Alcohol - philosophically

[Al-Hassan]

6 hours ago, certainclarity said:

I know hadith , you become kafir when u not pray. you do kufr and become kafir to emaan but still Moslem:

 بين الايمان و الكفر ترك الصلاة ؛

Prophet Muhammed ( SA) ; distance between Eman and Kufr is to leave Salah ~ mizan Al Hikmah 

But I hear that even if you drink you should pray, but prayer not accepted. But must pray. Just prayer not excepted for 40 days.

 

12 hours ago, certainclarity said:

Waalykum asalam ,

Is  hadith true ? Because if you don't pray U become kafir. But if you drink and pray u r not kafir .how is this ? Can u explain me pls.

The Hadith is not stating that the harms of intoxicants are limited to the individual level, but rather  how it's harms can stretch out to the social level by effecting the Muslim community as a whole - where more than one person is affected. Hence, it's consumption in the long run is more evil than the abandoning of prayer, since it's harmful effects could potentially spread out to the entire community, whereas the abandoning of Salat is harmful only to the single person that abandons it. 

Perhaps the following Ahadith will shed some more light on the issue by showing how they corroborate to what has been stated earlier in this thread:

(12290 2) أبوعلي الاشعري، عن محمد بن حسان، عن محمد بن علي، عن أبي جميلة، عن الحلبي، وزرارة، ومحمد بن مسلم، وحمران بن أعين، عن أبي جعفر وأبي عبدالله عليهما السلام قالا: إن الخمر رأس كل إثم.

From Imam al-Baqirع and al-Sadiqع: "Verily alcohol is the head of all sins". [al-Kafi]

(12292 4) عنه، عن محمد بن علي، عن أبي جميلة، عن أبي اسامة، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: الشرب مفتاح كل شر، ومدمن الخمر كعابد وثن وإن الخمر رأس كل إثم وشاربها مكذب بكتاب الله تعالى، لو صدق كتاب الله حرم حرامه

From Imam al-Sadiqع: "The drinking of alcohol is the key to the doors of all evil, and the one addicted to the intoxicants is like the worshipper of idols. And surely alcohol is the head of every type of evil and sin and the one who drinks the intoxicants has lied on the Book of Allahس, because if he was truthful then he would have forbidden himself on what Allahس made forbidden." [al-Kafi]

(12294 6) عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن أبي عبدالله، عن أبيه، ومحمد بن عيسى، عن النضر بن سويد، عن يعقوب بن شعيب، عن أبي بصير، عن أحدهما عليهما السلام قال: إن الله عزوجل جعل للمعصية بيتا، ثم جعل للبيت بابا، ثم جعل للباب غلقا، ثم جعل للغلق مفتاحا فمفتاح المعصية الخمر

Abu Baseerر from Imam al-Baqirع or al-Sadiqع: "Verily Allah Exalted and Sublime is He has built for every sin a house, then He made a door for that house, then He made a lock for the door, then He made a key to the lock. So the key for unlocking a sin is alcohol." [al-Kafi] 

(12296 9) محمد بن يحيى، عن محمد بن الحسين رفعه قال: قيل لامير المؤمنين عليه السلام: إنك تزعم أن شرب الخمر أشد من الزنا والسرقة فقال عليه السلام: نعم إن صاحب الزنا لعله(1) لا يعدوه إلى غيره وإن شارب الخمر إذا شرب الخمر زنى وسرق وقتل النفس التي حرم الله عزوجل وترك الصلاة

A man asked Amir al-Mu'mineenع: "I heard you claim that that drinking of alcohol is more serious than fornication(Zinnah) or stealing." Amir al-Mu'mineen responded: "Yes. The one who is guilty of fornication does not affect others but himself and surely the one who drinks alcohol will not only fornicate, but will also steal, kill the soul that Allahس prohibited and(eventually) abandon the obligatory prayer(Salat)." [al-Kafi]

(12293 5) أبوعلي الاشعري، عن الحسن بن علي الكوفي، عن عثمان بن عيسى، عن ابن مسكان، عمن رواه، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: قال: إن الله عزوجل جعل للشر أقفالا وجعل مفاتيحها أو قال: مفاتيح تلك الاقفال الشراب

From Abi 'Abdillah Ja'far b. Muhammad al-Sadiqع: "Verily Allah Exalted and Sublime is He has made locks for every type of sin and He made the keys for these locks to be the intoxicants." [al-Kafi]

WaSalam.

