Fiqh of Foods and Drinks #5 – Chapter on the Compelled

Bismillah Alhamdulillah wa salatu salam

ala some about to proceed. Today inshallah we'll try to finish the last chapter in the section of foods and drinks which is the chapter on the compelled bubble.

And then we will start to the section on oaths and vows about a man what are the chapters on oath and vows? And the first one would be Babel, Natalie the chapter on vows

and hopefully inshallah we'll be able to finish both. So to begin, let's go over the last chapter in the section of foods and drinks. webinar time Alessia

under Babel mortara chapter on the compound the demandable Kodama Rahim Allah, who died in the year 620, after hedra in his book alarm de which is a Hammadi primer manual of fact,

one minute Torah fimasartan philomela did Illa Mahara Rahman fella who Ania akademin? Who may so do Rama, who, if one is forced in scarcity is what it was what if one is forced by necessity in scarcity and finds

nothing but impermissible food, it is permitted to eat enough of it to save one's life, it is permissible to eat enough of it to save one's life. I guess

the basic ruling here is a no brainer for all Muslims in LA Mata la Bharara to be amadora except that what you've been compelled to do, and the route to be a majority necessities

weren't exceptions or weren't concessions or make permissible that which is prohibited.

These are concepts that are established in Islam part of the realism or

the sort of realistic pragmatic approach

and recognition of the needs of human beings and recognition of

you know, the presence of

unusual circumstances or people going through unusual circumstances requiring concessions for them and it is a legal Maxim It is one of the five legal Maxim's that are to be handed out is

under another legal Maxim which is the more comprehensive

you know, the the one of the most comprehensive five legal Maxim's or masakatsu that they see or hardship

brings about.

Ease is or calls for or wehrens concessions, my hardship warrants concessions, so I guess masakadza with a C or maitre D would be hardship machaca that brings about the SR ease so

which means that concerning hardship does not automatically bring about ease in other spheres, verily with hardship, there is ease but you make it easy the puppy makes the concession to facilitate matters for the McAfee and those who are legally liable.

And under mesh architecture with ACM we have different Maxim's under that one umbrella, one of the most comprehensive legal Maxim's and Takata derivatives here. What are the four other legal Maxim's Yeah, pls check would be the first or the watermark

Let us say in the right order at Santa Albania, these are bought by their intentions. That's the first one second would be Alia Kayla's will be shocked which is certainty is not negated by doubt, third would be masaka tentative etc or hardship begets or wehrens concessions.

The fourth one is another one there are should be no harm or reciprocation of harm and the fifth one is a lot more hakama customs are given consideration and the sixth one according to those who makes who make them sick sex not five is that there are men How would a man which is

consideration takes precedence over

neglect

over neglecting or consideration I would have any way to consider all the factors to consider all evidences will take precedence over

neglecting some of them.

Okay, so these are the five legged Maxim's one of them is a Mish appetizer with a seer under Shaka with a series of several ones that are to be had Mahabharat or necessities make concessions

would be one and then certainly there are others that are that we need to understand so that we apply these Maxim's correctly such as the roto cutter pottery hat, for instance, the necessities are must be

given their due consideration or

the sort of the right measure

or do can you consideration not more, not less, that's what that means, that they should be given their due consideration, like you should not give them more than they deserve.

So, in other words, when you when you sinesses these make exceptions, then

how much

how much exception or how many exceptions or what type of exceptions which type of exceptions which type of Mahabharat

like is a you know, because the neurons do not all come in one size and a massive Dora do not all come in one size. So which the Aurora will make permissible which

these are all things that are addressed by the scholars under this legal Maxim. So, here he will

basically touch upon some of these issues.

So, there is so much to unpack in this very short sentence, because he said,

if one is forced by necessity in scarcity and finds nothing but impermissible food, it is permitted to eat enough to save one's life. It is permitted to eat enough of it to save one's life. So, the question here is to eat enough avetmiss Adorama Tahoe to save one's life.

Can you get full?

Like you are traversing a desert and you found

a dead animal and you are starving? Can you eat of it until you get full?

