What is the difference between what is forbidden in itself and what is forbidden for the sake of something else?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is this, and therefore it is permissible in some cases if the public benefit is greater.
The student: It is not consistent.
The Shaykh : No, it is consistent. Everything that is forbidden as a means to a harm is made permissible by a pressing need, not by dire necessity. This is because what is forbidden in itself is only made permissible by dire necessity, whereas what is forbidden as a means is made permissible by a pressing need. For example, the prohibition of usury of excess in a like-for-like exchange is a prohibition as a means, and a pressing need makes it permissible, such as the issue of 'araya. This issue of looking is also a prohibition as a means, as the scholars have said. Therefore, a pressing need or public benefit makes it permissible, such as a doctor looking at a female patient, a suitor looking at the woman he intends to marry, a witness looking at the woman about whom he is testifying, and a business partner looking at the woman with whom he deals. Even a business partner is allowed to look at the woman he deals with, such as a woman who is accustomed to buying and selling in a shop; she may uncover her face, because if I am uncertain, I might need to see her face a second time. The scholars agree on the permissibility of this matter because this is not a case of prohibition in itself; it is a prohibition as a means. As for the mahram (a relative one may not marry), why is it permissible for a woman to uncover herself to her mahram? Because this means to harm is almost nonexistent. Therefore, if it were to happen, and may Allah protect us from that, that a mahram is driven by lust and looks at his mahram relatives as a non-mahram looks at women, he must be prevented from doing so. Do not be surprised if one of the men looks at his mahram relatives with the gaze of a non-mahram; do not be surprised by that. I was asked recently about a man who has a young sister from his father, who is seven years old. The woman says, "I do not know if she is telling the truth or not," and may Allah protect us from that. Her brother from his father took her to his house and committed fornication with her, and may Allah protect us from that. Some people are like this; they lust after their mother and do not care. The result is that the prohibition of looking is originally not a prohibition in itself, because what is forbidden is fornication and lewdness. Yes, but the prohibition of approaching fornication is so that we do not have a means to it. Thus, the prohibition of looking is for this reason and falls under the category of prohibition as a means.
The hidden adornment, except for those mentioned in the verse, and their number was counted yesterday or in the previous lesson. How many? Twelve categories. For anyone other than them, it is not permissible to display the hidden adornment to them.
The Shaykh : It is this, and therefore it is permissible in some cases if the public benefit is greater.
The student: It is not consistent.
The Shaykh : No, it is consistent. Everything that is forbidden as a means to a harm is made permissible by a pressing need, not by dire necessity. This is because what is forbidden in itself is only made permissible by dire necessity, whereas what is forbidden as a means is made permissible by a pressing need. For example, the prohibition of usury of excess in a like-for-like exchange is a prohibition as a means, and a pressing need makes it permissible, such as the issue of 'araya. This issue of looking is also a prohibition as a means, as the scholars have said. Therefore, a pressing need or public benefit makes it permissible, such as a doctor looking at a female patient, a suitor looking at the woman he intends to marry, a witness looking at the woman about whom he is testifying, and a business partner looking at the woman with whom he deals. Even a business partner is allowed to look at the woman he deals with, such as a woman who is accustomed to buying and selling in a shop; she may uncover her face, because if I am uncertain, I might need to see her face a second time. The scholars agree on the permissibility of this matter because this is not a case of prohibition in itself; it is a prohibition as a means. As for the mahram (a relative one may not marry), why is it permissible for a woman to uncover herself to her mahram? Because this means to harm is almost nonexistent. Therefore, if it were to happen, and may Allah protect us from that, that a mahram is driven by lust and looks at his mahram relatives as a non-mahram looks at women, he must be prevented from doing so. Do not be surprised if one of the men looks at his mahram relatives with the gaze of a non-mahram; do not be surprised by that. I was asked recently about a man who has a young sister from his father, who is seven years old. The woman says, "I do not know if she is telling the truth or not," and may Allah protect us from that. Her brother from his father took her to his house and committed fornication with her, and may Allah protect us from that. Some people are like this; they lust after their mother and do not care. The result is that the prohibition of looking is originally not a prohibition in itself, because what is forbidden is fornication and lewdness. Yes, but the prohibition of approaching fornication is so that we do not have a means to it. Thus, the prohibition of looking is for this reason and falls under the category of prohibition as a means.
The hidden adornment, except for those mentioned in the verse, and their number was counted yesterday or in the previous lesson. How many? Twelve categories. For anyone other than them, it is not permissible to display the hidden adornment to them.