[Saintly_Jinn23]

37 minutes ago, Al-Hassan said:

 

The Hadith is not stating that the harms of intoxicants are limited to the individual level, but rather  how it's harms can stretch out to the social level by effecting the Muslim community as a whole - where more than one person is affected. Hence, it's consumption in the long run is more evil than the abandoning of prayer, since it's harmful effects could potentially spread out to the entire community, whereas the abandoning of Salat is harmful only to the single person that abandons it. 

 

I would be very careful of this train of thought. You could use the justification of a chain reaction to blame everybody for everything.  I think one thing we're grappling with here is the idea that not everyone who drinks alcohol is turning into a drunkard.

The arabic term that is normally translated as "intoxicant" or "wine" if I'm not mistaken refers more specifically to a beverage that is made or served specifically for the purposes of intoxication. There are many drinks that have minor amounts of alcohol in them but no matter how much you drank of it, you would never get drunk unless you allowed it to ferment for longer and longer (orange juice or grape juice are halal but can easily be turned into cheap liquor with a couple shakes of a lamb's tail). I mentioned of course how European wines were not very popular among many Iranian Muslims because they wouldn't get them drunk enough (which is why they preferred to buy alcohol from the Russians). Many European wines were weak because they were made for ceremonial or social purposes, not to get drunk with, even if you could get drunk off of them. When Muslims drank, they usually drank either to get really drunk or to see how much strong liquor they could stand before they just became too inebriated to function. This attitude actually shocked many Europeans who visited Muslim countries like Turkey and Iran not only because it seemed to go against some of the Muslims' own morals but also because the average European Christian didn't drink to get smashed. If anything, some considered to drink wine a necessary part of the classy life but drunkenness as the habit of the low born and brutish. So when Europeans saw how even Muslim rulers and aristocrats seemed to get drunk to a degree that exceeded the excesses of drinking by European Christian notables, it was shocking.

I agree that alcoholic beverages, that is the kind with much ethanol alcohol content that people ferment and drink and which causes intoxication, not the kind for treating cuts and burns, is impure as per various traditions or at least obligatory precaution tells us to never take a sip of such beverage that if we drink too much of it we can intoxicate ourselves , but I wonder if perhaps some of these traditions that appear to vilify drinking alcohol to a huge degree that you've been kind enough to post, I wonder if some may actually be addressing something specific that is related to indulgent cultural practices which I have mentioned not so much just taking a tiny sip of an impure substance. Also, keep in mind that if orange juice is halal because it is not an intoxicating drink and orange juice has the same chemicals in small traces that one finds in things like wine or beer which can lead to intoxication (but of course even if you drank a barrel of orange juice you wouldn't get intoxicated), what makes the former halal and the latter haram is probably more about intents rather than the mere chemical composition.

And of course, if intents are the real deal here, I wonder if these traditions are maybe less applicable to those who take a sip of these beverages which we normally avoid on religious principle but whose intentions are much more innocent.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Haji 2003]

5 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Ayn nijasa like alcohol were always prohibited bro, from the time of Hazrat Adam, but because society at the Prophets pbuh time was so addicted to alcohol it was phased out carefully instead of instant ban. The oft quoted "do not approach prayers while intoxicated" is referring to a specific event, and not proof that alcohol was permitted at one point.

This is similar to idols on the kaaba - shirk is always haram yet the prophet pbuh did not remove them from the kaaba until the situation was right. This doesnt mean shirk was once accepted

 

Yes, the ayat you refer to, could also be seen as an example of the Qur'an demonstrating an understanding of human psychology.

And indeed when people say that Prohibition in America did not work, perhaps the problem was that the Christians who were lobbying for Prohibition had not read the Qur'an and if they had they would have recognised that a process of delegitimisation would have been more effective.

A modern example of how the delegitimisation process has worked has been the reduction of tobacco consumption. Bans on sales to children, then workplace bans, then public places, etc. All the while the number of smokers is falling, social norms are changing and the economic beneficiaries of smoking are diminishing.

So that ultimately when a complete ban happens there'll be minimal resistance.

