is far removed from the principles of the Sacred Law. Those who held it to be forbidden said: a permitting factor and a prohibiting factor have come together, so the side of prohibition takes precedence. This is a consistently applicable legal principle in such matters, where the evidences conflict. Our position in such cases is to exercise caution: with respect to commands, caution means acting; with respect to prohibitions, it means abstaining.

In summary, what is prohibited is pure silk, or that in which silk constitutes the greater proportion. Whatever consists predominantly of something other than silk is lawful. As for that in which silk and another material are equal, it is a matter of scholarly disagreement.

For Necessity or Itching

His statement, “for necessity,” refers to silk; that is, wearing it out of necessity. Necessity includes having no other garment available. It also includes wearing another garment but needing to wear silk to ward off the cold. Another case of necessity is when one has a garment that does not cover his private parts because it is torn. Thus, whatever necessity calls for may be worn.

His statement, “or itching,” means that if he has an itch, it is permissible for him to wear it.

The wisdom behind this is that, due to its smoothness and softness, silk soothes the inflammation caused by itching; this is why the Lawgiver permitted it. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, granted ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf and al-Zubayr, may Allah be pleased with them, permission to wear silk because of an itch they suffered from (1). Thus, itching permits the wearing of silk.

If someone were to say: We have a legal principle, namely that what is prohibited is not