DHARURAH: THE PRINCIPLE OF NECESSITY

Muslims are ordained to carry out all their actions according to the commands and prohibitions
of Allah (swt). And, we do affirm that Islam is a complete Deen prescribed for all times, places
and people till the yaum-al-qiyamah. But today, prevalent beliefs, practices, and conventions
have unfortunately made practicing even the most basic obligations a serious challenge and force
an understanding that living by complete Islam is impractical and difficult in the existing
societies.

In an attempt to redefine a Deen that fits better into the current scheme of things, we have
unflinchingly negated the commands and ignored the prohibitions of Allah (swt). While some
have brazenly replaced the halal and haram with sophistry and logic, others have presented
specious arguments liberally garnished with Islamic terms that oblige one to believe that “it is all
from Islam”. One such term is the principle of dharurah (necessity).

Using dharurah and dharr, the Shariah of Allah (swt) is undermined, intentionally or otherwise
and even the pious ones among the Muslim Ummah are unsuspectingly led to believe that they
aren‟t involved in anything unislamic; mollified with the “ease” and the “practicality” in Deen
during these difficult times. Under such an overwhelming presence of confusion and corruption,
it is obligatory to understand in detail the juristic concept of dharurah, a principle blatantly
exploited to legitimize some of the most despicable acts.

So, what is dharurah? Is it limited by the nass (text) of the Qur‟an and Sunnah? How does one
apply it correctly? We will, in-sha-Allah, attempt to explore the answers to these questions in
their correct perspective.

Linguistic definition

Before delving into the juristic definition of dharurah, it is essential to understand its linguistic
meaning as the linguistic meaning has a bearing on its juristic meaning as well. Dharurah in the
Arabic language is derived from the word darar, which means an injury or harm that cannot be
avoided. Dharurah in Arabic means:

1. Dire need for something (shiddat al-häjah), to an extent that the absence of fulfillment of
such a need would lead to a harm
2. The state in which one is being forced to do something (al-ilja‟)

Juristic definition

The Shariah of Allah (swt) has defined certain situations which it deems dire and has
disburdened a person who was, in origin, mukallaf (accountable) for the hukm of Allah (swt)
regarding that act. In other words, it is a condition wherein, under duress, an action that is
originally prohibited becomes permissible for that particular situation and time. Based on this the
Usuliyeen (scholars of Usul) have defined the principle of dharurah, deriving its conditions from
the text of Qur‟an and Sunnah, in the following words:
Al-Zarkashi (d. 794 A.H.), Al-Suyüti (d. 911 A. H.) and Al-Hamawi al-Hanafi (d. 1098 A.
H.): It is a situation in which one reaches a limit where if one does not take a prohibited thing,
one will die or be about to die.

Ibn Qudämah (d. 630 A. H.): Permitting necessity is the state in which one fears losing one's
life if one abstained from eating.

Imam Shatibi: Those objectives which are necessary for establishing the interests of the Deen
and worldly affairs, such that in the absence of these objectives the interests of worldly life
cannot be organized rather, in them, there would be disruption, killing and destruction, threat to
life, and also there would be fear of turning towards an ultimate loss i.e. losing out on the
blessings and salvation in the akhirah.

Evidences for the Principle

The earliest evidence of such permissibility is found in the Seerah of Muhammad (saw) when the
Muslims were being forced to denounce their faith or die and some Muslims ended up saying
what the Quraysh wanted them to say. With regard to this, Muhammad (saw) said, “Do the same
if you find yourself in such a situation again”. Also, Allah (swt) says in the Qur'an,

Whoever disbelieved in Allah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose
heart is at rest with Faith… [An-Nahl 106]

Some mufassireen say this ayah was revealed regarding Ammar bin Yaser when the Quraysh
forced him to denounce Islam. Thus the permissibility of uttering haram statements under dire
situations is known.