[certainclarity]

6 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Ayn nijasa like alcohol were always prohibited bro, from the time of Hazrat Adam, but because society at the Prophets pbuh time was so addicted to alcohol it was phased out carefully instead of instant ban. The oft quoted "do not approach prayers while intoxicated" is referring to a specific event, and not proof that alcohol was permitted at one point.

This is similar to idols on the kaaba - shirk is always haram yet the prophet pbuh did not remove them from the kaaba until the situation was right. This doesnt mean shirk was once accepted

Thank you very much . Yes, right. But why did God make some animals like dog saliva and pig all of it najis , and blood , semen , urine not pure .

i wanted reason why they became impure.

I made question and research and found my answer.

God made things najis which shaytan put his intention on to bring human to asfal asafelin , lowest of low. Those things became impure and najis.

like shaitan asked God so he can run in the blood of humans. When he put intention to be in blood it became najis.

also I read before blood was white color when shaitan asked to be in human blood it became red color.

i got my answer for alcohol and other things to be najis also, because shaitan put his intention on this.

thank u all.

[Saintly_Jinn23]

16 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Ayn nijasa like alcohol were always prohibited bro, from the time of Hazrat Adam, but because society at the Prophets pbuh time was so addicted to alcohol it was phased out carefully instead of instant ban. The oft quoted "do not approach prayers while intoxicated" is referring to a specific event, and not proof that alcohol was permitted at one point.

This is similar to idols on the kaaba - shirk is always haram yet the prophet pbuh did not remove them from the kaaba until the situation was right. This doesnt mean shirk was once accepted

I think one thing we could take away from that though is that the Prophet (pbuh) did not use violent and totalitarian methods to get people to stop drinking nor did he in all likelihood feel that a time would ever come when he needed to. While I know of plenty of Sunni hadith that prescribe actual penalties for drinking, I'm not sure how many are actually present in the Shi'a hadith corpus (which are of strong possible authenticity by Shi'a standards anyway). Also, even if there are penalties for drinking, Islam tends to look down upon spying on people in their private homes to see what they're doing or publicizing the private secrets of your fellow Muslims unless others are in serious danger of course. During the Qajar dynasty in Iran, alcohol was much more proscribed than it was under the Safavid dynasty because the Qajar wanted to or needed to increase their legitimacy with more of the mainstream Shi'a orthodoxy at the time because before, the Safavids' cult of personality and/or connection to radical (yet influential) or popular Sufi traditions of the sheikh who was above the normal shari'ite prohibitions imposed upon the masses usually protected them from censure for being so drunk themselves, even from those who did not buy into these particular traditions and were adamantly against alcohol consumption. However, the greater prohibition of alcohol in the Qajar period did not necessarily extend to private life, it was limited mostly to public life. Plenty of the nobility and even some of the ulama and middling classes were getting drunk in their private homes (usually off the wine they bought from the Christians and Jews). Again, the Islamic respect for privacy often trumped the Iranian Islamic zeal for purifying society of the vice of alcohol and other substances. It was one thing to forbid the open and public sale and purchase of alcohol with official sanction, it was another thing to suggest that the need to purify society of this stuff required spying and tattling on one's neighbor and airing out your brothers' dirty laundry. Some respected ulama were even alcoholics, and even if everyone in the community was aware of this, it probably seemed wrong to embarrass him or shame him by bringing it up, especially if he was otherwise an upstanding member of the community. Also, Qajar prohibitions or personal abstinence still did not totally eliminate the traditions of drinking common among many sections of the aristocracy, who often were exempted.

11 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

 

And indeed when people say that Prohibition in America did not work, perhaps the problem was that the Christians who were lobbying for Prohibition had not read the Qur'an and if they had they would have recognised that a process of delegitimisation would have been more effective.

 

You're not TOTALLY incorrect, but there you're not exactly on the mark here. Alcohol in a lot of ways was delegitimized in the eyes of many American Protestants by this time. Unlike European Catholics who of course needed particular wine at least for communion, many American Christians did not have an actual ritual which required that. Sure, plenty of Protestants continued the Catholic traditions of communion involving in wine, but in America the kinds of Protestantism that were most popular allowed a lot more room for one to completely reject alcohol as a sin. Plus, Protestant Bibles, unlike Catholic and Orthodox bibles did not possess the Wisdom of Sirach in their Old Testament, which has more explicit social instructions on drinking like this:

