Benefits of the Hadith: (… Anas reported: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) granted a dispensation to al-Zubayr and 'Abd al-Rahman to wear silk due to an itching condition they had)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Yes, this contains evidence for the permissibility of wearing silk for an itching condition, because silk, due to its softness and fineness, cools the inflammation in the body, thereby alleviating the itch. If someone were to ask: Is it not known that it is not permissible to seek healing with what is forbidden, or to treat oneself with what is forbidden? So why is it permissible here to use silk, which is forbidden, in order to remove the itch?
The questioner : Because the prohibition of silk involves several issues.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : … the objectives, if it is … little for dire necessity …
The Shaykh : for a pressing need. Yes.
The questioner : … the objectives.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : … but it may benefit another person, or it may not.
The Shaykh : Yes, it would be like carrion for one in dire necessity.
The questioner : … this is an explicit text … .
The Shaykh : What … yes?
The questioner : Shaykh, we say … the prohibition of silk is, meaning, out of fear of arrogance and so on, but here, meaning, the operative cause has ceased, or another cause has been found, meaning … and the ruling follows the operative cause … .
The Shaykh : Well then, there are three opinions: The first opinion is that the prohibition of wearing silk falls under the prohibition of means, because it may lead to fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), softness, and gentleness in a man, which he is not qualified for and which is not befitting for him. And whatever is prohibited as a means is permitted by a pressing need. Its parallel is the permissibility of 'araya, which is the sale of fresh dates for dry dates, because the prohibition of riba al-fadl (usury of excess in a like-for-like exchange) falls under the prohibition of means, so what is likely to contain it is permitted for a pressing need, as you know in the book of sales. Do you not know this?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, or is it no?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes. Well, and whatever falls under the prohibition of means, a pressing need makes it permissible.
The second point is that it can be said that this is a known benefit, so treating oneself with it is like eating carrion for one in dire necessity. Carrion is forbidden, but dire necessity makes it permissible, because benefiting from it in a state of dire necessity is what? It is a known matter, because a person is satisfied and preserves his life by it.
The third point is that it can be said that the general rule is: Allah has not made our healing in what He has forbidden upon us, but this issue is an exception to that, this issue is an exception, because the explicit text indicated its permissibility.
There is also a fourth point: which is that Allah has not made our healing in what He has forbidden upon us while it is in a state of prohibition, but when it is in a state of permissibility, there is no harm in it. For this reason, the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) permitted a person to anoint himself with lion oil, because it benefits from some nerve pains, even though the lion is forbidden, it is not permissible to eat it, and it is ritually impure. Every forbidden animal that has flowing blood is ritually impure, but it is permissible to treat oneself by anointing with its oil, because the person did not eat it and did not put it in his drink, but used it externally on his body. However, in this case, if he uses it and the time for prayer comes, he must purify himself from it.
The questioner : Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Because the prohibition of silk involves several issues.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : … the objectives, if it is … little for dire necessity …
The Shaykh : for a pressing need. Yes.
The questioner : … the objectives.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : … but it may benefit another person, or it may not.
The Shaykh : Yes, it would be like carrion for one in dire necessity.
The questioner : … this is an explicit text … .
The Shaykh : What … yes?
The questioner : Shaykh, we say … the prohibition of silk is, meaning, out of fear of arrogance and so on, but here, meaning, the operative cause has ceased, or another cause has been found, meaning … and the ruling follows the operative cause … .
The Shaykh : Well then, there are three opinions: The first opinion is that the prohibition of wearing silk falls under the prohibition of means, because it may lead to fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), softness, and gentleness in a man, which he is not qualified for and which is not befitting for him. And whatever is prohibited as a means is permitted by a pressing need. Its parallel is the permissibility of 'araya, which is the sale of fresh dates for dry dates, because the prohibition of riba al-fadl (usury of excess in a like-for-like exchange) falls under the prohibition of means, so what is likely to contain it is permitted for a pressing need, as you know in the book of sales. Do you not know this?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, or is it no?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes. Well, and whatever falls under the prohibition of means, a pressing need makes it permissible.
The second point is that it can be said that this is a known benefit, so treating oneself with it is like eating carrion for one in dire necessity. Carrion is forbidden, but dire necessity makes it permissible, because benefiting from it in a state of dire necessity is what? It is a known matter, because a person is satisfied and preserves his life by it.
The third point is that it can be said that the general rule is: Allah has not made our healing in what He has forbidden upon us, but this issue is an exception to that, this issue is an exception, because the explicit text indicated its permissibility.
There is also a fourth point: which is that Allah has not made our healing in what He has forbidden upon us while it is in a state of prohibition, but when it is in a state of permissibility, there is no harm in it. For this reason, the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) permitted a person to anoint himself with lion oil, because it benefits from some nerve pains, even though the lion is forbidden, it is not permissible to eat it, and it is ritually impure. Every forbidden animal that has flowing blood is ritually impure, but it is permissible to treat oneself by anointing with its oil, because the person did not eat it and did not put it in his drink, but used it externally on his body. However, in this case, if he uses it and the time for prayer comes, he must purify himself from it.
The questioner : Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes?