Is it permissible to attain a lawful benefit by means of a forbidden pretext, or a pretext that is not explicit in prohibition, such as resorting to euphemisms (allusions)?

The questioner : Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger, and upon his family and companions, and whoever follows his path and is guided by his guidance, and holds fast to his Sunnah and follows his footsteps until the Day of Judgment. As for what follows:
Indeed, the truest of speech is the speech of Allah the Exalted, and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and the worst of matters are their innovations, and every innovation is a religious innovation, and every religious innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire. It is our pleasure on this blessed day, by the will of Allah (Exalted and Majestic is He), to meet with the honorableThe Shaykh : Muhammad al-Albani (may Allah preserve him), and may He bless his life and we ask Him (Exalted and Majestic is He) to make him a means for serving Islam and the Muslims. We are young men from Sudan from the group of the Supporters of the Muhammadan Sunnah, and this group, as is well known, follows the methodology of the righteous predecessors (may Allah be pleased with them). We have some questions and inquiries regarding some important topics, which concern the Salafi group in Sudan specifically, and the Salafi call on the level of the entire Islamic world. Most of these issues concern what is known as the new developments in this age, and that the call to Allah (Exalted and Majestic is He) must develop and must penetrate all fields. Some disagreement has arisen in this matter in Sudan, and what happened has happened. We ask Allah to guide the steps and to forgive everyone. And we, in turn, have taken advantage of this opportunity and this occasion of our meeting with the honorableThe Shaykh : al-Albani (may Allah preserve him). These questions concern the topic of the means by which the call of the Lord (Mighty and Majestic) is conveyed. Our first question is as follows: Is it obligatory to attain some collective or individual benefits if there are pitfalls and prohibitions on the path to them?

The Shaykh : It is not permissible; because there is no such principle in Islam that says the end justifies the means. Rather, Islam has stated, in ways other than any other statement from its Book and the Sunnah of its Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), that what Allah has decreed for a person as provision, it is not permissible for the Muslim to attain it by the forbidden path. As came in the hadith of al-Hakim and others, from his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): This is the provision from Allah, which is not like the obligatory individual duties such as prayer and the like, but rather it is what the Muslim seeks to keep himself from needing to extend his hand to people. So if he was sufficient with lawful provision and did not strive for provision, he would not be negligent, because seeking provision is for what we mentioned, which is to keep himself from asking people. If attaining this provision is not permissible by a forbidden path by the indication of this well-known hadith, which is his saying (peace be upon him): then it is even more so, and even more so, and even more so, that it is not permissible for the Muslim, or rather the Muslims, or rather the Islamic group that wants to call people to act by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). It is fitting for these people not to deem some of the prohibitions permissible in order to achieve some of the goals, because that is a reversal of the like of what He (Blessed and Exalted is He) said: This is from one aspect. And from another aspect: We differ from all other groups and all other parties; because we are not a party, and we are not a bloc, but rather we are the Muslims, and we try to proceed in our Islam on the methodology of our righteous predecessors (may Allah be pleased with them all). And everyone knows necessarily that they never once had it in their minds, let alone that they achieved it in their lives, to deem some of the prohibitions permissible in the way of achieving some of the Islamic goals. How, when the previous verse says: ?! The logic of the one who says it is permissible to commit some violations to achieve some of the lawful goals! The logic of these people reverses the previous verse, and their logic means that whoever fears Allah in the present age applies the rulings of the Shari'ah in their entirety, so his call will be limited and narrow; and therefore it is necessary to transgress some matters that the Messenger did not permit so that we can expand the circle of the call. I say: There are signs that portend a serious evil, if the people of the true call do not address their matter before it becomes severe. That is because we hear, from time to time, that they commit many prohibitions in the way of what they call spreading the call. What call do they want to spread? Is it the call of the Book and the Sunnah? Or is it something else? They will say with us, yes, it is the call of the Book and the Sunnah. But they know, for example, that Islam forbids a woman to travel with a non-mahram. So how is it that some of them have permitted groups of women, who may be in the tens or hundreds, married and unmarried, to travel without mahrams? Why? What is the goal? They claimed it is in the way of spreading the call. And here I must pause for a moment.
