What is the ruling on using 'ma'areedh' (ambiguous or indirect speech) when there is no necessity, especially if it is for jest or to unjustly acquire rights, and is that considered a lie and a departure from what is permissible, and are they only for necessities?

Circumlocution (ma'arid) and dissimulation (tawriya) are permissible in lawful matters, but using them to usurp people's rights and to deceive in order to seize what one is not entitled to is impermissible, due to the treachery, deception, and fraud involved. This is based on the Prophet's (peace be upon him) saying: "Whoever cheats us is not of us, and treachery and deceit are in the Fire." The matter becomes even more serious if it is reinforced by swearing by Allah Almighty, and by the Prophet's (peace be upon him) saying: "Whoever takes a Muslim's right by his oath, Allah has made Hellfire obligatory for him and Paradise forbidden for him." In such cases, the use of circumlocution or the intention of the swearer is of no benefit as long as the matter relates to the rights of others, based on the Prophet's (peace be upon him) saying: "Verily, the oath of the swearer is according to the intention of the one who demands the oath."