What is the difference between dire necessity and pressing need?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : What is the difference between dire necessity and pressing need?
The Shaykh : The difference is that pressing need falls under the category of desirable things, while dire necessity falls under the category of averting harm. For example, a person has a garment that protects him from the cold; if he took it off, it would harm his body, but he experiences some discomfort because it is not complete. So, wearing another garment over it: is that a dire necessity with respect to the first garment? We said that if he did not wear a garment, he would be harmed, so wearing a garment is a dire necessity for him. But wearing another one solely to remove the discomfort, not to avert harm, we say that is a pressing need. The difference between them is clear: only dire necessity permits what is forbidden, whereas pressing need permits what is disliked.
The questioner : Some scholars of the principles of jurisprudence distinguish by saying: if something is forbidden in itself, it is not permissible to benefit from it even in a case of dire necessity; but if it is forbidden for an external reason, it is permissible. Is this correct?
The Shaykh : What is correct? I say it is not correct, because what is forbidden for an external reason is like what is forbidden in itself with regard to the obligation to avoid it.
The Shaykh : The difference is that pressing need falls under the category of desirable things, while dire necessity falls under the category of averting harm. For example, a person has a garment that protects him from the cold; if he took it off, it would harm his body, but he experiences some discomfort because it is not complete. So, wearing another garment over it: is that a dire necessity with respect to the first garment? We said that if he did not wear a garment, he would be harmed, so wearing a garment is a dire necessity for him. But wearing another one solely to remove the discomfort, not to avert harm, we say that is a pressing need. The difference between them is clear: only dire necessity permits what is forbidden, whereas pressing need permits what is disliked.
The questioner : Some scholars of the principles of jurisprudence distinguish by saying: if something is forbidden in itself, it is not permissible to benefit from it even in a case of dire necessity; but if it is forbidden for an external reason, it is permissible. Is this correct?
The Shaykh : What is correct? I say it is not correct, because what is forbidden for an external reason is like what is forbidden in itself with regard to the obligation to avoid it.