You stated that what is forbidden is not permissible except in cases of dire necessity, and that what is forbidden as a means is permissible in cases of pressing need. Is there a criterion for distinguishing between the two?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says this: You mentioned previously that what is forbidden is not permissible except in cases of dire necessity, and that what is forbidden as a means is permissible in cases of pressing need. Is there a criterion for distinguishing between the two?
Yes. What is forbidden in itself is that which is not permissible except in cases of dire necessity, such as carrion. What is forbidden for other reasons, because it is a means, meaning it does not contain harm in itself but serves as a means to it, is made permissible by pressing need. For example, a woman looking at a man is forbidden, but it is permissible during the proposal of marriage.
Yes. What is forbidden in itself is that which is not permissible except in cases of dire necessity, such as carrion. What is forbidden for other reasons, because it is a means, meaning it does not contain harm in itself but serves as a means to it, is made permissible by pressing need. For example, a woman looking at a man is forbidden, but it is permissible during the proposal of marriage.