If you say yes or no, you'd be right, I guess.

Okay, so the ham bellies and ham bellies and Hannah fees, said you cannot get fooled because I'm a fraud and that fan can borrow you are trying to just save yourself and you eat enough this save your life that said after you have eaten enough You are now not in risk of death. You should not be eating more that that is consistent, right? That is consistent that there is another important the Hanbury method and that is the position of the Maliki's and Jeff is that also takes in consideration human instinct for survival like if you're if you're starving and you found food

can we stop you like from getting full after he like he found the food you cook them

You grabbed it, whatever you did, it's it's a dead animal. It's a fox that you found dead.

Anyway, even if you found the foul Fox, according to the honeyberries, if you found the fox alive and you slaughter it, it's still dead. Because that's not lateral. That's not subject it is k according to the honeyberries, although the medic is would disagree. But if you are Hanbury and you believe this fox is not just subject to this scale, and you found that and you slaughter that, you should slaughter it, by the way, if you found it alive, even though it is not subject to the scale.

But if you have to, then you should slaughter it.

And then like, if we if we tell you just eat a little bit to save your life, that is the family and the hanafy position. That is extremely hard for someone who has been starving and traversing, you know, like a perilous desert. So the medic is on Chopra. He said, since we have made the concession it is permissible now he can get full, he can eat enough.

He can eat his field. That's what they said. And that's our report and the honeyberry method as well. Although it's not the authorized report, the authorized report is an agreement with the hanafy position, you could only eat enough to survive.

That's my so dorama

what would that legal maximum be equal that they are invoking here

at DottoTech other metadata or metadata, so necessities are given their due consideration, not more, not less, their due consideration, not more knotless. So here, the HANA fees and honeyberries are saying to the Americans in surveys, yes, there is the aura, but you're giving it more than should, or you're making permissible that which is not

required to repel the harm. We are allowing him to repel the harm, but we're not allowing him to get full. So that's the first the first there's a disagreement here. Now, can you hear just the zellwood? Is it permissible to carry with you, the rest of the fox,

or the rest of the pig? You know, because even if it is a pig, then can you carry with you the rest of the dead animal

that's controversial. But the position in the method is that if you truly fear that you will not find food

and that you may put your life in danger you may carry with you the rest of the animal. So you can decide what would be permissible in this case. So that's the first the first one and the lessons we need to remember here. You need to understand that

you know, Islam is very nuanced. So when we say in Osaka, Tagil a bit easier,

or hardship, bigots or wehrens, concessions or hardship

brings about ease, that is Warren's concessions, and then you put underneath that

to be held Mahabharat

you have also to understand, even though we said that maybe the medic is and shafa is have a point and allowing him to get fall,

but but you have to understand that all of them, all of them are paying attention to unimportant

Maxim here which is the Aurora toccata Arena, Aurora to

be powderham or B podria, which are the rot or necessities should be given their due consideration, not more or they're not less

due measure due consideration.

So, in this case, we would say that you know, because nowadays we are some some sometimes because of the conditions of you know, the world and because of the conditions of the Muslim community and so on, we along with the Aurora a concept called that herder which is needs and we say that Hydra Tenzin Manzella to Aurora that hideout are given the same consideration of Aurora

does that is that just a blanket statement like this all the hajat are like the dodo rod. That would be certainly other the crazy because whatever everyone like whatever like there are

Limited needs, but this has to be taken in consideration here. So, when when we have had how pressing is it, how close to the ruler is it or how close to Tasmania is taxing yet are the luxuries, complimentary things are luxuries, because we have dodoria hajia and Tanzania, the reality necessities hijikata needs and Tanzania or wants luxuries, complimentary things. So, when it comes to how to yet had a yard occupy all the space between the rotten tasks in the yard, which by necessity means what that somehow the yard are so close to that scene yet just at the border of Tasmania and somehow the door had are so close to the auroria because at the heart is occupying all

that space. So, some of the needs are close to necessities, some of the needs are close to luxuries, should we treat all needs the same those who are close that which are close to necessities and those which are close the luxuries? Absolutely not. So, that should be given to the food and then the focus would determine You know, this contract is a usually us contract, then it would be only permissible if you have about ora

but it would not you know the sort of the the the mainstream understanding among the forca is that your users contract would only be permissible if there is a rota for and it says the like a real necessity for

like when it comes to mortgages for instance, you will not have a roof on top of your head because you have a large family and no one is giving you rent and stuff like this you're going to be out in the street.

