Likewise, “intoxicating drink” is permitted by agreement to dislodge something stuck in the throat. According to one of the two scholarly views, it is also permitted to relieve thirst. Those who do not permit it say that it does not relieve thirst; this is the basis of Ahmad’s position. The ruling thus depends on whether it relieves thirst. If it is known to do so, it is undoubtedly permitted, just as pork is permitted to avert starvation. The necessity arising from thirst that a person believes will kill him is greater than that arising from hunger. Hence, drinking ritually impure liquids to relieve thirst is permitted without dispute—provided that the thirst is relieved; otherwise, none of this is permitted.

Likewise, regarding “gambling,” the Lawgiver has permitted competing for stakes, which falls within its meaning, because of the need to serve the interests of jihad. Some have said that this does not constitute gambling. This is the position of those who never permit both sides to contribute stakes unless a third competitor participates without contributing a stake. Undoubtedly, gambling is less serious than intoxicating drink; if intoxicating drink is permitted because of need, gambling is all the more deserving of such permission.

Gambling itself was prohibited only because it distracts from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer, and causes enmity and hatred. Thus, when it involves cooperation in archery—which belongs to the same category as prayer—and in jihad, which involves mutual assistance and unites hearts in its pursuit, this harmful consequence ceases to exist. Likewise, sales involving uncertainty belong to the same category as gambling, and some forms are permitted when there is a need and the benefit outweighs the harm.