"Except to dislodge a mouthful of food that has lodged in the throat, and no one else is present"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"Except to dislodge a mouthful of food that has lodged in the throat, and no one else is present" This is a strange issue. May Allah have mercy on the scholars; how their minds go to such a distant matter, just as some poets go to a distant matter and a distant imagination, like the saying of the poet:
"I am afflicted with the affliction of the ruins, if I do not stand there *** standing as a miser whose ring was lost in the dust" And what do you say about this example? Well, the man says, "I am afflicted with the affliction of the ruins," the ruins of his beloved. He loves a woman, and her ruins are what remains of her house and home. "If I do not stand there," meaning at these ruins, "standing as a miser." The miser is the one who is stingy with money, holding onto it, greedy for it. "Whose ring was lost in the dust." Is the ring of the miser expensive to him or not? Very expensive. And it was lost in the dust. He wants to search this dust forever, sifting it a second and third time, saying, "Perhaps we will find it." We say that this issue, or the image mentioned by the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them), indicates that they delve deep into depicting issues, even to the rare ones. In the lands of Islam, who would imagine that a man eats, takes a large mouthful, then chokes, and then finds that he has nothing but a cup of intoxicants? In the lands of Islam, this is a far-fetched thing, but it may happen. In this situation, if he chokes and is unable to move the mouthful, it neither goes up nor down, and he has a cup of intoxicants, does he drink it or not? But he drinks only what dislodges the mouthful, to the extent of necessity. Once it is dislodged, he stops. Why is this image permissible even though intoxicants are forbidden? Because the removal of necessity by the forbidden is achieved here. The necessity here is removed if he drinks intoxicants to dislodge the mouthful; certainly, it is removed. But is the necessity of thirst removed by drinking intoxicants? No. Is it removed in treatment? No.
"I am afflicted with the affliction of the ruins, if I do not stand there *** standing as a miser whose ring was lost in the dust" And what do you say about this example? Well, the man says, "I am afflicted with the affliction of the ruins," the ruins of his beloved. He loves a woman, and her ruins are what remains of her house and home. "If I do not stand there," meaning at these ruins, "standing as a miser." The miser is the one who is stingy with money, holding onto it, greedy for it. "Whose ring was lost in the dust." Is the ring of the miser expensive to him or not? Very expensive. And it was lost in the dust. He wants to search this dust forever, sifting it a second and third time, saying, "Perhaps we will find it." We say that this issue, or the image mentioned by the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them), indicates that they delve deep into depicting issues, even to the rare ones. In the lands of Islam, who would imagine that a man eats, takes a large mouthful, then chokes, and then finds that he has nothing but a cup of intoxicants? In the lands of Islam, this is a far-fetched thing, but it may happen. In this situation, if he chokes and is unable to move the mouthful, it neither goes up nor down, and he has a cup of intoxicants, does he drink it or not? But he drinks only what dislodges the mouthful, to the extent of necessity. Once it is dislodged, he stops. Why is this image permissible even though intoxicants are forbidden? Because the removal of necessity by the forbidden is achieved here. The necessity here is removed if he drinks intoxicants to dislodge the mouthful; certainly, it is removed. But is the necessity of thirst removed by drinking intoxicants? No. Is it removed in treatment? No.