Another oft-cited verse of the Qur‟an in support of the principle of dharurah is,

“He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has
been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it]
nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and
Merciful.” [Al Baqarah 173]

Islam is a complete Deen and Allah (swt) has prescribed rules and regulations for each and every
action that a Muslim carries out in his life, in any place, time or situation. Naturally, the Shariah
must have special rules for special situations because these special situations can occur as a part
of any person‟s life. And, the permissibility for a haram is also a prescription from the Shariah
of Allah (swt).

Dharurah and its conditions

One must understand the Sharii reality of this principle at the outset. We all truly believe that the
Deen of Allah (swt) is comprehensive and His Shariah is all encompassing – meaning it covers
each and every action that a human is required to commit, and nothing is left unanswered. And,
that „hardship eases the Shariah rules and obligations‟ (al mashaqqa tajlibu al tayseer) is itself a
rule defined by the Shariah and not a departure resulting from logical, rational deductions.

The principle „necessity legalizes the prohibited‟ (al dharuraat tubiihu al mahdhuuraat) falls
under the principle of hardship (Qa‟idat al-mashaqqat). And, the principle comes with certain
well defined restrictions that must be understood. The permissibility for haram should not extend
beyond the limits needed to protect life (al dharuraat tuqaddar bi qadriha) and, the necessity
legalizes only temporary violation of rights (al idhtiraar la yubtilu haqq al ghair). The
permissibility ends with the end of the necessity that justified it in the first place (ma jaaza bi
„udhri batala bi zawaalihi). It is impermissible to get out of a difficulty by delegating someone
else to undertake a haram act (ma haruma fi‟iluhu, haruma talabuhu).

Based upon the evidences from Quran and Sunnah, scholars have defined certain conditions for
the application of the principle of dharurah. They are:

 The necessity should be defined by the Shari‟ah.

 The necessity should be real and present and not assumed or anticipated.
 The concession and its limits must be defined by Shariah.
 In order to save oneself , there should be no other option except the haram.
 The haram action must guarantee relief from the situation.
 Haram is permitted till the threat remains and the permission ceases when the threat ends.
 One granted the permission must detest the action and the situation that forced him into it
 One person‟s necessity doesn‟t become the basis for someone else to do haram.

Naturally, if these conditions are not met, the principle cannot be applied and if one did so, it
would be against the Shariah of Allah (swt) and will certainly invite the punishment of Allah
(swt).

The application of the principle

Scholars understood this principle from the examples mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah and
the concessions given thereat. To understand the principle behind certain Sharii concession is a
scholarly exercise. But to extrapolate the principle to inappropriate situations and extend the
concession to them based on how our mind perceives it is incorrect and clearly impermissible.

The life of the Muslims living under an un-Islamic system is, obviously full of challenges. In
many Muslim countries that are facing troubled times and countries where Muslims live as
minorities, one hears of many incidents where Muslims are compelled to commit haram actions.
The beef ban in India and the ensuing violence and hatred against the Muslim community is a
singular example. The gau rakshaks (cow vigilantes) nabbed poor Muslim farmers and cattle
herders, beat them up and forced them to utter the words of Kufr. Shara gives such individuals
clear permission to utter the words of Kufr to escape death.

On the other hand, there is another category that interpolates the concession from the Shariah to
apply on every exacting situation Muslims find themselves in. So, we have fatawa that allow
interest-based loans for the first home, overseas education, marriage expenses etc. all for the sake
of dharurah. These are all impermissible because owning a house, getting a better degree and
conducting a grand wedding are not Sharii reasons for concession. The hardship (mashaqqat)
that the Shariah considers as a necessity for concession is death alone.

With the general elections just around the corner, similar justifications under the principle are
heard from the masajid and the manabir. Voting in this un-Islamic system is presented not
merely as a necessity but as an obligation and not voting is regarded as a grave sin. We hear that
if Muslims do not participate in elections, their names would be removed from the voters‟ list
and subsequently they would cease to remain the citizens of India, which may in turn make them
vulnerable to oppression similar to what happened with other refugees. Or, if the Muslims do not
vote for a „secular‟ party, the fascist forces will come to rule and go on to ban the Muslim
Personal Law or do with the Muslims what was done in Spain or Burma.

