there were three views within the school of Imam Ahmad and among other scholars. The most balanced is that it is permissible for someone in need. Ahmad said: “Payment for teaching is better than grants from the ruler, and grants from the ruler are better than gifts from one’s brethren.”

All the principles of the Sharia rest on this foundation: a distinction is made between someone in need and someone who is not, regarding prohibitions just as regarding commands. Thus, prohibited things become permissible in cases of necessity, especially if the alternative would be to beg from people, for begging is more strictly prohibited.

For this reason, the scholars said that obligations must be fulfilled even if they can only be fulfilled through doubtful means. As Abū Tālib and Abū Hāmid related, a man asked Imam Ahmad: “A son of mine has died owing debts, and others owe him debts that I am reluctant to collect.”

Imam Ahmad said to him: “Will you leave your son bound by his unpaid debt?”

His point was that repaying a debt is obligatory, and one is commanded to set aside one’s misgivings in order to fulfil an obligation.

Likewise, the scholars agreed that a judge and others in comparable positions should receive a stipend when in need, though they differed over receiving one when there is no need. The basis for this is in the Book of Allah, in His words concerning an orphan’s guardian:

“Whoever is wealthy should refrain, and whoever is poor may take a reasonable amount.”

The same applies to comparable cases, for the Sharia is founded on securing and perfecting benefits, and eliminating and reducing harms. True scrupulousness means choosing the greater of two goods at the expense of the lesser, and averting the greater of two evils even if the lesser results.

Many hadiths have been reported concerning cupping. In the two Sahīh collections, it is reported from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,