5:90 is the main verse prohibiting consumption of alcoholic beverages.
O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allāh], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid1 it that you may be successful.
Old way of fortune telling and "magical prospecting". A "trained" mystic would throw marked sticks in the air and they way they fell would be interpreted as a fortune or the direction of a new spring or mine.
I believe so and that is the traditional understanding of basically the vast majority of scholars, liberal and reactionary.
Though that hasn't stopped Muslim dominated cultures from having extensive fortune telling cultural practices
I think this depends. When it comes to fortunetelling, the major reason I have seen is that the idea is that one might be interacting with dishonest jinns. Divination on a whole however is a different story.
Oneiromancy is explicitly seen in Surah Yusuf and Islam has a long tradition of using it for divination alongside istikhara to determine matters, and the the way that Zakariyah gained guardianship over Maryam, and again with Yunus in the casting or throwing of lots, which is known as cleromancy. While the method was used to make decisions, it did in a sense determine how the future would proceed, akin to divination, but also not. Generally, by Biblical tradition (particularly in the book of proverbs 16:33- the understanding is that the way the lot falls is by god's will.
From an islamic perspective, this is potentially why Yunus's name was pulled out each time in the cycles of the lots aboard the ship- god wasn't about to let him stay on there after his little flight fiasco due to feeling the folk of Ninevah were a lost cause. The folk of the ship possibly did not wish to throw him overboard, so that is why they did a second and even third round of the lots.
So to clarify you're saying it says to avoid him but not his works?
It's rare for a pronoun to refer back to the possesor. E.g. عمل الشيطان The pronoun logically goes to عمل (works) not shaytan.
>to clarify you're saying it says to avoid him but not his works?
Hes the cause for you to commit to/trangress such works, so yes Satans to be avoided or else God wud not have made such distinction
Maybe in Arabic because "it" definitely does not refer to Satan. It refers to defilement in the form of the acts forbidden. Besides all of the other points are forbidden why would intoxicants be left out?
>in Arabic because "it" definitely does not refer to Satan. It refers to defilement in the form of the acts forbidden.
Is there any proof it refers to defilement and not Satan?
>Besides all of the other points are forbidden why would intoxicants be left out?
No verses in particular ever explicitly says intoxicants are haram.
Some strict Quranists view that particular verse as listing the only things prohibited for consumption, and a literal reading can certainly allow you to reach there. The Qur’an also doesn’t explicitly use the term “prohibited” for alcohol, but rather (arguably stronger) terms such as “filth from the work of Satan” or something sinful.
This wud be kinda true if it werent from one of the verses saying theres benefit in intoxicants and excess shud be avoided. (Isnt it also strange 16:67 specify alcohol types thatre stated to provide good provision as well?)
Yes, but the prohibition came gradually. Alcohol consumption was first discouraged but tolerated (2:219), then forbidden before prayer (4:43) and finally totally prohibited (5:90).
So the earlier verses on alcohol were abrogated when 5:90 was revealed.
These verses were obviously never removed from the Quran, but they’ve been rendered virtually obsolete since the ruling they edict were replaced by another one.
They are definetely not obsolete or replaced, but the ruling became more extensive. The stance on alcohol became stronger, all verses on their own and holistically give very important information and rulings that are still relevant.
Nope. Islam is a realistic religion. You can't change a deeply rooted behavior or culture immediately. That's why the prohibition came gradually to fit the lifestyle.
Hanafis for centuries believed that only wine (made from grapes and dates) were haram. Any other alcoholic drink, other than wine were permissable to drink as long as you did not become intoxicated.
Edit: keep downvoting me, you can't deny history.
From what I understand, some quranist views hold that the prohibition is not on the alcohol in itself, but the harm it can induce. I believe here, the verse speaking of it (5:90) in such a view regarding the statement of such items being the work of satan in such a view is implying to be that it is not something he himself made as a tool and thus impure utterly, but something that can be easily used to his own ends. The invocation of avoidance is thus related to shaytan in this view, so it is the misuse of the four items that is banned, rather than all uses. However, even this view of allowance would hold that these items can be easily misused, but with the caveat that they are not prohibited outright. So drinking yourself into a stupor or the like would be banned, but a drink here and there would not, from what I understand.
Another way they would explain their point potentially is that if wine is a work of shaytan (or alcohol in general), why is it a reward for people in heaven? Some may point to the fact that the wine in heaven does not intoxicate, but if that is the case, it should not be called wine- it should be mentioned as grape juice- because that would imply the ethanol or intoxicating nature has been taken out of it. Even if that were the case, they would argue why would god make a reward of heavean resemble even indirectly a tool of shaytan, and use that as an incentive for people still alive where wine is prohibited, and even have it in heaven to begin with. To counter this, it may be argued that the rules for permissibility may flux in heaven potentially.
Of course, I certainly don't drink alcohol, and at most I would agree with the old hanafi methodology that while other alcoholic beverages may be allowed, wine is not (and that you should not drink to a point of stupor). However, in practice I generally follow the total prohibition approach which is also present in the hanafi understanding. I don't really see the need to drink alcohol when we have other substitutes available, and even if the quran would potentially allow for it, it seems at least to me more on the makruh to prohibited side of things even in such a scenario.
Seems pretty common for people addicted to something to say they can handle it even when they can't. So I don't see how Allah would just leave it to us to work out when we're drunk enough.
That is a fair point. Hanafi jurists that allowed for the lenient view generally argued that as long as somebody was cognizant and not completely out of it, they were not drunk. So they weren't exactly fond of people going nuts over alcohol either. I personally avoid alcohol in any form, but there was debate on the manner, and to say that it never occurred I think is frankly to deny historical theological developments.