Shew not thy valiantness in wine; for wine hath destroyed many. The furnace proveth the edge by dipping: so doth wine the hearts of the proud by drunkeness. Wine is as good as life to a man, if it be drunk moderately: what life is then to a man that is without wine? for it was made to make men glad. Wine measurably drunk and in season bringeth gladness of the heart, and cheerfulness of the mind: But wine drunken with excess maketh bitterness of the mind, with brawling and quarrelling.Drunkenness increaseth the rage of a fool till he offend: it diminisheth strength, and maketh wounds.Rebuke not thy neighbour at the wine, and despise him not in his mirth: give him no despiteful words, and press not upon him with urging him [to drink.] (Sirach 31: 25-31, KJV)

Protestant Bibles in America didn't always have Sirach so they didn't have these kinds of instructions and so it was easier for American Protestants to wholly reject alcohol on a religious basis and infer into the Bible that alcohol was a grave sin that Jesus (pbuh) didn't want you to do. The reason Prohibition passed was because alcohol was being delegitimized in the eyes of many even moreso than it had been. American Christianity is greatly influenced by Puritansm. Many Americans, especially Christian housewives who didn't like their husbands, brothers, and fathers spending so much time at taverns, at the time did think Prohibition was a good idea and good way to put an end to the vices associated with alcohol and had these people more influence they might have even banned cigars. Of course we're looking less at a 90%/10% and something probably closer to a 60%/40% divide with some supporters in Congress adding some extra force to that push. The problem was that there was still a demand for alcohoi especially among ex-military and industrial workers and the poor who quite often wanted something to just take away the sorrow of economic depression and the burdens of industrial society. This demand, whether strong or weak, was then satisfied by criminal networks who not only made tons of money off the demand and greater risks involved in illegal brewing and smuggling because not only did they have the capital to invest in this industry, they also were ruthless and daring enough to challenge law enforcement and other illegal providers which allowed them to make much more money off the increased price for alcohol people desperate to drink or stock up on drink were willing to pay. From here you get all these violent gang wars and perhaps even stronger liquor if not just simply large amounts of it. This is part of the reason why many American libertarians today, who are mostly of a socially conservative disposition, like Ron Paul most famously, believe even a complete legalization or decriminalization of all present illegal substances (heroin, cannabis, cocaine, LSD and others) would probably be better and easier to deal with and the legalization/decriminalization of these substances does not have to contradict or even challenge socially conservative morality which is guided mainly by religious laws. Speaking of which, this always makes me laugh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9n4nwxgaQg

Again, we can look at later Qajar Iran for some parallels. Although the attempt at prohibition of alcohol was stronger throughout the Qajar period than it was in the Safavid period and clerics became more aggressive in their attempts to end the alcohol trade, the later economic woes and social despair of the Qajar era in its last few decades saw a spike in drinking as a matter of fact among the Iranian population, as well as an increase in the use of other substances especially the smoking of opium which had moved to Iran from either from China directly or indirectly through the Western presence in Iran. The fact that these substances were mostly delegitimized in the eyes of much of the religious population of Iran didn't stop many Iranians, even those of otherwise strong religious conviction from indulging themselves and there were many Iranians who had become cynical towards their more puritanical counterparts or the conservative ulama and sometimes drank or intoxicated themselves in rebellion of the ulama. Whereas in the Safavid era, drinking was either more of a cultural custom that people did because it made you fit in with certain crowds or was even justified by radical mystical (ie religious) views, such as those which had characterized the early Safavid order itself, the Qajar period saw Iranian drinking become more and more an expression of secular identity in one area (including among the nobility and new rich that was becoming increasingly jaded towards religion) and much more so something that was becoming wider spread among all segments of society who just wanted an escape from their suffering, even if they knew it was a grave sin they shouldn't do. Scholars such as Rudi Mathee have written extensively on these issues and may be referred for more information.

These attitudes towards drinking still exist among some segments of Iranian society today. Cynicism towards the Iranian republic and the ulama who head the republic is a huge encouragement for people to drink when they otherwise might not, just out of rebellion and this happens often among some urban youth. There's also the despair and depression element (which is great among many in Iranian urban society, including, perhaps, many of the new migrants to large cities from the rural countryside) which probably draws many more religious Iranians towards alcoholic indulgence.

11 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

A modern example of how the delegitimisation process has worked has been the reduction of tobacco consumption. Bans on sales to children, then workplace bans, then public places, etc. All the while the number of smokers is falling, social norms are changing and the economic beneficiaries of smoking are diminishing.

So that ultimately when a complete ban happens there'll be minimal resistance.

I mentioned this earlier that I think a process of delegitimatization  is usually superior to a process of full on and absolute criminalization, although I don't believe all criminalization is necessarily bad in all cases, sometimes criminalization coupled with softer measures can send a good message, even if the criminalization is doomed to be repealed.

But the idea that delegitimization could encourage people to more readily accept criminalization also needs to be scrutinized. Let's put it this way, if alcohol is was so delegitimized and so under-indulged in in a particular society, one has to wonder if official legislation by the government is even really necessary in the first place since there doesn't seem to be any real problem that requires the severity of aggressive law enforcement or if maybe the law itself is just for appearance's sake when the government can hardly be bothered to invest much money or effort in remedying a non-issue when there are more serious problems they could be focusing on besides making sure a few thousand people out of a few out of a few hundred thousand a or a few million people are simply choosing not to drink because they believe God says it is wrong.

 

Edited December 10, 2015 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Jaabir]

This is an interesting dilemma. I don't mean to go against the generally accepted stance of Islam on alcohol, but studies have actually shown that a small amount of drinking a day has its benefits: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol-full-story/

That being said, Allah (awj) has laid down laws for the world to follow because He has knowledge that nobody else does. There are many laws in Islam that are accepted in this manner, and this may be another one of those. There are many unlawful things in this world that may have temporary benefits, even if used in a controlled manner, but the harms far outweigh the benefits.

[Reza]

Any of the supposed benefits of alcohol can be achieved by other means, and the Qur'an acknowledges the benefits (but greater harms) anyway, so nothing groundbreaking.

 

Also I would say that since Islam's stance on personal consumption is absolute, it should likely follow that society must be equally unequivocal.

[Saintly_Jinn23]

11 minutes ago, magma said:

Any of the supposed benefits of alcohol can be achieved by other means, and the Qur'an acknowledges the benefits (but greater harms) anyway, so nothing groundbreaking.

 

Also I would say that since Islam's stance on personal consumption is absolute, it should likely follow that society must be equally unequivocal.

 

While I'm not one to try to separate religion and state in the conventional sense, I think it's more of a question, at least it is for me, what government can actually do and do successfully especially in the absence of an infallible Imam to manage the regulatory and penal process.In most cases, bad moral habits, including alcoholism, can be curtailed without very much government regulation. Also, I think the forbidding has much more to do with the kind of effect alcohol has not so much the substance itself. If you have a society where some people drink but there's a very low rate of drunken behavior and alcoholism, I would ask if it is necessary for government to impose any extra penalties or regulations just to try to get rid of something that's probably always going to be around in some capacity until a divine change in human nature occurs.

 

There's also the legitimate fear that people who are otherwise non-violent and non-disorderly in their drinking habits being violently or aggressively punished for something they could probably be convinced through reason and argument to give up voluntarily.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Reza]

@Saintly_Jinn23 I don't get what the presence or absence of an infallible imam has to do with anything. He won't have a magic wand. He will still deal with the same issues as today, the same people as today, and have a government using the same worldly mechanics as today. Would he share the mindset or suggestion you're proposing?

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Just now, magma said:

@Saintly_Jinn23 I don't get what the presence or absence of an infallible imam has to do with anything. He won't have a magic wand. He will still deal with the same issues as today, the same people as today, and have a government using the same worldly mechanics as today. Would he share the mindset or suggestion you're proposing?

 

Well, for one thing I think the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and the rest of the Masumeen (as) shows that they were all more inclined to persuasion and giving people carrots to get them to stop sinning before ever resorting to violence, if they did resort to violence at all when it came to a particular issue. And that's even after we consider they may have much greater right to use violence or authorize violence than even our present ulama do.The suggestion that we exhaust all non-violent and soft measures to getting rid of alcohol would certainly not be wrong according to them, especially if harsh measures might create anger that will only result in people further defying a ban when they could be convinced through kind words or a gentle slap on the wrist.