And then

hotseat which is basically just the need to own a home of your own and stuff like that this is a harder and it is deemed to be a public harder. So, would that make permissible a usuarios contract? According to the vast majority of Muslim scholars, not the consensus, there is always this agreement nowadays, but according to the majority, let us say Muslim scholars No, but would it allow a contract that have used various clauses? He and many would say yes, if the contract is not in essence, usually as rainbow II, but it has religious clauses or non compliant clauses, then this had what the make this contract permissible. So we will always have to give the Aurora order harder.

It's due consideration due measure, not more, not less. So

this was basically hinted to here when the sheriff said Mayor so dorama who are to eat enough of it to save one's life, and that is the position of the HANA buddies on HANA fees. Not the Americans are sharp eyes and the other report and Hanbury Meza, who said that you could eat until you get full and according to the authorized position in the handling of hub, you can carry

if you fear that you will not find more

during your journey.

Then the sheikh said we're in whether the modificata hari Miyamoto Allah and fie akademin and mortality fee of one find something that is permissible by agreement and something else whose permissibility is controversial, he or she should eat from that, which is controversial. He or she should eat from that which is controversial. And this is the nuanced understanding, and it is really the the accurate, the precise, the word nuanced has a bad reputation nowadays.

When it really shouldn't, but you know, it is the accurate, precise, fair understanding of the scholars, they understand that certainty does not come in one size, even certainty. There are things that are more certain than others. haram does not come in one size.

Pork is haram by agreement. So if you find a pig, a dead pig, and you find a fox next to it,

Which one will you eat?

Of course the fox because the Americans don't

into this to be haram to begin with.

And in fact they sometimes I told you sometimes they mock the ham bodies because we consider the eating of hyena not Mark but you know,

refuse the ham bodies because we believe the eating of hyenas to be permissible, the eating of foxes to be harder, but we haven't we have hobbies, we have a number of reports to support our position. But someone like in a man with a lot of in Medicare Rahim, Allah says, I marveled at the people who eat hyenas that prey on human beings and don't eat foxes.

That prey on chickens. So anyway,

you will eat the fox, you will not eat the pig, because there is a difference here. One is haram by agreement. One is not a fee. And that also tells you that the fuqaha did understand that when you know, that motala fee,

you know, does not mean

by certainty. Because if you have another method that considers this haram Hillel, you're quite confident of your position, that is fine. But in the end of the day, it's not a matter of certainty anymore, when you have a disagreement, particularly

a very sort of

strong disagreement.

Strong because it's supported by another not not, not because we truly believe based on evaluation of the evidence that is strong, but because it is supported by another.

And that applies to many things, you know, we were just discussing an issue we were discussing, the other day, the effect, well, they were, you know, this Manhattan visa or, or the toughie z or this sort of

subsidized loan that

was asked about, you know, in the beginning of the pandemic, when the government was given out subsidized loans to small businesses, and I've just said that they would be helpful, even though there is interest. And if you don't, if you fire any of the employees, or if you don't keep the business,

you will not only pay that interest, but you will also pay the capital, if you kept your employees, you were going to pay the interest, but you did not have to pay the capital, which shows that the government intended to support small businesses by this loan, not to make a profit off of them. But it is just like this interest thing is just embedded in all kinds of transactions, and by law, would be embedded in all kinds of transactions. But the government really intended to support small businesses. So if you were able to keep your employees payroll and keep your employees, they were going to take the interest from you charge you interest but forego the capital the entire amount of

the loan itself, you will not need to pay it back. So I'm just that it is permissible, because of two things. One is the Aurora.

And here it is not the Aurora like these people that own small businesses are starving.

But the Aurora to maintain the small business, in fact, one of them Australia.