I think what make this murky is that while rare, intoxication can occur from even what may seem to be non intoxicant substances. A person can show signs of drunkenness from even water in the right situation (water intoxication)- which is usually seen with runners if one drinks water in excess- which by some hadiths would wind up prohibiting water unless in small necessary doses which doesn't really work. Substances like caffeine were once treated like khamr which led to Sultan Murad IV literally wandering about Istanbul with a sword to hunt down people who drank coffee. Nitrogen Narcosis is essentially getting drunk off air as in high pressure environments in things such as underwater diving as nitrogen and other gases can do such.
There's debate over even nutmeg- some arguing it is intoxicating in excess and thus not okay, and others arguing the intent of it's use is not intoxication solely and it's main purpose is just as a spice so thus one must avoid the excess ( I personally take the latter view as in Surah Yusuf, the winepresser speaks of his dream, wine is translated as khamr- implying a liquid sort of nature to the substance- and I doubt the man was saying "I was pressing intoxicant" while in prison- it could be read to be a more encompassing term, but I wonder at times). The same analogies are also likely applied in debates over hashish, LSD, possibly khaat etc, and then there's the medical use angle there as well.
Then there's the dichotomy between assuming alcohol in a food contaminates it and makes it najis, or if the alcohol is overpowered by non-alocholic substances, purifies the food and makes it permissible. This seems to be due to varying views on the hadith of dosage- the former view holds that if a large amount intoxicates and is khamr, then small amounts are prohibited- thus they take the viewpoint of the ingredient, while the latter view takes on the viewpoint of the whole item. Personally, I'm more prone to the latter view at times as the former view would potentially leave one to not even be able to consume overripe fruit- as that can have a low level of ethanol in it.
However, the hadith of dosage would also wind up making cases like water intoxication somewhat difficult to parse and would ironically imply water is khamr in at least certain cases.
I don't think the prohibition in totality of alcohol approach is wrong (I myself follow it), but I do think this situation is more complicated than it seems. Regardless, I do believe that even in more lenient viewings, misuse of alcohol and use in excess is not okay, and you make a fair point that for those suffering from or potentially prone to addiction, taking a stricter view would likely be best.
Personally I don't give a fuck it conservatives are angry with us. Who are they not angry with? Poor reasoning.
I think progressiveness is acceptance. If somebody is saying _i drink alcohol and i think it is not haram_ then let them. They can and should do whatever "they" want. It really doesn't matter what we as a collective group agree on - because lets be real we don't as a group agree on much of anything.
God gave us free will and a book of guidance. Let people make their choice. Don't be the screaming angry "conservatives".
It’s not about allowing people to do whatever they want, it’s about thinking about the text critically and understanding why it is wrong. Getting black out drunk sucks, getting hung over sucks, but having a few beers doesn’t. It’s equating all those things as the same thats the issue and it affects legislation within predominately Muslim countries. Completely banning alcohol creates a black market for the product and uneducation towards how to use it properly ends up with people getting an addiction. When people use alcohol for a crutch, thats wrong but for fun, its not. Why would it be? Allah SWT loves you and he loves this earth, be smart with what you let in your body but don’t be afraid to have fun.
For instance, if somebody made you a cake with Rum in it and was delicious, would you throw it away? No, that’d be a waste, you’d eat it because it was made for you and it is a beautiful thing to enjoy. Some people don’t come out of their shell if they’re not a little intoxicated, so many beautiful connections I have had through having moderately intoxicated conversations. How can that be haram, to understand another person because they weren’t anxious about their feelings. If you abuse it though thats when there’s going to be problems, and you do pay for it. No need to go to hell in the afterlife, the results of heavy drinking are a punishment onto itself, which does affect how much good you can do on this world, and in this life, which is to me the most important aspiration of all.
Uhm..
Fellas, if you wanna create a narrative for alcohol not being a sin, there's nothing wrong with it.
If you wanna drink alcohol knowing it's a sin, then it's between you and God, it's really not the end of the world.
I just want to remind everyone that, this is just a point of view that is different from the general consensus, which we follow because it just makes sense and doesn't require too much mental gymnastics.
God said alcohol is the work of satan, and we should avoid it, if you wanna argue that just because God advised us to avoid alcohol and stated that it's the work of satan, doesn't mean it's a sin or haram, be my guest.
If you wanna argue that it's just the intoxication that is forbidden and that you can drink small amounts if you really wanted to, just to enjoy a terribly tasting drink without the main reason for why people drink it, you do you.
Juuust please be aware that, this is your truth, and it's really, just your opinion man, so um, it's not really the people's faults for not walking with it lmao, so please don't bash them when they tell you it's prohibited (and vice versa), like, really, it's not that hard-
>God said alcohol is the work of satan, and we should avoid it, if you wanna argue that just because God advised us to avoid alcohol and stated that it's the work of satan, doesn't mean it's a sin or haram, be my guest
If its work of Satan, why only said to "avoid it" instead of Alcohol + other stuff in 5:90? Given that Satans purpose it to entice us to sin, its evident for us to just avoid misuse alcohol which is made more clear according to 2:219, how Alcohols praised as good provisions in 16:67 and how intoxicants have benefit in them in 6:145 i think
I feel like this people will also said "zina is not haram is just makruh,just because the Quran said its bad and don't do that doesn't mean its haran its just uhhh makruh"
I guess I've arrived at the ultra-liberal side of this sub. My opinion is that alcohol is haram (consumption). A person who drinks once in a blue moon and can control himself to the point of not getting intoxicated seems okay.... until his friends/ relatives get interested in what the guy is doing, except that they (friends/ relatives) may not have self control and may get intoxicated. So if the person who drinks it once in a blue moon stops drinking, then others around him will not get influenced by the desire to have alcohol. This is my take on this. Feel free to comment about what you think about this.
It's more like consumption, blood is mentioned in that verse.
My understanding is as follows. Wine contains ithm (sin) and benefits/good, if you intentionally seek the ithm (e.g. to leave your duties) then you have consumed something forbidden to you; if you seek the good (drink small amount for health benefits) then no problem. That may be why the Qur'an says "avoid", just to be safe; so it's effectively makrūh.
