What is the ruling on treating oneself with forbidden substances, and is anesthesia considered a forbidden substance, and is it permissible in cases of necessity?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : His EminenceThe Shaykh : What is the ruling on treating oneself with forbidden substances? And are anesthesia and some alcoholic substances in medications considered forbidden?
The Shaykh : Is it considered what?
The questioner : Are anesthesia and some alcoholic substances found in certain medications considered forbidden? And is the ruling the same for cases of necessity and non-necessity?
The Shaykh : Treating oneself with forbidden substances is forbidden and not permissible. This is because Allah has not made the healing of this Ummah (Muslim community) lie in what He has forbidden for them, and because Allah has not forbidden us anything except due to its harm. A harmful thing never becomes beneficial, even if one is in a state of necessity. However, there is no necessity for medication. Pay attention: medication has no necessity whatsoever. Why? Why can it not be considered a necessity? Because one may treat oneself and not be healed, correct? So the necessity is not removed. And one may be healed without treatment, so one is not in need of the medication. But hunger is a necessity. Therefore, if a person becomes hungry and fears that he will die if he does not eat, it is permissible for him to eat carrion and to eat pork. Why? Because if he eats, his necessity is removed; if he eats, he fills his stomach and death is removed from him. But for medication, necessity cannot be attributed to it. Let me explain, my brothers: why is it that necessity cannot be attributed to medication? Because one may be healed without medication, and one may treat oneself and not be healed. But eating carrion when hungry removes the necessity; if he eats, he satisfies his hunger. So the issue of treating oneself for the sake of necessity does not apply to us, except in one case: cutting off some of the limbs in a state of necessity. For example, if cancer occurs in some of the limbs, and the doctors say that its harm cannot be remedied except by cutting off the limb, and it is known that cutting off limbs is forbidden, and it is not permissible for a person to cut off even a finger, then if they say that it is necessary to cut off the limb, we say: there is no harm. This is a necessity, provided they are certain that if it is cut off, this disease, which is cancer, will be removed.
As for anesthesia, there is no harm with it, because anesthesia is not intoxication. Intoxication is the loss of reason in a state of pleasure and delight. Does the one who is anesthetized take pleasure and delight? Yes? No. For this reason, the previous scholars said: anesthesia is lawful and there is no harm with it.
As for the alcoholic substances mixed into some medications, if the effect of that alcohol appears in the medication such that it intoxicates the person, then it is forbidden. But if the effect does not appear, and the alcohol substance is only put in it for the purpose of preserving it, then there is no harm with it, because the alcohol substance has no effect in it.
The Shaykh : Is it considered what?
The questioner : Are anesthesia and some alcoholic substances found in certain medications considered forbidden? And is the ruling the same for cases of necessity and non-necessity?
The Shaykh : Treating oneself with forbidden substances is forbidden and not permissible. This is because Allah has not made the healing of this Ummah (Muslim community) lie in what He has forbidden for them, and because Allah has not forbidden us anything except due to its harm. A harmful thing never becomes beneficial, even if one is in a state of necessity. However, there is no necessity for medication. Pay attention: medication has no necessity whatsoever. Why? Why can it not be considered a necessity? Because one may treat oneself and not be healed, correct? So the necessity is not removed. And one may be healed without treatment, so one is not in need of the medication. But hunger is a necessity. Therefore, if a person becomes hungry and fears that he will die if he does not eat, it is permissible for him to eat carrion and to eat pork. Why? Because if he eats, his necessity is removed; if he eats, he fills his stomach and death is removed from him. But for medication, necessity cannot be attributed to it. Let me explain, my brothers: why is it that necessity cannot be attributed to medication? Because one may be healed without medication, and one may treat oneself and not be healed. But eating carrion when hungry removes the necessity; if he eats, he satisfies his hunger. So the issue of treating oneself for the sake of necessity does not apply to us, except in one case: cutting off some of the limbs in a state of necessity. For example, if cancer occurs in some of the limbs, and the doctors say that its harm cannot be remedied except by cutting off the limb, and it is known that cutting off limbs is forbidden, and it is not permissible for a person to cut off even a finger, then if they say that it is necessary to cut off the limb, we say: there is no harm. This is a necessity, provided they are certain that if it is cut off, this disease, which is cancer, will be removed.
As for anesthesia, there is no harm with it, because anesthesia is not intoxication. Intoxication is the loss of reason in a state of pleasure and delight. Does the one who is anesthetized take pleasure and delight? Yes? No. For this reason, the previous scholars said: anesthesia is lawful and there is no harm with it.
As for the alcoholic substances mixed into some medications, if the effect of that alcohol appears in the medication such that it intoxicates the person, then it is forbidden. But if the effect does not appear, and the alcohol substance is only put in it for the purpose of preserving it, then there is no harm with it, because the alcohol substance has no effect in it.