Surah al-Ma'idah (The Table) 5 : 93

Overview (Verse 93)

Why Intoxicants Are So Repugnant
 
It is useful to explain here the nature of intoxicants which are meant in this prohibition. Abū Dāwūd relates this ĥadīth on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās: “Everything that is brewed is wine, and every intoxicant is forbidden.” `Umar addressed the Muslims, standing on the Prophet’s pulpit, with a group of the Prophet’s Companions in attendance. He said: “When the Qur’ānic verse was revealed prohibiting drinks, intoxicants were derived from five types of produce: grapes, palm dates, honey, wheat and barley. Wine refers to everything that blurs the mind.” These statements clearly indicate that intoxicants include every brewed drink which causes intoxication. It is not restricted to a particular type. Whatever intoxicates is forbidden.
 
The lack of consciousness, whichever intoxicant produces it, is diametrically opposed to the state of alertness which Islam requires of every Muslim so that he consciously feels his link with God at every moment, making sure that all his thoughts and actions are of the sort that please God. By being so alert and conscious, the Muslim plays a positive role in the proper development of life and in protecting it against weakness and corruption. He further protects himself, his property and honour and he helps to protect the Muslim community and its system and law against all types of aggression. A Muslim is not abandoned so that he cares only for himself or his enjoyments. On the contrary, at every moment he has duties to fulfil which require that he be always alert. These include duties towards his Lord, himself, his family and the Muslim community of which he is a member and towards humanity at large. Even when he enjoys the wholesome pleasures Islam permits, he must retain his full consciousness so that he is not enslaved by any type of pleasure or desire. He is in control of all his desires and he fulfils them as one who is totally in control. Drunkenness is the opposite state.
 
Moreover, seeking such unconsciousness is simply an attempt to escape from the reality of life at a particular moment in time and a preference for the sort of visions which accompany drunkenness. Islam disapproves of all this because it wants people to see the realities as they are, to look them in the face and to conduct their lives on the basis of reality, not imagination. It is through facing reality that man proves his will-power. To escape to the realm of imagination is to prove one’s weakness and lack of will. Islam wants its people to have a strong will, unfettered by habit or addiction. From the Islamic point of view, this is enough reason to forbid intoxicants and all drugs. All these are abominations devised by Satan and their effect is only the corruption of human life.
 
Scholars have different views with regard to whether intoxicants are impure in themselves like other physical impurities, or whether the prohibition applies only to drinking them. The majority of scholars are of the first view, while the second view is that of Rabī`ah, al-Layth ibn Sa`d, al-Muznī of the Shāfi`ī school and a number of later scholars of Baghdad. Perhaps this reference to scholarly views on this point is adequate for our purposes.
 
Self-Surrender and Obedience
 
When these verses were revealed totally prohibiting all intoxicants, and describing them as an abomination devised by Satan, two groups of people raised a query in the same wording but for totally different reasons. A few of the Prophet’s Companions who were very scrupulous said: “What about our Companions who died when intoxicants were still lawful to drink?” Some of them said: “What about those killed in the Battle of Uĥud, with intoxicants in their bellies?” i.e. before they were forbidden to drink. Another group who were keen to seize every chance to sow the seeds of doubt among the Muslim community said similar things. Their aim was to try to weaken the Muslims’ trust in the reasoning behind Islamic legislation. They also wanted to convey the feeling that those who died before the prohibition of intoxicants were totally lost, since they died with this abomination in their bodies. Hence, the purpose behind the following verse: “Those who believe and do righteous deeds shall have no blame attached to them for any food they may have eaten, so long as they fear God and truly believe and do righteous deeds, and continue to fear God and believe, and remain God-fearing and persevere in doing good. God loves those who do good” (Verse 93)
 
This verse states that what has not been forbidden is lawful and that prohibition begins with its statement, not at any moment prior to this. There can be no retrospective prohibition and punishment, whether in this life or in the life to come, cannot be inflicted without a clear statement of ruling. Those who died before the prohibition of intoxicants had nothing to fear, because they did not drink any forbidden thing and did not commit any act of disobedience. They feared God and did righteous deeds, knowing that He was totally aware of their intentions and actions. Such a person neither disobeyed nor drank something forbidden.
 