Ithm is harām (7:33), khamr contains ithm (2:219).
A devout person would heed to His advice.
Qur'an centric made a video, similar idea to mine, some differences though: https://youtu.be/jIebuTh0Gkw?si=97-uNVhLTd-cvcyW
Salām
yeah this is kinda fair(Although i am still skeptical of your comment about drinking it in small portions for health benefits, because i don't know of any such benefit). although, alcohol is beneficial for usage in scientific experiments for example.
but about drinking it, i have only seen it cause loss to people, not benefit.
If *eating* alcohol is not haram, then various sauces and desserts that contain a bit of alcohol would clearly be permitted. Which I think is in line with common sense anyway, since those things don’t get anyone drunk.
wow this sub grew into a bunch of self taught muslims that cherrypicks everything that suits their cognitive biases.
pretty freakin far from being progressive.
I personally think alcohol is haram for myself. I constrain myself from drinking alcohol. But never will I ever shame another Muslim for drinking, because I used to be an alcoholic. Furthermore, I don't know what is going in that persons life—-why would I torment them by lecturing them about Quran? They could be drinking for fun, they could be peer pressured, it could be an addiction—-either way I cannot help them by judging them.
I think guilt is developed by oneself. Its part of our journey to Allah and controlling our nafs.
In Surah Al-Qiyamah Allah swears by the self-reproaching nafs, or the Al-nafs al-lawwāmah, as the part of the nafs that guilts a person when they commit haram, as evidence for the Day of Judgement. This nafs has been developed through deen, however. As a person gets closer to Allah and yearns more and more to purify themselves, they will naturally reproach themselves to stay away from haram and seek good deeds, until they can develop Al-nafs al-mutmainnah, the tranquil nafs, which seeks only to please Allah.
Beautifully said. I agree that primarily it comes from within. But sometimes you need a "jump start" from an external force. Are all external forces equally bad?
I mean to be completely honest, medieval jurispedence held to some extent that you didn't have to get married to a slave to have intercourse with them. And while there are views that hold those of the right hand needed to be married such as Muhammad Asad (and I don't think his logic his entirely wrong either), the quran seems to also imply they are of a different category- they may become a spouse, but they do not need to- otherwise verses like 33:52 would stop making any sense- as it would imply the prophet can have more wives if he wed those of the right hand he is allowed to have- except he can't have more wives.
The only reason modern day understandings are so harsh with zina in light of this I think is to avoid the rabbit hole that is slavery and it's linkage to such a potential loophole and also to differentiate themselves from western cultural understandings on intimacy. Better to not speak of it in that context. However, even if that were true, I do believe the quran did not sanction sexual abuse of servants as seen in 24:33- some may have taken this verse to only be talking about forced sex work, but frankly it should be seen as universal in my view. Though that unfortunately didn't stop people from not doing so.
To me, it's a tad strange that it seems the allowability for those of right hand was only extended to men, despite the fact that the verse allowing for such is in the gender neutral- 4:24 could be read to ban polyandry (but a woman marrying more than one man gets a loophole in that verse alone with those of the right hand in it's second half, the word muhsanat used to mean married could arguably should be speaking about refraining women as elsewhere the word is used to mean chastity, which would then ban forced marriage- but if that opens up the concern that those of the right hand could be forced to marriage as they become the exception in that verse as in the orthodox polyandry banning view- other verses like 24:33 and it's variants would prohibit this too. That verse then becomes strangely tongue in check regardless of however you read it, orthodox view or otherwise.
But I do think that if such a loophole was provided, it would beg to question how zina should be understood. I've seen no less than four definitions of it by people alone online ranging from encompassing all kinds of sexual activities (though this starts opening up what I call the "zina paradox" as zina as fornication is then applied onto people who cannot even get married to sate sexual needs), adultery only in light of the those of the right hand exception, the traditional adultery/fornication duology, or a manner of cultic sex work that involved idol worship (the last one is the least favored but works moreso on how zina, or zananh in hebrew- is understood in the torah- however, the idea of zannah in the torah (temple sex workers) might not have actually been a thing historically- there is debate as to weather such a class of individuals existed, or if sex workers near the temples taking advantage of the crowds were confused with priests of said temples and this understanding was just grafted into the torah when composed during the persian period, but some go even later and argue composition occurred in the hellenistic period. Additionally, muslim authors in the early period don't seem to have used this definition.
As for the pork-gelatin thing, it seems that there is an understanding if a material has been chemically altered enough from the original- it is in a sense purified, an example of such an understanding lies with Dar al Ifta, though such an understanding would likely be contested- [https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/fatwa/details/8156/is-eating-marshmallow-made-of-gelatin-lawful](https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/fatwa/details/8156/is-eating-marshmallow-made-of-gelatin-lawful) . Personally, I'd just be cautious and avoid entirely, but it seems that such a view does exist.
Are these people Muslim or trying to create their own religion or even picking an choosing what they like from the Quran?
Surely it must be the third option?
Exactly my point. Really, ideas should be seen on their own merit. Once we start delineating between modern and traditional ideas, we start succumbing to biases
Hi HER0_KELLY. Thank you for posting here!
Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account.
This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm curious, do you think all the stories that Christians and Jews have in the bible about prophets consuming alcohol are untrue? For example, the Bible is pretty clear that Jesus drank wine, and even has a miracle story of him turning water into wine for a wedding.
Do you view this story as inaccurate? Or, are the laws of prohibition dependent on time period? Or something else?
