La destrucción de la persona o de la vida es haram, y por tanto la adhesión a la 'Azeemah, que en este ejemplo se manifiesta en no comer la maitah (carne de animal muerto), es haram.
The destruction of the person or life is Haraam and so adherence to the ‘Azeemah, which in this example is manifested in not eating the Maitah (carrion meat), is Haraam.
Estos casos en los que la rujsah es wayib y actuar conforme a ella es wayib, sin embargo, no representan en realidad una rujsah. Más bien representan un hukm taklifi, y lo mismo se aplica al caso en que fuera mandub y actuar conforme a ella fuera mandub.
These cases in which the Rukhsah is Waajib and acting by it is Waajib, are not however actually a representation of the Rukhsah. Rather they represent a Takleefiy Hukm and the same applies in the case if it was Mandoob and acting by it was Mandoob.
Eso se debe a que la rukhsah, en cuanto a su realidad y en cuanto a haber sido legislada como rukhsah, es mubah en lo que respecta a su hukm. Entonces, si al dejarla y actuar según la 'azeemah se llega inevitablemente a lo haram, la rukhsah, que es mubah, se convertiría en wayib. Esta circunstancia la sacaría de ser una rukhsah y pasaría a ser un hukm taklifi y no un hukm wad'i.
That is because the Rukhsah, in respect to its reality, and in respect to it being legislated as a Rukhsah, is Mubaah in regards to its Hukm. Then if by leaving it and acting by the ‘Azeemah, it leads inevitably to Haraam, the Rukhsah, which is Mubaah, would become Waajib. This circumstance would then take it out from being a Rukhsah and it would become a Hukm Takleefiy and not a Hukm Wad’iy.
Por lo tanto, se considera una Rujsah siempre que su Hukm sea el de Al-Ibaahah (permisibilidad) y siempre que al Mukallaf se le dé la opción de hacerlo o de hacer la 'Azeemah.
It is therefore considered to be a Rukhsah as long as its Hukm is that of Al-Ibaahah (permissibility) and as long as the Mukallaf is given the choice between doing it or doing the ‘Azeemah.
Por lo tanto, el ayuno del Ramadán es Wayib, mientras que romper el ayuno (o no ayunar) para la persona enferma representa una Rujsa, que es Mubah.
So the Sawm of Ramadhaan is Waajib whilst the breaking of the fast (or not fasting) for the ill person represents a Rukhsah which is Mubaah.
Sin embargo, si al no romper el ayuno la persona enferma llegara a perecer, entonces en ese caso el Sawm (ayuno) se volvería Haraam y romper el ayuno sería obligatorio. Esta nueva situación o circunstancia quedaría entonces fuera del ámbito de la Rukhsah y la 'Azeemah, y pasaría a ser representativa de un caso al que se aplica el siguiente principio de la Shar'iyah:
However, if by not breaking the fast it would lead to the perishing of the sick person, then in that case the Sawm (fasting) would become Haraam and breaking the fast would be obligatory. This new situation or circumstance would then be taken out of the sphere of the Rukhsah and ‘Azeemah and would become representative of a case upon which the following Shar’iyah principle applies: