Is it permissible to commit a sin if its prohibition was based on certain reasons, and then these reasons ceased to exist for a specific individual?

If a prohibition in Islamic law is tied to a definitive cause (illah qaṭʿiyyah), it ceases to apply when that cause no longer exists. Examples include lengthening one's garment out of arrogance (al-khuyalāʾ) and the prohibition of two people whispering in the presence of a third, for fear of saddening him. However, if a prohibition is established and a cause is mentioned for it that is not intrinsically tied to it, then the ruling does not cease to apply when that cause no longer exists; rather, the text remains as it is. Examples of this include the prohibition of intoxicants (khamr), usury (ribā), and gambling (qimār). A ruling revolves with its cause, in existence and non-existence, if the cause is definitive. However, if it is speculative (ẓanniyyah) or inferred (mustanbaṭah), then it does not.