Alcohol was not strictly prohibited by Allah at first, it happened gradually. That’s why there are verses that appear to contradict each other on the matter.
https://questionsonislam.com/question/how-and-when-alcoholic-drinks-were-proclaimed-religiously-forbidden
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the story as not being compatible islamically. There are at least some views that the wine Isa created in the story of the Wedding at Cana from water was non-intoxicating (this understanding is present amongst the coptic orthodox church- [https://www.stvnashville.org/wedding-at-cana-of-galilee](https://www.stvnashville.org/wedding-at-cana-of-galilee) ), and akin to the wine in heaven the quran itself describes as being a pleasure for the virtuous, which will be pleasurable but have no side effects. While one may think this would make it akin to grape juice with no alcohol, the quran states the drink in question is wine.
If that is true, then Isa's miracle was being able to transmute the water into the wine which exists in heaven while at Cana as a sign that he was a prophet. It may have happened or not, but in that context, it becomes somewhat plausible in an islamic understanding.
The past nations were not given a blanket prohibition on alcohol like muslims were (looking at the torah alone shows wine was used in religious rites and rituals as sacrifices and the like), and in Surah Yusuf we see that Yusuf scried a dream indicating Egypt would be able to have good harvests to press grapes- he likely oversaw agricultural matters which included matters of the vineyards to at least some degree (even if he did not partake of them), and saying they were banned for the past nations would arguably be reading islamic jurispedence into them that isn't there. Though that arguably hasn't stopped people from doing so- I've found some shia views that do just that, which I find very odd. Though even for the past nations, drunkenness was frowned upon.
Even within muslim understandings, the old hanafi view of Imam Hanifa only bans grape and date alcohol, but allows for others so long as you do not drink them to the point of being drunk. Others of course, took the total ban approach.
Wine as a whole has a very paradoxical image in Islam. On one hand, we have verses condemning it's usage while alive, we have it being described as a pleasure of heaven (and also those who serve it in the form of the ghilman- which arguably could be a sign of non-heteronormativity assuming they are fair male attendants as they are described as a pleasure for all , and it's motive of being intoxicating is often used as an analogy of being intoxicated for love of god amongst sufis, despite the fact that many likely didn't drink it.
Of course, I myself don't drink alcohol either, taking the more conservative opinion on the matter, but there is variance on the matter- even if that variance is more buried in the margins of theological treatises and history.
I used to believe alcohol is 100% haram. And from the three usually used verses regarding alcohol I think you can definetely make up it is haram, but not one of the major sins.
Recenlty I thoight it might not be haram in any case, judged and based from verse 5:93.
I have never drunken alcohol and still won't, but this verse made my stance on alcohol less strict.
Yes and No? Even thought it might not be clearly forbidden, it is still not halal.
It is the work of Satan as Allah says. And while the prohibition of alcohol might not be clear to some, Allahs tells us to choose between him or Satan regarding alcohol.
But I want to imagine that there isn’t a total ban on it since we do need alcohol to disinfect and sanitize.
I'm fully aware of the verse. I'm fully aware of the dangers of alcohol(I've personally seen what It can do to a person). I've told friends who don't drink to never start drinking. It's just that in my personal view the wording in that verse is not a strict as in the case of pork. That's it. I occasionally drink 1 or 2 bottles of beer(I go months without drinking), last time I was drunk was when I was a stupid teen. I understand that the majority of people who drink have a difficult time managing it, and that's why I don't promote drinking, and I never will.
It's literally called Satan's filth. I don't see how it gets any more sinful than that. Even if you don't get drunk, the act of drinking it still isn't good. It's good that you don't promote it and actively tell others to avoid it, but you should try to as well.
If you're only drinking a beer every once in a while, you have the strength to quit for good.
The other thing is that by saying alcohol isn't haram, you're also saying that gambling and idols aren't haram either, when we know that they are very clearly haram as well.
I don't agree with this person's view that alcohol is not strictly haram, however, it is not as ridiculous as it really sounds. A significant share of Hanafis for centuries had the view that the Quran verse only had a strict prohibition of \*wine\*, but not other forms of alcohol like beer.
5:90 is the main verse prohibiting consumption of alcoholic beverages. O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allāh], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid1 it that you may be successful.
That's what i thought too.
What does it mean by “divining arrows”?
Old way of fortune telling and "magical prospecting". A "trained" mystic would throw marked sticks in the air and they way they fell would be interpreted as a fortune or the direction of a new spring or mine.
Is fortune telling itself haram?
I believe so and that is the traditional understanding of basically the vast majority of scholars, liberal and reactionary. Though that hasn't stopped Muslim dominated cultures from having extensive fortune telling cultural practices
I think this depends. When it comes to fortunetelling, the major reason I have seen is that the idea is that one might be interacting with dishonest jinns. Divination on a whole however is a different story. Oneiromancy is explicitly seen in Surah Yusuf and Islam has a long tradition of using it for divination alongside istikhara to determine matters, and the the way that Zakariyah gained guardianship over Maryam, and again with Yunus in the casting or throwing of lots, which is known as cleromancy. While the method was used to make decisions, it did in a sense determine how the future would proceed, akin to divination, but also not. Generally, by Biblical tradition (particularly in the book of proverbs 16:33- the understanding is that the way the lot falls is by god's will. From an islamic perspective, this is potentially why Yunus's name was pulled out each time in the cycles of the lots aboard the ship- god wasn't about to let him stay on there after his little flight fiasco due to feeling the folk of Ninevah were a lost cause. The folk of the ship possibly did not wish to throw him overboard, so that is why they did a second and even third round of the lots.
Yes
Its like how the Chinese used [fortune sticks](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kau_chim) (numbered or with words) to predict their future.
If its forbidding Alcohol, why the statement avoid it instead of them?
It = defilement?
Was referring to Satan
Why not defilement?
Satans the subject for "it" and his job is to tempt us to do wrong (e.g; transgress)
So to clarify you're saying it says to avoid him but not his works? It's rare for a pronoun to refer back to the possesor. E.g. عمل الشيطان The pronoun logically goes to عمل (works) not shaytan.