We have no intention of taking part in the controversy raised by the Mu`tazilah group concerning the ruling that intoxicants are abominations. What we will say, however, is that they raised the question about whether this is a result of its prohibition or because of the inherent quality of intoxicants. They also posed the question about whether what is forbidden is so ruled because of its inherent qualities, or because this quality is attached to it as a result of its prohibition. In my view all this controversy is futile and alien to the Islamic approach. When God forbids something, He knows why He forbids it, whether He states that reason or not. Whether the prohibition is based on the quality of what is prohibited, or on something that relates to the individual partaking of it personally, or to the interests of the whole community, it is God who knows the whole truth. Obeying His orders is an undeniable duty of every Muslim. Any subsequent controversy addresses no real need. Realism is an essential aspect of the Divine method. No one can say: “If prohibition is the result of an inherent quality in the thing prohibited, how can it be permitted in the period leading up to its prohibition?” God must have had a good reason for leaving it permissible for a while. After all, this is always determined by God alone. This is, indeed, an essential quality of Godhead. Whether man considers something to be good or bad is not the determining factor because man can consider something to be the determining reason for prohibition when in actual fact it is not. The appropriate attitude is to accept God’s legislation and to carry it out whether we know the reasons behind them or not. God knows everything and we know little.
 
The implementation of God’s law must be based in the first instance on submission to Him. This is, indeed, the very meaning of Islam. When man has shown his obedience, he can use his mind to identify, as much as he is able to, God’s purpose behind His commandment or prohibition, whether this purpose is stated by God or not, understood by human intellect or not. It must be remembered, however, that God, not man, is the final arbiter on whether something should be included in His law. When God has issued His decree, all arguments must stop. His decree must be implemented. If a decision is left to human intellect, people become the final arbiter on God’s legislation. How then can this fit in with God’s position as the ultimate authority, or with man’s submission to Him?
 
Let us now consider the phraseology of this verse: “Those who believe and do righteous deeds shall have no blame attached to them for any food they may have eaten, so long as they fear God and truly believe and do righteous deeds, and continue to fear God and believe, and remain God-fearing and persevere in doing good. God loves those who do good.” (Verse 93)
 
I admit that I have not found anything stated by commentators on the Qur’ān to be totally satisfactory in explaining the way this Qur’ānic verse is phrased, and why fear of God is mentioned once in combination with both faith and righteous deeds, and repeated once more in combination with faith and on a third occasion combined with doing good. Nor do I consider now as satisfactory my own comments on this repetition which are included in the first edition of this book. The best that I have read, although it too remains somewhat unsatisfactory to me, is that written by al- Ţabarī: “The first reference to fearing God equates this fearing of God to total acceptance of His commandment, submission to it and an acting upon it. The second reference equates it with an unshakeable acceptance of faith while the third mention represents a God-fearing person as always being ready to do good work voluntarily.”
 
I will quote here what I have written on this particular point in the first, shorter edition of this work: “This is a method of confirmation by way of following a general statement with a detailed one. The first reference is a general, comprehensive one which includes God-fearing, strong faith and righteous deeds. The aspect of God- fearing is then repeated once in combination with faith and another with doing good, righteous deeds, in order to emphasise this sense and to highlight the important rule that actions are judged by the inner feelings that accompany them. God-fearing is the best expression of a fine sensitivity towards God’s commandments and a constant relationship with Him that combines belief in Him with acceptance of His orders. Righteous deeds are the practical translation of inner faith. It is interaction between deeds and beliefs that is the criterion for judgement. Appearances provide no such criterion. It is this basic rule which requires repetition and emphatic statements.”
 
At this moment in time I do not find my own words satisfactory, but I cannot come up with anything better. I seek God’s help.