In my opinion, one of the calamities and religious innovations of this era, which many people of virtue barely notice, let alone others, is that people have divided into two groups: callers to Allah and non-callers. Then the callers divided into males and females, so there are male callers and female callers. This means, in full, that Islamic callers are unable to fulfill the obligation of calling to the law of Allah the Mighty and Majestic, through the Book and the Sunnah. Consequently, they have opened the door for women to participate in the call. I wish their participation in the call had been accompanied by their maintaining their femininity and their specific etiquette, considering they are women. But these female callers have transgressed, claiming to have transcended the gender that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) named or titled as "crystal vessels." I wish they had adhered to the etiquette specific to them as women, who should, even regarding the five daily prayers, stay in their homes and pray in their houses. And yet, I am referring, of course, to a matter well known to all listeners from his (peace and blessings be upon him) statement regarding women: What is better for them? It is better for them to attend the five daily prayers in the mosques with the Muslim congregation. So how can it be better for them to go out and travel for the sake of the call? Furthermore, there may be free mixing between men and women in some homes or some houses or similar places. It is well known that free mixing is something Muslims have inherited from generation to generation as something prohibited by the wise Lawgiver under the principle known to jurists as blocking the means to harm. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited women from many matters that were commanded for men. For example, the authentic hadith in which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says: If this is the system of keeping women away from mixing with men in the most sacred places and the best of locations, as came in the authentic hadith when he (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about the best and worst of locations, he answered that the best of locations are the mosques and the worst are the markets. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prevented women and men from mixing with each other in the best of locations, which are the mosques. So how is it permissible for us to hear today, here and there, from some Islamic callers that they permit Muslim girls to enter universities where teaching is based on the free mixing of the two sexes? They claim that public benefit necessitates this. So what is their position, first in terms of faith? And then in terms of applying the previous verse: The verse. And what is their position regarding these barriers that the Messenger (may Allah pray upon and bless him) placed between women and men to prevent mixing in the best of locations? They will say, either by their state or by their speech, and the state is more eloquent than speech, "That is a nation that has passed." So their starting point is a translation of what is in their hearts: that the law we received from our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) through the Companions and their application of it is not a law to be accepted, but rather, as they say today in modern expression, it is a temporary law that has expired and its state has passed. As for today, it is, as some of the self-taught jurists say—and I do not say some of the jurists, but some of the self-taught jurists in the present era: "Rulings change with the change of time and place." Although this phrase is often used in some books of later jurists, we must strike out much of the broad meaning that those who proclaim this principle in public give it. We say: it is not correct to say this in its absolute, general, and comprehensive sense; because that means suspending the rulings of the Shari'ah and exposing the Islamic Shari'ah to becoming like the previous laws, which their followers, like the Jews and Christians, distorted. They change the rulings in every era or country according to the change of time and place. This absolute usage is never permissible for us to use and proclaim to the masses of Muslims. Rather, we say that some rulings that were derived through independent legal reasoning, deduction, and understanding by some scholars may be said to change with the change of time and place; because they understood this ruling according to their reality at that time and their conception. But when time and place change, that ruling may take another form. And I give only one example. It came in the books of the Shafi'i school that prayer is not valid in a swing that is not suspended from the ceiling and not supported from the ground. They claimed prayer is not valid because one is praying in no place. Now, there is a swing that is not suspended in the sky and not supported from the ground, which is the airplane, especially the one called the helicopter, which stands like this in the air. The meaning of that phrase is that prayer in this airplane is not valid. And now, it is impossible to imagine a jurist or self-taught jurist saying that prayer in this airplane is not valid. So that was a ruling that corresponded to their conception and imagination of a swing. But now there is a flying car, I mean what I am saying, there is a flying car, so it is not suspended from the ceiling and not supported from the ground. So just as prayer is valid in a car, prayer is also valid in a flying car. And so on. Therefore, if we start from the principle "the end justifies the means," and although they do not say it with their tongues, they implement it in their methodologies and programs, and this reality is the greatest witness to that. There are those who issue a ruling permitting a girl to enter to study medicine, for example, even though she is exposed to mixing with doctors, especially the young men among them, and she is exposed to her face, and even her breath, being with the breath of the male teacher in one place and in one room. Why? They said: this is necessary so that we obtain the collective obligation. We agree that it is a collective obligation for Muslims, men and women, each of the two sexes to learn what corresponds to their sex. For example, we say it is obligatory to learn the various types of engineering, but that is not permissible for women. But it is obligatory for women to learn medicine and medical practice, in order to avoid exposing our women to male