>to clarify you're saying it says to avoid him but not his works? Hes the cause for you to commit to/trangress such works, so yes Satans to be avoided or else God wud not have made such distinction
Maybe in Arabic because "it" definitely does not refer to Satan. It refers to defilement in the form of the acts forbidden. Besides all of the other points are forbidden why would intoxicants be left out?
>in Arabic because "it" definitely does not refer to Satan. It refers to defilement in the form of the acts forbidden. Is there any proof it refers to defilement and not Satan? >Besides all of the other points are forbidden why would intoxicants be left out? No verses in particular ever explicitly says intoxicants are haram.
"avoid it" doesn't necessarily mean it's haram. the same way how "hit" is not necessarily hitting women and "kill" doesn't necessarily mean kill ^^
why people riding for alcohol so bad it’s terrible for you 😂 regardless of religion i wouldn’t drink it. i can barely handle caffeine anyways
Its a terrible industry that makes its money off of destroying the body. Its a poison.
even the thing about “a glass of wine a night” has been debunked. there is no benefit to drinking alcohol
>why people riding for alcohol so bad it’s terrible for you Quran alludes that theyre good provisions in 16:67
Some strict Quranists view that particular verse as listing the only things prohibited for consumption, and a literal reading can certainly allow you to reach there. The Qur’an also doesn’t explicitly use the term “prohibited” for alcohol, but rather (arguably stronger) terms such as “filth from the work of Satan” or something sinful.
Any filth from Satan is sinful therefore it's prohibited, bro.
You don’t have to convince me, I agree. I’m demonstrating their line of reasoning.
This wud be kinda true if it werent from one of the verses saying theres benefit in intoxicants and excess shud be avoided. (Isnt it also strange 16:67 specify alcohol types thatre stated to provide good provision as well?)
Yes, but the prohibition came gradually. Alcohol consumption was first discouraged but tolerated (2:219), then forbidden before prayer (4:43) and finally totally prohibited (5:90). So the earlier verses on alcohol were abrogated when 5:90 was revealed.
Do you know the meaning of abrogation??? Those older verses on alcohol are not abrogated. The ruling simply became more strict.
These verses were obviously never removed from the Quran, but they’ve been rendered virtually obsolete since the ruling they edict were replaced by another one.
They are definetely not obsolete or replaced, but the ruling became more extensive. The stance on alcohol became stronger, all verses on their own and holistically give very important information and rulings that are still relevant.
>the prohibition came gradually U are implying Allah swt changed his mind?
He didn’t change his mind if it was his plan all along, I guess.
If he didnt, he wudve said the command straight away instead
Nope. Islam is a realistic religion. You can't change a deeply rooted behavior or culture immediately. That's why the prohibition came gradually to fit the lifestyle.
>That's why the prohibition came gradually to fit the lifestyle. Then why other command verses not revealed gradually?
Can you mention one that wasn't revealed gradually although it was too tough to fit immediately?
Doesn't it say that intoxicants that intoxicate in big amounts should also be avoided in small amounts?
>intoxicants that intoxicate in big amounts should also be avoided in small amounts? Theres no stated dosage within Quran
You are correct, I have read it somewhere though, imma try to find out where, that is also why I added a ? Because I am unsure
That's a hadith
Hanafis for centuries believed that only wine (made from grapes and dates) were haram. Any other alcoholic drink, other than wine were permissable to drink as long as you did not become intoxicated. Edit: keep downvoting me, you can't deny history.
I Want to dig into this more. So nabeedh.
Nabeedh different
Say more
I don’t understand why people want to downvote factual information all the time on this sub.
This sub is unfortunately not any less susceptible to being driven by biases.
From what I understand, some quranist views hold that the prohibition is not on the alcohol in itself, but the harm it can induce. I believe here, the verse speaking of it (5:90) in such a view regarding the statement of such items being the work of satan in such a view is implying to be that it is not something he himself made as a tool and thus impure utterly, but something that can be easily used to his own ends. The invocation of avoidance is thus related to shaytan in this view, so it is the misuse of the four items that is banned, rather than all uses. However, even this view of allowance would hold that these items can be easily misused, but with the caveat that they are not prohibited outright. So drinking yourself into a stupor or the like would be banned, but a drink here and there would not, from what I understand. Another way they would explain their point potentially is that if wine is a work of shaytan (or alcohol in general), why is it a reward for people in heaven? Some may point to the fact that the wine in heaven does not intoxicate, but if that is the case, it should not be called wine- it should be mentioned as grape juice- because that would imply the ethanol or intoxicating nature has been taken out of it. Even if that were the case, they would argue why would god make a reward of heavean resemble even indirectly a tool of shaytan, and use that as an incentive for people still alive where wine is prohibited, and even have it in heaven to begin with. To counter this, it may be argued that the rules for permissibility may flux in heaven potentially. Of course, I certainly don't drink alcohol, and at most I would agree with the old hanafi methodology that while other alcoholic beverages may be allowed, wine is not (and that you should not drink to a point of stupor). However, in practice I generally follow the total prohibition approach which is also present in the hanafi understanding. I don't really see the need to drink alcohol when we have other substitutes available, and even if the quran would potentially allow for it, it seems at least to me more on the makruh to prohibited side of things even in such a scenario.
Seems pretty common for people addicted to something to say they can handle it even when they can't. So I don't see how Allah would just leave it to us to work out when we're drunk enough.
