Is the saying of Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him: "As for when benefit outweighs, it is to be adopted; and when harm outweighs, its side is to be given precedence," absolute, or is it restricted to cases where the benefit is among the necessities or needs?

When benefits and harms converge, the jurisprudence of balancing between them can be classified into three cases:

1. Preponderance of Benefit: The preponderant benefit is given precedence, and the lesser harm is tolerated in order to achieve the greater benefit, such as the permissibility of uttering words of disbelief under duress to preserve one's life. Estimating the preponderance of benefit requires careful scrutiny of the evidence and consideration of its connection to necessities, needs, or embellishments. 2. Preponderance of Harm: Harm is averted if it is greater than the benefit, and the loss of benefit is not heeded in this case, such as the prohibition of intoxicants and gambling because their sin is greater than their benefit. 3. Equality of Benefit and Harm: Averting harms is given precedence over acquiring benefits, which is the well-known rule: "Averting harms takes precedence over acquiring benefits." It should be noted that this case is a subject of disagreement among scholars, as many of them deny its occurrence and believe that one of the two sides must be preponderated.