on.

This is the kind of hubris that started in the Ta’weel era (a good equivalent English word escapes me. In Arabic: “عصر التأويل”) after the rashidun period and the Tanzeel era, and accumulated in the full abandonment/replacement era (“عصر التبديل”).

The whole point of true monotheism is to be only subject to Allah and no one else. No kings. No clergy (itself an anti-islamic concept). No “intellectuals”…etc. In other words, “freedom” is at the core of Islamic creed, it’s not even something to be discussed at the jurisprudence level.

The whole point of finality of religion including sharia, is that no one can add/append to it. This relates to additional restrictions even more than additional allowances (read about the limits of restricting what’s allowed if you wish “تقييد المباح”, although that’s a luxury subject nowadays since there are no legitimate states or heads of states around).

The rest of your comment is also full of the same hubris and incoherence common in the two downfall eras, especially the abandonment/replacement one (still ongoing). The maqsidi approach immediately gives that away (the modern abandonment/replacement take, which al-Shatibi is not responsible for).