BENEFIT 362: Does every ضرورة permit undertaking a forbidden act?

Sheikh Sulaymān Ar-Ruhaili وفقه الله states (slightly paraphrased): The scholars say, no. Rather, there are several conditions that must be met before before one is permitted to engage in prohibited act (under the pretext of "الضرورات تبيح المحظورات"). 1⃣. The necessity must be recognised as a ضرورة according to the Shari’ah. It is not sufficient for someone to merely claim something as a necessity; rather, it must be established as a genuine necessity according to the Shari'ah. 2⃣. The necessity must be real and present, not imagined or anticipated. The necessity must be an actual, existing situation rather than a hypothetical or future concern. For example, if a person lives in a religious environment where he freely keeps his beard but decides to shave it before returning to his home country out of fear that he "might" face persecution, this is considered an imagined necessity, not a real one. Similarly, if a traveller in the desert, still possessing some food, chooses to eat carrion preemptively, fearing he might run out of food later, this is a future necessity and does not justify consuming the unlawful. 3⃣. The necessity must be of greater harm than the prohibited act. If the necessity presents a greater harm than the prohibited act, then engaging in the prohibited act is permitted. However, if the necessity causes lesser harm, it does not justify violating prohibitions. For example: If a tyrant forces someone to hit another Muslim by threatening him with death, he may comply since hitting is a lesser evil than being killed. However, if someone is forced to kill an innocent person under threat of being killed himself, he is not allowed to comply by concensus; as killing an innocent Muslim is a greater crime than being killed unjustly. The same applies if he was forced to kill his brother under the threat of being beaten. Scholars have provided hypothetical examples to illustrate this principle. One such example states that if a starving person on the brink of death finds the body of a Prophet, they are not permitted to consume it, as the desecration of a Prophet’s body is a greater harm than the person's death. Though this is a theoretical case, scholars sometimes use such examples to make legal principles more memorable. 4⃣. The necessity cannot be averted by lawful means. If the person in distress has access to a lawful alternative, they are not permitted to commit the prohibited act. For example: If someone is choking and sees both a glass of water and a glass of wine, they must drink the water; consuming wine would not be justified. If a person is threatened with death unless they strike a fellow Muslim, but they can call for help and escape, they must do so rather than resorting to the unlawful act. 5⃣. The act must be limited to what is necessary. Necessity permits only the minimal engagement with the prohibited act required to alleviate the distress. If a person choking has no choice but to drink wine, they may only consume the amount necessary to clear their throat—exceeding this limit is impermissible. Allāh states two conditions whereby necessity permits the prohibited, that is: 1. neither desiring it 2. nor transgressing its limit A person must not seek unlawful indulgence, while they have a lawful alternative. For instance, if someone in distress sees both wine and water and deliberately chooses wine out of curiosity, they are not excused under necessity, as they sought the unlawful despite having access to the lawful. The transgressor is the one who exceeds the limit of the necessity. 6⃣. The act must not cause a similar necessity for another person. A person in distress cannot resolve their own crisis by creating an equal crisis for someone else. For example, if two people are stranded in the desert, and one has just enough food for himself, the other cannot take it, as this would put his companion in the same dire situation. The Shari'ah does not permit resolving one necessity by imposing it on another.