You know, and I don't think that this is a secret, but Shankara Davi said that the

bankruptcy of a company is like a death of an individual. Because because of the amount of harm that will be for so many families, so many people that that worked for that company, so like bankruptcy of a company

is like the death of an individual. And I'm not saying this that, you know, I have not you know, I am not agreeing or disagreeing. I'm just

conveying what

she accept.

But then, you know, the question is what why is it that we then answer based on you know, and if you go to the federal Avenger, because it's very relevant to this, and based its position on two points one, this is a pressing need.

Approaching Aurora approach in Aurora,

a pressing need approach

The Aurora

to

it is obvious from the the it is obvious from the terms of the contract that it is intended for,

not for profit to support for support supporting small businesses not making profit.

And so someone,

when we were discussing this, someone said, You're contradicting yourself because you based your

permission

on it being Aurora, and then you went back and base your permission on the contract to be impermissible.

So the answer to this is that there is no contradiction here. Because

like, if this was a real like, like a full blown Aurora mctominay,

full blown Aurora, you still will have the pig and the fox example. So you do still need this to say this is a fox, not a pig. This is a fox, not a pig.

And then, but it is not a full blown borrower, because those owners of small businesses will likely not be starving, have they lost their businesses.

So it's not a full blown Aurora and is very sort of strict definition of the Aurora even though the fuqaha some some are sometimes flexible in their definition of Aurora, but it is not a full blown Aurora and therefore, therefore, it's like about the obstacles that you need to cross. So to higher the bar, you need a greater the Aurora. So ribbon, you know, like pork, like something you need, it's a high bar, you need a great Aurora to jump over it. But if you lower the bar and you say the terms here, show that the intent of the government is not the rubber but rather support of small businesses. But still there are non compliant clauses, what are you doing here, you're lowering the

bar. So that

something that is not a full blown delora would allow you to jump over this bar or to cross

anyway so that is a concept that is that the fukuhara need to imbibe and to invoke in their fatawa at the Aurora toccata the CADRE our cadet

Okay, so then

the secret Allah said for unlimited en la liga de Miss rhodora de la mia Bella,

Mia Bella, who were in Ghana Mastani Anna Han, who has a woman who be so many for a man or woman who run wild Amina hula hoop metacoda

coup de la Motta rooferhow. Shaheed Wada de de mano, we're in Portugal, many Ruffalo manaphy

if one only finds food that belongs to someone else who is subject to the same adversity, it is not permissible to take it. That's one.

Two people that have the same adversity one has food one does not. It's not permissible to take it from the other one, because he needs it as much as you do. And he has a he has like an advantage over you. It is his he owns it. So yes, you are both human beings, but he owns that food, so he's more entitled to it.

So that's the first one. If the other person has no need for it, one may purchase it from him. If the other person has no need for it, one may purchase it from him. If he bars him from it, one may take it by force, yet he or she is liable for its value and must compensate him for it whenever he or she can. So you have to purchase it. But if you have no money, you should ask for it without money and portmanteau. You should say you know I would owe you the value of this.

And then if he does not allow you to take it and you are about that we're talking about the Matata here, then you take it by force.

And then after you take it by force, you pay him when you have money for what you have taken from him by force. If the one in adversity is killed, he is a martyr.

And the killer is liable. That is the man who had the food who refuse to basically share it

will be liable if there was holder is killed, there is no liability, because he had caused all this commotion by refusing to give the extra food to the person who was more thought or compelled. Well, now with this, this is spec, you know, you have to consult your lawyer and all of that stuff, and we're not talking to you.

But But this, this is what I said and then this is the hamburger position. Now, we have many points to discuss here. One is

now two people are, you know, are in the, you know, crossing the desert, they are both starving, one has food, one does not have food.

It is clear here that the one who owns that the one who owns the food is more entitled to his food, he will have, he will eat it, he doesn't have to share it, if he has enough for his survival. Now, for his survival now, or for the rest of the journey, for the rest of the journey

for the rest of the journey. So if we are in a time of famine, and you have food stored

for the next few weeks, do you have to share it with other people? No, you don't. Because like you, you will not have food tomorrow, if you share it with everybody else. You may not you may die tomorrow. So during the time of famine, whatever you want to share, that's great, you know, you know, certainly

that's commendable, but if you do not want to share it, because he talked about oven, Nick, it is what is probable is that you will not find

you know, food tomorrow for your survival for your survival, then you don't need to share it during times of famine.

