His statement, “He may take from it only what will sustain him”: may he then eat his fill?

The answer is: according to the author’s view, he may not eat his fill, because this is consumption out of necessity and must therefore be limited to the extent of that necessity. However, if he becomes hungry a second time, he may eat again; there is no objection to this.

It has also been said that he may eat his fill if he fears becoming hungry later on. But the correct view is that he may not eat his fill, and that this consumption is permitted only out of necessity, so it is restricted to its proper measure. If he fears that he will become hungry before reaching his town, for example, he may take provisions from this meat by carrying some of it with him. If he takes provisions and carries them with him, there is no harm in that. But if he eats his fill of this foul meat, he may suffer indigestion and an unpleasant odor in his stomach, and thus be harmed. The correct view here, therefore, is what the author mentioned: nothing is lawful for him except what will sustain him and restore his strength.

His statement, “except poison”: he excluded poison. The word for poison may be pronounced with the letter sīn carrying any of the three short vowels: sam, summ, or sim; thus, one need not be concerned about pronouncing it incorrectly. If a person is compelled to consume poison, he may not consume any of it. Why?

The answer is that if he consumes poison, he hastens his own death—something well known. But if he does not consume it, Allah may perhaps make something else available for him to eat. If he consumes poison, however, he has killed himself. Thus, poison is never lawful under any circumstances.

Issues:

First: If one is compelled to drink the milk of a female donkey—that is, a she-ass—is it lawful for him?

The answer is: it is lawful for him. All prohibited things that are not intrinsically harmful may be eaten or drunk when a person is compelled to resort to them.