unless it is possible to acquire it through purchase or seeking consent, in which case he is not permitted to fight for it, as it is possible to obtain it without doing so. If he does not sell it except for more than the price of its equivalent, the Qadi mentioned that he may fight him for it. The more correct view is that it is not permissible for him to do so, because it is possible to obtain it without fighting. If he buys it for more than the price of its equivalent, he is not obligated to pay more than the price of its equivalent, because he became entitled to it by its value. He is obligated to provide compensation for it in every instance where he takes it, whether it is with him at the time or otherwise, it becomes a liability on his conscience. It is not permitted for the one in necessity to take from the wealth of his brother except what is permitted from carrion. Abu Hurayrah said: We said: O Messenger of Allah, what is permitted for one of us from the wealth of his brother when he is compelled to it? He said: "He eats and does not carry, and he drinks and does not carry."

Section: If famine intensifies in a year of drought and necessity befalls a large number of people, or if some people possess only the amount of their own sufficiency and the sufficiency of their families, he is not obligated to provide it to those in necessity, and they do not have the right to take it from him, because this leads to necessity befalling him as well, and it does not remove it from them. Likewise, if they are on a journey and he has with him only the amount of his sufficiency with no surplus, he is not obligated to give what he has to those in necessity. Our companions did not distinguish between this situation and the condition where he would not be harmed by giving what he has to them, in that it is mandatory upon him because he is not currently in necessity, while the other is in necessity, so it is necessary to prioritize the need of the one in necessity. Our argument is that this leads to the destruction of his own self and the destruction of his family, so it is not obligated upon him, just as if he could save a drowning person by drowning himself. Moreover, in providing it, there is an act of casting oneself into destruction, which Allah has forbidden.

1743 - Issue; He said: (And there is no harm in eating the dabb (spiny-tailed lizard) and the hyena.)

As for the dabb, it is permissible according to the opinion of the majority of scholars; among them are Umar ibn al-Khattab, Ibn Abbas, Abu Sa'id, and the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Abu Sa'id said: We, the company of the companions of Muhammad, would find it more beloved to one of us if a dabb were gifted to him than a chicken. Umar said: It does not please me that in place of every dabb there is a fat chicken, and I wish that in every dabb burrow there were two dabs.