Is the ruling on committing a prohibited act to avert death and destruction exclusively limited to considering it a necessity? Is marriage a necessity, and if so, why are young people who cannot afford the costs of marriage prevented from taking interest-bearing loans? What is the meaning of the rule: "Necessity takes the place of dire necessity," and to what extent does it apply to the reality of young people? Is the prohibition of interest-bearing loans a prohibition of objectives or a prohibition of means?

Necessity permits the forbidden if a Muslim reaches or approaches the point of perishing. However, marriage is not considered a necessity that permits borrowing with usury. Indeed, one who does not marry does not perish or suffer organ damage. The Prophet, peace be upon him, guided those unable to marry to that which would curb their desires. The principle "necessity takes the place of dire necessity" means that a need establishes a ruling, not that it is identical to dire necessity in all its rulings. The prohibition of usury is established by definitive texts, so the need for marriage does not permit borrowing with it.