The hadith also supports another inference, though this is disputed: he permitted them to drink it, whereas, had it been forbidden and impure, he would not have permitted them to do so. I know of no one who disputes the permissibility of treating illness with camel urine, as established by the Sunnah. However, scholars have differed over the basis of this ruling. Some hold that it is permissible without restriction, whether for medicinal purposes or otherwise. Others hold that it is forbidden, and that he permitted it only for medicinal purposes. Still others hold that, besides being forbidden, it is also impure.

This line of argument requires another premise: that medicinal treatment with forbidden, impure substances is prohibited. There are several grounds for this.

First: The evidence establishing prohibition, such as the statements:

“Carrion has been forbidden to you,”

“Every fanged beast of prey is forbidden,”

and

“Intoxicants, gambling, stone altars, and divining arrows are an abomination,”

applies generally, whether these things are used medicinally or otherwise. Whoever distinguishes between the two cases thus separates what Allah has treated alike and restricts the scope of a general ruling; this is not permissible.

If it is said: “But He has permitted them in cases of necessity, and someone seeking treatment is compelled by necessity, so they become permissible for him. Alternatively, we may draw an analogy between permitting them to the sick and permitting them to the hungry, since both share a need for them. This is supported by the fact that illness waives such obligations as standing during prayer and fasting in Ramadan, and allows a transition from purification with water to purification with earth. Likewise, it permits otherwise prohibited things, since obligations and prohibitions are governed by the same principle. Further support for this concerns prohibited forms of adornment and clothing, such as gold and silk: