whose ring has been lost in the dust.” A miser’s ring is exceedingly precious to him; if he loses it in the earth, he will keep searching for it forever, perhaps he may find it.

Thus, this case mentioned by the jurists—may Allah have mercy on them—shows how deeply they explore the formulation of legal questions, even rare ones. For who would imagine a man eating, taking an oversized mouthful, then choking, and finding nothing but a cup of wine at hand—in a Muslim land? It is a remote possibility, but it may occur.

In such a case, if he chokes—and may die unless the morsel is dislodged—and he has a cup of wine, he may drink only the amount needed to dislodge the morsel; that is, only to the extent of the necessity. Once it has been dislodged, he must stop.

Why is this permitted even though wine is forbidden? The answer is that, in this case, the necessity is certainly removed by means of what is otherwise forbidden: drinking the wine will definitely relieve the emergency. But the necessity caused by thirst is not relieved by drinking wine, nor is it relieved by it in medical treatment.

A question: Some medicines and pharmaceutical preparations contain a proportion of alcohol, and are sometimes administered to patients out of necessity. What is the ruling on this?

The answer: They do not intoxicate; rather, they produce a degree of sedation and relieve the patient’s pain. They do not intoxicate as one who drinks wine becomes intoxicated. They resemble anaesthesia, which suspends sensation without the patient experiencing pleasure or exhilaration. It is well known that when a ruling is contingent upon an effective cause, the ruling ceases when its cause is absent. So long as