Mentioning a benefit from Ibn al-Qayyim regarding the types of prohibitions.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned a beautiful rule here, and I do not know what your opinion is on it. He said that prohibitions are of two types: forbidden in itself, and forbidden to block the means. Then he cited the following rule: "What is forbidden in itself is never made permissible, and what is forbidden to block the means is made permissible when the stronger public benefit is realized." He mentioned many examples in the Shari'ah. Yes.
The Shaykh : I do not think there is a necessity or benefit in making this distinction, because what is forbidden in itself does not become permissible at times.
The questioner : Take me gently.
The Shaykh : More than that.
The questioner : What is forbidden in itself is of two types: a type that is made permissible in dire necessity, and a type that is never made permissible. It is never made permissible. What is forbidden in itself is of two types: a type that is made permissible in dire necessity, and a type that is never made permissible. As for what is forbidden to block the means, it is made permissible for the stronger public benefit, not for dire necessity. He says.
The Shaykh : What is its evidence?
The questioner : He says the permissibility of selling 'araya, even though that sale is forbidden. He mentioned four or five examples of this sale, focusing on it in such a context. Yes.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible to expand the matter if there are examples in the Sunnah. I do not think we should take these few examples as a rule to be applied, thereby making permissible what was forbidden for another reason due to pressing need rather than dire necessity. I read this statement by Ibn al-Qayyim a long time ago, but this opens the door to deeming prohibitions permissible for the slightest claimed need. So I do not think anything should be done except to keep the rule in its generality, which is not distinguishing between what is forbidden in itself and what is forbidden for another reason. If a text comes that makes permissible what was forbidden for another reason, we stop at that.
The questioner : But what Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) missed is that he did not mention how we know that something is forbidden in itself or forbidden to block the means.
The Shaykh : He is there opening the door.
The questioner : Do you remember anything of this? It is not required of you, just as it is not required of us.
The Shaykh : No, if we mentioned it, it would be better, but I do not remember it now.
The questioner : Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The Shaykh : I do not think there is a necessity or benefit in making this distinction, because what is forbidden in itself does not become permissible at times.
The questioner : Take me gently.
The Shaykh : More than that.
The questioner : What is forbidden in itself is of two types: a type that is made permissible in dire necessity, and a type that is never made permissible. It is never made permissible. What is forbidden in itself is of two types: a type that is made permissible in dire necessity, and a type that is never made permissible. As for what is forbidden to block the means, it is made permissible for the stronger public benefit, not for dire necessity. He says.
The Shaykh : What is its evidence?
The questioner : He says the permissibility of selling 'araya, even though that sale is forbidden. He mentioned four or five examples of this sale, focusing on it in such a context. Yes.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible to expand the matter if there are examples in the Sunnah. I do not think we should take these few examples as a rule to be applied, thereby making permissible what was forbidden for another reason due to pressing need rather than dire necessity. I read this statement by Ibn al-Qayyim a long time ago, but this opens the door to deeming prohibitions permissible for the slightest claimed need. So I do not think anything should be done except to keep the rule in its generality, which is not distinguishing between what is forbidden in itself and what is forbidden for another reason. If a text comes that makes permissible what was forbidden for another reason, we stop at that.
The questioner : But what Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) missed is that he did not mention how we know that something is forbidden in itself or forbidden to block the means.
The Shaykh : He is there opening the door.
The questioner : Do you remember anything of this? It is not required of you, just as it is not required of us.
The Shaykh : No, if we mentioned it, it would be better, but I do not remember it now.
The questioner : Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.