Now, if you have food,

if you have extra, then you ought to share it, you are to share that is beyond what you need for your survival with those who are more prone or about to die.

If you do not share it,

you know, and then you could certainly ask,

like for the for the price of the food. And then if but if they don't own the money now then it will be in their Zim will be the oh you they will owe you that money. They'll pay it when they can.

And if you refuse to give it to them without

you know, for any reason, if you if you refuse to give it to them for free, or you're free to give it to sell it to them, they actually are entitled to take it from you by force and then they can fight you to take it if they are about to die to save themselves. And then he says that if they kill you, no liability on them, if you kill them in this fight, you will be liable.

So, that isn't something that is that is consumable, when it comes to something that is not consumable,

that you have that will be used and returned to you like utensil or something when you are to give it to them like if they need a utensil to basically

get water from the whale or whatever you need, if they need something from you that is not consumable, they will return it to you then you ought to give it your must give it we have now done my own talks about this by intellivue because it will have been for the liquidity of the auditorium and escape rooms and enter the

amount. So we have now Mr. Owen, those who withhold

basically, little acts of kindness. It's translated as little acts of kindness but in my own

you know, in Egypt in Egypt, they call the utensils Mauer in it is related to this or maybe in some other places.

So it is the these are things

Things that are consumable, that are not consumable, but people need them such as like utensils or rope or whatever it is that people would need.

And then there is another issue here, which is if you find the human being dead,

what do you eat them

it is controversial dometic isn't hafeez would not allow you because they invoke this also an organ transplantation

the invoke this sort of discussion in organ transplantation, but, but, but organ transplantation is valid given that it would not cause harm to the donor and given that you have permission for this kind of organ transplantation, yeah, permission from the deceased or there earlier.

So, but but it is invoked in organ transplantation because the Hanafi is and Maliki's did not allow someone to eat a dead human being, that you could eat that animals for sure, but by their agreement, if you are motor, but are you allowed to eat at that human being? They said no, because topco hermeto who may eat and cannot cannot permit to hire the same sacred nurse he will stay with him after after this like before death.

And there is a position in the shaft and the Hanbury position that is

let us say,

a very strong position in the body position madhhab and the stronger position in the Shafi madhhab that it would be allowable to eat it, it would be allowable to eat now on the Hanbury must have a laugh here is over the dead man assume not that that, that that who's inviolable, that is what the Muslim, that there may be the most among the most.

These are four different inviolable people, Muslim,

non Muslim living in a Muslim land.

Sort of

contracted,

was that man, that is, you know, someone who came like a refugee if someone asked for asylum, someone who has been given visa, someone who came into the Muslim lands, security, and then the wire had the people who are in form of treaty peace treaty with Muslims. And we said that Taksim a door or dividing the lands in our times, should be updated, where all the door by default all the land by default as

an aloha had a solid, call it whatever you want Security Treaty, conciliation, whatever you want to call it by default, and then certainly things can be different if the if they are not land of security or treaty or, but because of the United Nations, you know, from the time of the League of Nations and thereafter the United Nations, all countries are in a state of

art.

Okay, so, so the so the end of the discussion, and I'm very madhhab is about the dead, person who is inviolable, not that person who is not inviolable, because the dead person who is not inviolable, they sat by agreement, eat.

They are.

So,

but, but these are the inviolable people and that's, that's the discussion anyway.

Now, how is this invoked in organ transplantation? The Hanafi is and Maliki's would say if you're not allowed to eat them, to use their organs, even though you are motor and they are dead. How could you take their organs

for organ transplantation?

There are many other issues that are invoked many other issues that are invoked in this discussion such as Can you take the to serve that person? Can you open the the app the abdomen or stomach of a pregnant woman if the child is alive inside? Can you open the abdomen of someone who swallowed before their death something very precious.