The principle of dharurah is being presented as an argument to make voting obligatory. We shall
see how, in light of the above, the claim that “voting in this un-Islamic system is permissible
under the principle of necessity” is in violation of the very definition and the conditions for the
principle of dharurah.

Discussion

As evident from the examples mentioned in the ayaat, the hardship (mashaqqat) that the Shariah
defines as eligible for concession from a hukm is any condition that will lead to loss of life.
Every kind of difficulty can‟t be included as a reason for concession from Sharii rules. The
Ambiya and the Sahaba faced numerous hardships but were never allowed concessions from the
hukm of Allah (swt). Stories of Prophets Moosa, Ibrahim, Eesa (as) and Bilal, Khabbab, Musayb
(ra) are all well known for sacrifice, endurance and steadfastness. The history of Islam is replete
with examples where Muslims endured every kind of hardship yet never wavered from the hukm
of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) says in the Quran,

Or think you that you will enter Paradise without such (trials) as came to those who passed
away before you? They were afflicted with severe poverty and ailments and were so shaken
that even the Messenger and those who believed along with him said, "When (will come) the
Help of Allah?" Yes! Certainly, the Help of Allah is near! [Al Baqarah: 214]

Hardships could be a trial, a reward or a punishment from Allah (swt). And the hardship that
allows concession from hukm of Allah (swt) is only death and any other hardship, however
difficult it may be, if it doesn‟t lead to death, cannot be used in the context of the principle. This
is clearly established from the evidences from Quran and Sunnah. Sadly, our understanding and
our actions are quite contrary to this. Most of us are under complete influence of western
materialism. And with the excuse of making Islam easy, every hardship, big or small, is being
incorrectly inserted into the discussion of dharurah. Whoever does so, departs from Allah‟s
Shariah and would only incur the wrath of Allah (swt).

The necessity that is presented as an argument is neither real nor present but merely assumed.
Since the necessity doesn‟t exist the application of the principle is invalid. Further, according to
the conditions for application of the principle, the reality of Burma and Spain doesn‟t become a
basis to apply the principle in India. It would be absurd if someone said, „since he is dying of
starvation, let me eat pork too because I could die too.‟ The principle would apply on this person
only if he was in a similar reality and about to die too, not if he was apprehensive of being in that
situation. Therefore, the principle could be rightly applied to the Muslims involved in lynching
but not to every Muslim in India. We have already discussed earlier the principle of certainty
(Qaidat al-yaqeen)

The Muslim who is granted such a concession must detest the haram action from the depths of
his heart and also hate the situation that forced him into doing a haram. Such a person would
constantly work to extricate himself from his situation, avoiding it in future and never promote
the haram to others. Yet, we see that the proponents of voting in a Kufr system do not flinch
while advocating the haram. And wait eagerly year after year, term after term to participate and
invite others to participate in the haram. The classical scholars allowed a haram under the
principle of dharurah but none of them ever called the haram an obligation and the one who
avoided the haram even during a dire situation was always praised as a pious Muslim. Today,
some overtly transgress all limits when they call this haram an obligation and castigate everyone
who refrains from the haram.

In the context of voting in an un-Islamic system, none of the other necessary conditions are met.
These have been already discussed in detail in the previous section of this booklet. We implore
the reader to study the details presented in that section.

From the foregoing, one must understand that the misapplication of the principle of dharurah, is
an evil deception that aims to distract the Ummah away from the Deen of Allah (swt) and
maintain the dominant status of Kufr. Muslims are seeking ease from their hardships while
misapplying the principle and promoting the Kufr system. But they should realize that this Kufr
system, that is the cause for all hardships, will never be able to provide the peace and justice that
Islam envisions for the humanity.

Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement
than Allah for a people who have firm Faith. [Al-Maidah: 50]