The second principle concerns the use of forbidden things in circumstances of compulsion.

The basic scriptural proof is the Almighty’s statement:

“He has clearly explained to you what He has forbidden you—except for that to which you are driven by necessity.”
(6:119)

Discussion of this subject revolves around three questions: the cause that lifts the prohibition, the type of object thereby rendered lawful, and its permissible amount.

1. The first cause is the necessity of nourishment—namely, when a person can find nothing lawful to eat. There is no disagreement about this.

2. The second cause is the pursuit of a cure, and here the jurists differ. Those who permit it cite the Prophet’s—peace and blessings be upon him—allowance for ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf to wear silk because of a skin irritation. Those who forbid it rely on his saying, “Allah has not placed the healing of my community in what He has prohibited to them.”

As for the class of things made lawful in dire need, it includes every forbidden item, such as carrion and the like. Their disagreement over wine concerns its medicinal use, not its use as food; hence they allow a desperately thirsty person to drink it if it will quench his thirst, and a choking person to clear his throat with it.

With respect to the quantity of carrion or similar prohibited food that may be eaten, Mālik said: one may eat until he is satisfied and even take provisions from it until he finds something else. Al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfah held that he may eat only what will keep him alive, and some of Mālik’s own followers concurred.

The crux of the disagreement is whether, in a state of necessity, the whole quantity becomes lawful or only what averts death. The apparent sense is that all of it becomes lawful, in view of the verse:

“But whoever is compelled, neither desiring it nor transgressing…”
(2:173)

Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī nonetheless agree that it is not permissible for a traveler who is sinning by his journey to eat carrion, citing the same words, “neither desiring it nor transgressing.” Others, however, allow it.