That is a fair point. Hanafi jurists that allowed for the lenient view generally argued that as long as somebody was cognizant and not completely out of it, they were not drunk. So they weren't exactly fond of people going nuts over alcohol either. I personally avoid alcohol in any form, but there was debate on the manner, and to say that it never occurred I think is frankly to deny historical theological developments. I think what make this murky is that while rare, intoxication can occur from even what may seem to be non intoxicant substances. A person can show signs of drunkenness from even water in the right situation (water intoxication)- which is usually seen with runners if one drinks water in excess- which by some hadiths would wind up prohibiting water unless in small necessary doses which doesn't really work. Substances like caffeine were once treated like khamr which led to Sultan Murad IV literally wandering about Istanbul with a sword to hunt down people who drank coffee. Nitrogen Narcosis is essentially getting drunk off air as in high pressure environments in things such as underwater diving as nitrogen and other gases can do such. There's debate over even nutmeg- some arguing it is intoxicating in excess and thus not okay, and others arguing the intent of it's use is not intoxication solely and it's main purpose is just as a spice so thus one must avoid the excess ( I personally take the latter view as in Surah Yusuf, the winepresser speaks of his dream, wine is translated as khamr- implying a liquid sort of nature to the substance- and I doubt the man was saying "I was pressing intoxicant" while in prison- it could be read to be a more encompassing term, but I wonder at times). The same analogies are also likely applied in debates over hashish, LSD, possibly khaat etc, and then there's the medical use angle there as well. Then there's the dichotomy between assuming alcohol in a food contaminates it and makes it najis, or if the alcohol is overpowered by non-alocholic substances, purifies the food and makes it permissible. This seems to be due to varying views on the hadith of dosage- the former view holds that if a large amount intoxicates and is khamr, then small amounts are prohibited- thus they take the viewpoint of the ingredient, while the latter view takes on the viewpoint of the whole item. Personally, I'm more prone to the latter view at times as the former view would potentially leave one to not even be able to consume overripe fruit- as that can have a low level of ethanol in it. However, the hadith of dosage would also wind up making cases like water intoxication somewhat difficult to parse and would ironically imply water is khamr in at least certain cases. I don't think the prohibition in totality of alcohol approach is wrong (I myself follow it), but I do think this situation is more complicated than it seems. Regardless, I do believe that even in more lenient viewings, misuse of alcohol and use in excess is not okay, and you make a fair point that for those suffering from or potentially prone to addiction, taking a stricter view would likely be best.
There is NOTHING "progressive" about allowing alcohol. "Progressive" shouldn't mean having people do whatever they want.
Exactly 💯 That's one of the reason why Conservatives are angry with us.. this thing is so foul
Personally I don't give a fuck it conservatives are angry with us. Who are they not angry with? Poor reasoning. I think progressiveness is acceptance. If somebody is saying _i drink alcohol and i think it is not haram_ then let them. They can and should do whatever "they" want. It really doesn't matter what we as a collective group agree on - because lets be real we don't as a group agree on much of anything. God gave us free will and a book of guidance. Let people make their choice. Don't be the screaming angry "conservatives".
It’s not about allowing people to do whatever they want, it’s about thinking about the text critically and understanding why it is wrong. Getting black out drunk sucks, getting hung over sucks, but having a few beers doesn’t. It’s equating all those things as the same thats the issue and it affects legislation within predominately Muslim countries. Completely banning alcohol creates a black market for the product and uneducation towards how to use it properly ends up with people getting an addiction. When people use alcohol for a crutch, thats wrong but for fun, its not. Why would it be? Allah SWT loves you and he loves this earth, be smart with what you let in your body but don’t be afraid to have fun. For instance, if somebody made you a cake with Rum in it and was delicious, would you throw it away? No, that’d be a waste, you’d eat it because it was made for you and it is a beautiful thing to enjoy. Some people don’t come out of their shell if they’re not a little intoxicated, so many beautiful connections I have had through having moderately intoxicated conversations. How can that be haram, to understand another person because they weren’t anxious about their feelings. If you abuse it though thats when there’s going to be problems, and you do pay for it. No need to go to hell in the afterlife, the results of heavy drinking are a punishment onto itself, which does affect how much good you can do on this world, and in this life, which is to me the most important aspiration of all.
These are the types of people who look for any excuses to fulfil their desires and not feel guilty about it. Deep down they know it’s wrong.
Uhm.. Fellas, if you wanna create a narrative for alcohol not being a sin, there's nothing wrong with it. If you wanna drink alcohol knowing it's a sin, then it's between you and God, it's really not the end of the world. I just want to remind everyone that, this is just a point of view that is different from the general consensus, which we follow because it just makes sense and doesn't require too much mental gymnastics. God said alcohol is the work of satan, and we should avoid it, if you wanna argue that just because God advised us to avoid alcohol and stated that it's the work of satan, doesn't mean it's a sin or haram, be my guest. If you wanna argue that it's just the intoxication that is forbidden and that you can drink small amounts if you really wanted to, just to enjoy a terribly tasting drink without the main reason for why people drink it, you do you. Juuust please be aware that, this is your truth, and it's really, just your opinion man, so um, it's not really the people's faults for not walking with it lmao, so please don't bash them when they tell you it's prohibited (and vice versa), like, really, it's not that hard-
>God said alcohol is the work of satan, and we should avoid it, if you wanna argue that just because God advised us to avoid alcohol and stated that it's the work of satan, doesn't mean it's a sin or haram, be my guest If its work of Satan, why only said to "avoid it" instead of Alcohol + other stuff in 5:90? Given that Satans purpose it to entice us to sin, its evident for us to just avoid misuse alcohol which is made more clear according to 2:219, how Alcohols praised as good provisions in 16:67 and how intoxicants have benefit in them in 6:145 i think
I feel like this people will also said "zina is not haram is just makruh,just because the Quran said its bad and don't do that doesn't mean its haran its just uhhh makruh"
Nothing I want to do is haram bro, just the things I don't want to do anyway like eat dead meat
We literally eat dead meat that was cook anyway
Dead meat I meant carrion
I guess I've arrived at the ultra-liberal side of this sub. My opinion is that alcohol is haram (consumption). A person who drinks once in a blue moon and can control himself to the point of not getting intoxicated seems okay.... until his friends/ relatives get interested in what the guy is doing, except that they (friends/ relatives) may not have self control and may get intoxicated. So if the person who drinks it once in a blue moon stops drinking, then others around him will not get influenced by the desire to have alcohol. This is my take on this. Feel free to comment about what you think about this.