These are all discussions that are invoked in that organ transplantation discourse. But this is one of the issues that are invoked the position that makes more sense is that

the living should be given precedence over the dead and if someone is dead they likely don't need their organs and

now if if you're going you know

the cut and paste here would be crazy. But you're going to eat them Can you cook them? They said no, you can't you have to eat them raw. Because that is double insult to the dead to cook them and then to eat them. So you have to minimize the insult

okay,

but but but but keep in mind these are these are beautiful discussions. These are important discussions people used to travel across the desert all the time you guys are like, you guys are laughing because you're just you don't know anything. But But this this not only can happen in the desert, but you know, like a ship for instance, that

gets lost in the sea or these can can happen and then some people die and some people are alive can the people who are alive now who don't have any other food to survive?

Eat their friends.

That would be the dead friends. That would be the discussion. Okay, anyway.

Moving on what I

heard from the segment said a while back today, we bet Muharram. seeking treatment with forbidden medicines is impermissible.

And I'm just going to finish this so that I'm gonna get to discuss the whole thing in one shot. While I refer to that even harder I'm seeking treatment with forbidden medicines is impermissible while I should have been harmed remain harsh. Likewise, drinking wine is not permissible for someone who is thirsty. Well bajo de falsity. Bihar is lm he added many, many 100 IRA, however, one who is choking may remove his choke with it. Let's come if he cannot find another liquid, if you can find another liquid, so like even moharram it's not permissible to use haram medicines or haram anything to hide on in medicines.

Why is this because the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said in the lack of Angela Angela della fetida, devo beheren so Allah had brought down the disease and brought down the cure so seek treatment but don't seek treatment with that which is haram. And the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said in the LA Galaxy falcom imahara Morocco Allah had not made your cure and that which he had made forbidden for you. There is no cure and that which has been made forbidden for you.

Now using this the most the strictest the people in forbidding medicines that come from haram sources would be the Maliki's and ham buddies, the strictest of all would be the Maliki's the mannequins would not allow anything haram to be used as medicine except for external use for someone who's dying. External use for someone who's dying. The ham bellies are easier the allowed medicines that are from haram sources for external use period.

And they allowed also, you know, they allowed the poisons if they are mixed in if they're given by an expert physician who knows that there'll be safe the

and things like that but but in general, the ham bellies are almost just like the Maliki's. They allow things for external use, they don't allow things to be consumed, how long things to be consumed for today for treatment. And they also say that music is still Haram. Apparently there was music was used as a form of treatment and their times surprisingly, but they still consider it haram

and they

they also

would categorically forbid hum, pure hum and that's the rest of them. So the points of agreement between all scholars is that if you have alternatives that are hallahan alternatives that are hallahan

and then all of them agree

whatever

What is the sign for agreement?

But anyway, so, consensus. So all of them agree that if you have had alternatives then it would not be hard love to use haram medicines all of them agree that haram medicines are by default forbidden by default forbidden. Now we will have to discuss when they will be permissible and if you have halal alternatives then you cannot use them all of them agree that pure hum

would be implementable.

This is the very vast majority let us say close to consensus let's just call it for practical purposes consensus. No pure hum

Okay, so that these are the points of agreement then the Maliki's are the strictest of this they said experiment use only if you're buying a handbag he said external uses Okay. And then you will have the shaft is and the HANA fees who said that you could use her arm things in medicine if there are no halaal alternatives and it is the

sort of

essential by the experts by the physicians.

And

and they they also said the hammer mixed with stuff would be Hillel pure hammer would not be valid, but makes other stuff. What would be permissible

if you don't have alternatives, and if it is deemed essential by the experts that's the shafa is saying that now.

So how could they say that when are lost when the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said fetida or lotto gohara in Alameda County Mahara mahanakhon. They they invoked other principles, they invoked other textual proofs What did they invoke in lamotta Malay exactly that which he had been compelled to do.