doctors. But if the consequence of that is that we expose our women and girls to trial, then we say at that time, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So we do not allow our daughters, our women, or our sisters to enter a place where there is violation of the Shari'ah, even if it involves obtaining a collective obligation, because this collective obligation can be obtained over time through a lawful means, and that is something every person can easily understand. Muslims are not equal in their submission to the rulings of the Shari'ah, first. Second, the scholars followed in this era are not all equal in what they issue rulings on regarding prohibition or permissibility. Therefore, we adhere to caution and prudence and do not allow, as we said, women to mix with men in order to achieve a collective obligation. But there must be, as is observed, girls who may not pay attention to what is forbidden or lawful, so the rulings are the same for them. Or some of them care about knowing the forbidden and the lawful, but they do not fail to find someone who issues a ruling for them, as we are discussing, that it is permissible for her to enter the university and study medicine, and the like, in order to obtain the collective obligation. At that time, we say these are the scapegoats. They are the ones who advance to obtain this knowledge and expose themselves to the minor trial, or necessarily, the major trial, God forbid. After that, it is the turn of our women to learn from these women and not from men. The point is: it is not permissible in Islam to adopt this principle "the end justifies the means," and it completely contradicts what I mentioned earlier from the hadith and from the saying of Allah the Exalted: The problem of Muslims today, as individuals, groups, and parties, is that they do not care about the mindfulness of Allah. You find all people committing what Allah has forbidden for the most trivial reasons. For example, merchants deposit their money in banks. I do not even say wealthy merchants who do not trade; they deposit their money in banks. They say, "Brother, where do we take this money? We fear thieves for it. We even fear for ourselves from thieves." Is this the logic of one who believes in the previous verse? The verse. The answer is: No. And so, in the present era, especially Islamic callers, we are not in extreme and great need of organizing and permitting, in the way of this organization, some of the sanctities of Allah Blessed and Exalted is He. Rather, we are in need to plant in the hearts of people sincere faith that prevents them from committing what Allah the Mighty and Majestic has forbidden for the most trivial reasons. For this reason, we see that any grouping or party, above all, that is based on the principle of making some sanctities permissible to achieve some ends, this is according to the methodology of Abu Nuwas, who used to say: "And I cured with that which was the disease." So it is not permissible to treat the problems of Muslims by violating some of what I say, or all by violating some of the rulings of the Lord of the Worlds on the pretext that the end justifies the means. Rather, we say: what has appeared in the recent present of partying in the righteous call, which is the Salafi call, is sufficient in that it has divided the Salafi group in some countries into two factions. One faction belongs to a party that has its system, and part of this system is that whoever is with us is from us, and whoever is not with us is against us. It is not necessary that this be declared in writing and statement, but it is sufficient that it is a practical reality. So whoever had a status among them in righteousness and activity in the call since days past, has become today, because he did not belong to the party, not one of them. And so here comes the noble verse that we repeat in this context repeatedly: In summary: the means that become easy in the present era must be taken, on the condition that they do not violate the Shari'ah. For example, this recorder transfers lectures, lessons, sermons, and advice to people with ease and precision. So it is a means created by Allah the Mighty and Majestic in the present era, so it must be benefited from. Likewise, the radio, if there is a Muslim state, it can use this device in the way of spreading the call to the whole globe, and not only in the Islamic world. Finally, there is a somewhat new means, which is television. So we say: television, considering that it contains images and image-making, the original ruling is that it is not permissible, and it is not like the recorder and the radio. Rather, it has images and image-making and care in using devices to film people. We say: the original ruling in television is that it is not permissible, except in what dire necessity requires. The scholars agree on the principle "dire necessities permit the prohibited." But we do not see the expansion in that as is the reality today among those who do not care about what is called forbidden or lawful, but only to the extent that the public benefit which the Lawgiver permits is achieved, and within the limits of the text permitting that. We know, for example—and I do not want to lengthen the discussion of this issue—that image-making is forbidden in all its forms and types. But we also know that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted the Lady Aisha to play with her dolls made of rags. She used them, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would send her the daughters of her neighbors to amuse herself with them. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) entered one time while she was playing, and there was a horse with two wings. So he (may Allah pray upon and bless him) said to her: She said: "Has it not reached you that the horses of Solomon (peace be upon him) had wings?" The point is: from this hadith we can take and implement the permissibility of using images, and from that, television, within the limits of need that does not result in harm, whether in creed or in morals or similar violations. As for this expansion, it is not permissible to use it because the original ruling is forbidden. This is how, in my opinion and belief, our position should be: utilizing every means that has occurred, as long as we do not violate the Shari'ah of Islam, and we set aside that disbelieving principle by which the disbelievers made blood and honor permissible, which is their saying: "the end justifies the means." And this is not from Islam. Rather, Islam says: Is there anything left of...