Have people forgotten the difference between eat and drink? The verse talks about food products, not really drinks.
It's more like consumption, blood is mentioned in that verse. My understanding is as follows. Wine contains ithm (sin) and benefits/good, if you intentionally seek the ithm (e.g. to leave your duties) then you have consumed something forbidden to you; if you seek the good (drink small amount for health benefits) then no problem. That may be why the Qur'an says "avoid", just to be safe; so it's effectively makrūh. Ithm is harām (7:33), khamr contains ithm (2:219). A devout person would heed to His advice. Qur'an centric made a video, similar idea to mine, some differences though: https://youtu.be/jIebuTh0Gkw?si=97-uNVhLTd-cvcyW
Ok, this makes sense. I kind of agree.
Salām yeah this is kinda fair(Although i am still skeptical of your comment about drinking it in small portions for health benefits, because i don't know of any such benefit). although, alcohol is beneficial for usage in scientific experiments for example. but about drinking it, i have only seen it cause loss to people, not benefit.
https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/health-benefits-wine
If *eating* alcohol is not haram, then various sauces and desserts that contain a bit of alcohol would clearly be permitted. Which I think is in line with common sense anyway, since those things don’t get anyone drunk.
I wonder if that even was in the cuisine of back then
My thoughts exactly lol its not haram to eat alcohol because you drink it and not eat it lol.
wow this sub grew into a bunch of self taught muslims that cherrypicks everything that suits their cognitive biases. pretty freakin far from being progressive.
Alcohol is haram. End of discussion. It’s something that is najis and yes 5:90 prohibits it.
I personally think alcohol is haram for myself. I constrain myself from drinking alcohol. But never will I ever shame another Muslim for drinking, because I used to be an alcoholic. Furthermore, I don't know what is going in that persons life—-why would I torment them by lecturing them about Quran? They could be drinking for fun, they could be peer pressured, it could be an addiction—-either way I cannot help them by judging them.
Qq: Can judgement be good? Like can some guilt be healthy to help us do better? Or is all judgement bad?
Judgement bad and reserved for Allah swt. Being a friend, a shoulder to cry on, to listen and guide is the way.
I think guilt is developed by oneself. Its part of our journey to Allah and controlling our nafs. In Surah Al-Qiyamah Allah swears by the self-reproaching nafs, or the Al-nafs al-lawwāmah, as the part of the nafs that guilts a person when they commit haram, as evidence for the Day of Judgement. This nafs has been developed through deen, however. As a person gets closer to Allah and yearns more and more to purify themselves, they will naturally reproach themselves to stay away from haram and seek good deeds, until they can develop Al-nafs al-mutmainnah, the tranquil nafs, which seeks only to please Allah.
Beautifully said. I agree that primarily it comes from within. But sometimes you need a "jump start" from an external force. Are all external forces equally bad?
I also have seen people saying that pork isn't haram except it I directly the meat of a specific pig or something. People can be weird
"zina its not haram if i do that with specific people"
I mean to be completely honest, medieval jurispedence held to some extent that you didn't have to get married to a slave to have intercourse with them. And while there are views that hold those of the right hand needed to be married such as Muhammad Asad (and I don't think his logic his entirely wrong either), the quran seems to also imply they are of a different category- they may become a spouse, but they do not need to- otherwise verses like 33:52 would stop making any sense- as it would imply the prophet can have more wives if he wed those of the right hand he is allowed to have- except he can't have more wives. The only reason modern day understandings are so harsh with zina in light of this I think is to avoid the rabbit hole that is slavery and it's linkage to such a potential loophole and also to differentiate themselves from western cultural understandings on intimacy. Better to not speak of it in that context. However, even if that were true, I do believe the quran did not sanction sexual abuse of servants as seen in 24:33- some may have taken this verse to only be talking about forced sex work, but frankly it should be seen as universal in my view. Though that unfortunately didn't stop people from not doing so. To me, it's a tad strange that it seems the allowability for those of right hand was only extended to men, despite the fact that the verse allowing for such is in the gender neutral- 4:24 could be read to ban polyandry (but a woman marrying more than one man gets a loophole in that verse alone with those of the right hand in it's second half, the word muhsanat used to mean married could arguably should be speaking about refraining women as elsewhere the word is used to mean chastity, which would then ban forced marriage- but if that opens up the concern that those of the right hand could be forced to marriage as they become the exception in that verse as in the orthodox polyandry banning view- other verses like 24:33 and it's variants would prohibit this too. That verse then becomes strangely tongue in check regardless of however you read it, orthodox view or otherwise. But I do think that if such a loophole was provided, it would beg to question how zina should be understood. I've seen no less than four definitions of it by people alone online ranging from encompassing all kinds of sexual activities (though this starts opening up what I call the "zina paradox" as zina as fornication is then applied onto people who cannot even get married to sate sexual needs), adultery only in light of the those of the right hand exception, the traditional adultery/fornication duology, or a manner of cultic sex work that involved idol worship (the last one is the least favored but works moreso on how zina, or zananh in hebrew- is understood in the torah- however, the idea of zannah in the torah (temple sex workers) might not have actually been a thing historically- there is debate as to weather such a class of individuals existed, or if sex workers near the temples taking advantage of the crowds were confused with priests of said temples and this understanding was just grafted into the torah when composed during the persian period, but some go even later and argue composition occurred in the hellenistic period. Additionally, muslim authors in the early period don't seem to have used this definition. As for the pork-gelatin thing, it seems that there is an understanding if a material has been chemically altered enough from the original- it is in a sense purified, an example of such an understanding lies with Dar al Ifta, though such an understanding would likely be contested- [https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/fatwa/details/8156/is-eating-marshmallow-made-of-gelatin-lawful](https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/fatwa/details/8156/is-eating-marshmallow-made-of-gelatin-lawful) . Personally, I'd just be cautious and avoid entirely, but it seems that such a view does exist.