The right to be her mother at

the day compared to the the other is extra proofs and principles about the Aurora. And then they also said that when our feathers news

became rotten after he got a nose like silvery nose became rotten, the tip of his nose was cut off at the bottom and the

use silverknowes became rotten the profits are solid, it allowed him to use like a

golden nose.

They also say that the profit allowed to happen is a bottom line to where sell because they have that itch.

They also say that the Prophet sallallahu Sallam prescribed for the people from Mohawk

to go out and work with with his shepherd and to drink from the milk and the urine of the camels.

And

now they can't use this against the medic he's at home buddies because the medic isn't home buddies don't find these things to be hard on to begin with notice, at least to begin with the Maliki's keep in mind. The ham bellies are not saying it is helpful to drink urine and eat feces of livestock. No, it's not hilarious, but the invoke at different principle to say it is not valid.

Not because it is not is because it is most dapibus repulsive. So they would not allow you to eat because it's most awkward, but they say is the path is not that big of a deal that people you know, disagree over what's mistakable all the time. So for medicine, it would be okay. It would be okay because it is not natus but for the handpiece and chakra is the excrements of livestock are nudges and the Prophet sallallahu Sallam allowed them to drink the urine of camels. So to them that is using haram substances for treatment.

So they invoke all of this. Now, to be honest with you, I have to agree with canopies and Sharpies

as it's not just because of an emotional thing because it is really

Realistically speaking, medicine today nowadays is not like medicine and the past, like when insulin used to be gotten and answered, he could invoke other principles like the car mafia on who and this is not being consumed that has been injected and the stuff but when insulin came out, it was poor sign insulin was the only insulin around.

So, can we then say to people, like diabetic people, do you know what insulin meant? diabetic people, that was the different life and death. If you don't, if you don't, if you are diabetic, and you to not take insulin, you just lose your senses and functions gradually and that's it. But if you take your insulin, you could live 40 5060 7080 years fine

to a great extent.

So,

medicine now is not like medicine before it is not based on conjecture, it is based on you know, close to certainty, you do see the antibiotics, you know, in the medium, kill the bacteria, you know, so you know, which antibiotic kills which bacteria, you do see it with your own eyes. So, so the herpes and sraffa is may be

are right here. Because, because the they invoke to the principles, they invoked also some sort of textual proofs that are specific to treatment. And the way to answer the statements of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam is because people used to do these things all the time.

On preventative basis, that's what he was telling them. So, can you imagine people still do, you know, take lots of medications on preventative basis? nowadays? Can you imagine how that will be a breach to the sanctity of the hareem in Islam, if people all the time, no, I'm drinking

beer, because it's good for your kidneys. You know, the doctors say that beer is good for your kidneys, or I am doing this because it's good for that are good. They would invoke the sort of the, these are treatments, that these are good things for your health. So that's what the prophets Allah is telling them not. When you become ill, and your physician finds a cure for you, that is essential, but it comes from haram sores. Now, that's not what is being intended here. As far as we can. Alon knows best. But it seems that the Hanafi and shafali position here seems stronger and more in agreement and conformity and harmony with principles. Now that Hanbury is we'll come back and

say, if you hear the sheriff says, if there is come

and you are thirsty about die,

don't drink it. If you are choking,

you may drink it, take a sip to remove the choke.

Why?

This is not because of something inherent in the harm and the harm of the harm, because they thought that hombre does not help with thirst.

You know that it makes you more thirsty, because whatever the sort of youth that are there

will make you and the salt and whatever the cameras that would make you more thirsty and the alcohol for certain diuretic and stuff like this.

But if you're choking give them it would help. So it is not about camera per se It is about whether it would help for certain or not. And since it would help for certain they, they are good, it would help for sericata if you are choking and you don't find any other liquid, then you could take a sip. But they felt that it would not help you thirst but those who felt that it could help your thirst like the canopies said that you may drink because it would help you thirst and I think it does help you like you know if you're really

thirsty about to die.

It would help.

But anyway, that's not what he said.

That brings us to the end of this particular chapter the Babel mythos. It is a very

The

important chapter there are many principles here

that the invoke in this in this discussion,

protocol they have I was never allowed to like, take five minutes and come back for our next chapter on the door or vows