Yahya Silmi permits masturbation

Yahya Silmi says, in response to Sheikh Hussein Al-Hatibi’s refutation to his allowing masturbation—claiming he found only this issue: He says: Ash-Shawkani wrote a treatise titled “Bulugh Al-Muna fi Hukm Al-Istimna.” The first to publish it was Abdullah Al-Wadi’i with an introduction by Sheikh Muqbil. So let Al-Hatibi say this is directed first at Sheikh Muqbil, not only at me. Who is the one who did what is not required? I say: This is a fiqh issue, and I wrote “Tuhfat Al-Fata fi Ad-Difa ‘an Bulugh Al-Muna” in response to Sheikh Muqbil because he responded to Ash-Shawkani with the book “Tuhfat Al-Shab Al-Rabbani fi Ar-Radd ‘ala Al-Imam Ash-Shawkani.” In it, Ash-Shawkani mentions the statements of the Companions: Imam Ibn Abbas and the fatwa of Imam Ahmad. Sheikh Muqbil responded to him with his own interpretation and the interpretation of others. So this comes down to methodology and principles, and I responded to him…So when he relies on the interpretation of Ibn Atiyyah and others after the interpretation of the Companions regarding that Ayah, and he speaks in refutation of Imam Ahmad, the Companions, and the Followers—this opposes the methodology. So we responded to Sheikh Muqbil academically...This is a fiqh issue. If you look at it from a medical perspective, how many diseases are warded off by masturbation? I have authored on this. (From the tape: The Corruption of Dammaj in Sri Lanka and Unsubstantiated Evidence) Sheikh Abdulhameed Az-Zu'kari We ask Allah for safety. He says it is a fiqh issue, then he digresses and says: a disagreement in methodology, opposing the methodology. You are confused. It is merely a fiqh issue, yet the evidence in it is clear, manifest, and obvious regarding the obligation to guard the private parts. {And those who guard their private parts} [Al-Mu’minun 23:5]. (The Prophet, peace be upon him, said) “Whoever cannot marry, then let him fast, for it will be a shield for him.” We complained to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, about celibacy, and we sought permission for castration, but he did not permit us. So the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, did not have any recourse to using such means nor to permitting such things. They guarded their private parts and lowered their gaze. So if, as you say, it is a fiqh issue, then you are not permitted to attack Sheikh Muqbil nor anyone else who holds it to be forbidden—first, due to the strength of their evidence and the preponderance of their view. Second: In this defense, you claim the issue is manhaji, so you have become confused. Third: Your claim that there are medical benefits—this indicates that you are eager for such things. O my brother, fear Allah and advise people to lower their gaze, guard their private parts, and stay away from shameful, disgraceful habits—these are not appropriate, and so on. The preponderant view on this issue—so that people are not deceived by your statement—is what has preceded: that it is forbidden. The preponderant view is also that it is not a matter of creed, as you claim to have seen a manhaji disagreement in it; rather, it is a matter of differing opinion. Furthermore, not every statement made by a Companion means we are obliged to take it. How many times did the Companions differ? How many statements did some of them make while others had evidence to the contrary? Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, differed with Fatimah bint Qays, and the preponderant view was that of Fatimah bint Qays: no housing and no maintenance. Likewise, Aishah differed with many Companions, to the extent that someone authored an independent work on this topic. No one said this was a manhaji disagreement—that one who takes Aishah’s view is something, and one who takes Ibn Abbas’s view is something else.