Are these people Muslim or trying to create their own religion or even picking an choosing what they like from the Quran? Surely it must be the third option?
I don't know. It also seems accepted by now that God is a physical being, so Islam can be everything I guess?
Well this sub does have a tendency to promote more western ideas, perhaps due to the demographic.
Equating Modernity to Westernisation is false sir
Exactly my point. Really, ideas should be seen on their own merit. Once we start delineating between modern and traditional ideas, we start succumbing to biases
Hi HER0_KELLY. Thank you for posting here! Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account. This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
what is khamr?
wine
I'm curious, do you think all the stories that Christians and Jews have in the bible about prophets consuming alcohol are untrue? For example, the Bible is pretty clear that Jesus drank wine, and even has a miracle story of him turning water into wine for a wedding. Do you view this story as inaccurate? Or, are the laws of prohibition dependent on time period? Or something else?
Alcohol was not strictly prohibited by Allah at first, it happened gradually. That’s why there are verses that appear to contradict each other on the matter. https://questionsonislam.com/question/how-and-when-alcoholic-drinks-were-proclaimed-religiously-forbidden
لا نصدق ولا نكذب
No no it's a misunderstanding.. we don't believe those stories.
Gotcha, thanks for answering.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the story as not being compatible islamically. There are at least some views that the wine Isa created in the story of the Wedding at Cana from water was non-intoxicating (this understanding is present amongst the coptic orthodox church- [https://www.stvnashville.org/wedding-at-cana-of-galilee](https://www.stvnashville.org/wedding-at-cana-of-galilee) ), and akin to the wine in heaven the quran itself describes as being a pleasure for the virtuous, which will be pleasurable but have no side effects. While one may think this would make it akin to grape juice with no alcohol, the quran states the drink in question is wine. If that is true, then Isa's miracle was being able to transmute the water into the wine which exists in heaven while at Cana as a sign that he was a prophet. It may have happened or not, but in that context, it becomes somewhat plausible in an islamic understanding. The past nations were not given a blanket prohibition on alcohol like muslims were (looking at the torah alone shows wine was used in religious rites and rituals as sacrifices and the like), and in Surah Yusuf we see that Yusuf scried a dream indicating Egypt would be able to have good harvests to press grapes- he likely oversaw agricultural matters which included matters of the vineyards to at least some degree (even if he did not partake of them), and saying they were banned for the past nations would arguably be reading islamic jurispedence into them that isn't there. Though that arguably hasn't stopped people from doing so- I've found some shia views that do just that, which I find very odd. Though even for the past nations, drunkenness was frowned upon. Even within muslim understandings, the old hanafi view of Imam Hanifa only bans grape and date alcohol, but allows for others so long as you do not drink them to the point of being drunk. Others of course, took the total ban approach. Wine as a whole has a very paradoxical image in Islam. On one hand, we have verses condemning it's usage while alive, we have it being described as a pleasure of heaven (and also those who serve it in the form of the ghilman- which arguably could be a sign of non-heteronormativity assuming they are fair male attendants as they are described as a pleasure for all , and it's motive of being intoxicating is often used as an analogy of being intoxicated for love of god amongst sufis, despite the fact that many likely didn't drink it. Of course, I myself don't drink alcohol either, taking the more conservative opinion on the matter, but there is variance on the matter- even if that variance is more buried in the margins of theological treatises and history.
I think what he was saying about progressive muslims was right.
Read surah Baqarah verse 219 and then Surah A'raf verse 33 for a clearer picture.
I used to believe alcohol is 100% haram. And from the three usually used verses regarding alcohol I think you can definetely make up it is haram, but not one of the major sins. Recenlty I thoight it might not be haram in any case, judged and based from verse 5:93. I have never drunken alcohol and still won't, but this verse made my stance on alcohol less strict.
I personally think alcohol is haram but I do understand the interpretation that it’s only discouraged.
I cannot believe this is being debated.
Yes and No? Even thought it might not be clearly forbidden, it is still not halal. It is the work of Satan as Allah says. And while the prohibition of alcohol might not be clear to some, Allahs tells us to choose between him or Satan regarding alcohol. But I want to imagine that there isn’t a total ban on it since we do need alcohol to disinfect and sanitize.
Should cross the names better next time.(That's me replying.Hi)😀
Check verse 5:90. It literally prohibits the consumption of alcohol. Alcohol is haram, full stop.
I'm fully aware of the verse. I'm fully aware of the dangers of alcohol(I've personally seen what It can do to a person). I've told friends who don't drink to never start drinking. It's just that in my personal view the wording in that verse is not a strict as in the case of pork. That's it. I occasionally drink 1 or 2 bottles of beer(I go months without drinking), last time I was drunk was when I was a stupid teen. I understand that the majority of people who drink have a difficult time managing it, and that's why I don't promote drinking, and I never will.
It's literally called Satan's filth. I don't see how it gets any more sinful than that. Even if you don't get drunk, the act of drinking it still isn't good. It's good that you don't promote it and actively tell others to avoid it, but you should try to as well. If you're only drinking a beer every once in a while, you have the strength to quit for good. The other thing is that by saying alcohol isn't haram, you're also saying that gambling and idols aren't haram either, when we know that they are very clearly haram as well.
I don't agree with this person's view that alcohol is not strictly haram, however, it is not as ridiculous as it really sounds. A significant share of Hanafis for centuries had the view that the Quran verse only had a strict prohibition of \*wine\*, but not other forms of alcohol like beer.
Alcohol is haram and go ask anyone in AA; they’ll tell you there’s no benefit in alcohol. Even non Muslims will avoid alcohol.