 

The infallibility of the Imam of the time is also important because really putting a fallible person, as far as we know, in charge of these things which may require someone with an infallible insight into what is the best of course of action might seriously backfire on us. Certainly, we can't appeal to the infallibility of the Imam for every issue that's hard, but when we consider the inability to stop alcohol, even in the most Islamic of societies, over thousands of years of human history, including the millenium and centuries after the Prophet (pbuh), one has to wonder if being so puritanical about it before the Imam returns isn't just a waste of our energy. Obviously when the Imam returns, he will know exactly what needs to be done, so we definitely do what we can until then but we also need to have patience and not worry so much about the fact that our societies aren't perfect. You might say you do that already, but I think many Muslims, for all their possibly good intentions, often don't realize just how much they may be making certain problems worse by even going so far as to make up newer and harsher punishments which may not even have any legal precedent, just because they are desperate to create a perfect society that isn't their place to create just yet.

 

There are also Shi'a or Shi'a-leaning sects which permit alcohol consumption in moderate amounts and have done so for generations upon generations. While I do not agree with this, many of these sects produce individuals who are otherwise very good Muslims or even good Shi'a by most of our standards and we would do well to ally ourselves more strongly with them and they certainly could use the extra protection themselves, considering the way things are for many of them. By adopting a less aggressive stance against their traditions, which don't seem to produce any serious negative effects at the moment for them, generally speaking, we will be able to better cooperate with them and maybe even better influence them to change these particular habits in a non-hostile fashion. I don't see how that is against the example of the Prophet or the Imams.

[Reza]

@Saintly_Jinn23 The goal of society is not perfection per se, but merely pointing itself towards that direction. Where you are facing is more important than the exact point you are, which is meaningless if the trajectory is off.

 

Prohibition is that step. It is mandatory, but not sufficient to solve the problem. Yes, mercy can be part of the plan in terms of enforcement. Creativity is needed. But to swing the pendulum as you are suggesting to permit or legitimize alcohol as a cushion mechanism is against the principle outlined above. Slowly but surely, prohibition should be the collective goal with a merciful but just approach for individual cases. This principle holds in any era or place.

[Haji 2003]

7 hours ago, Saintly_Jinn23 said:

But the idea that delegitimization could encourage people to more readily accept criminalization also needs to be scrutinized. Let's put it this way, if alcohol is was so delegitimized and so under-indulged in in a particular society, one has to wonder if official legislation by the government is even really necessary in the first place

 

Delegitimisation leads to a situation where a product can be banned and legislation then ensures that it stays that way.

 

The current situation in Iran, is I think, more complex than you suggest. Because I believe that alcohol, heroin and other products are being used by the country's enemies as a means of economic and cultural warfare.

 

What you are suggesting has been tried and, I think, failed miserably.

 

For decades the Singapore government had severely curtailed/banned gambling, regardless of the fact that the Chinese have historically loved it. And since this is Singapore and foreign powers were not going to undermine it, the ban was very effectively enforced.

 

So far so good.

 

Then the Singaporeans realised that their tourism industry was losing out to Macau because all the high-rollers were going there to gamble. So the government took a more relaxed view on gambling.

 

I remember watching a 'town hall' meeting with the Singaporean Prime Minister who argued that gambling was always a part of Chinese culture and the government would undertake a lot of research and would seek to control problem gambling. The audience (mainly non-Muslims) were stunned because this was going against everything they had been hearing for the past few decades.

 

So this is the story we have from a few months ago:

 

Quote

SINGAPORE: The Thye Hua Kwan Problem Gambling Recovery Centre and the National Addictions Management Service (NAMS) at the Institute of Mental Health saw 1,000 more cases of problem gambling in the last three years compared to the three-year period prior, Minister for Social and Family Development Tan Chuan-Jin said in Parliament on Tuesday (Jul 14).

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/problem-gambling-60-more/1982730.html

 

And while the government may give a lot of earnest, thoughtful and academic arguments such as the ones you have done above in relation to alcohol. The observable fact is that 1000 lives (and those of their families) have been negatively affected which would otherwise not have been.

 

These are likely to be less well off people, who are suffering so that billionaire resort owners can make a bit more money.

[certainclarity]

6 hours ago, magma said:

@Saintly_Jinn23 I don't get what the presence or absence of an infallible imam has to do with anything. He won't have a magic wand. He will still deal with the same issues as today, the same people as today, and have a government using the same worldly mechanics as today. Would he share the mindset or suggestion you're proposing?

oh no no no:( no worldly voting imam qaim will send governors he chooses to diff places . No voting Insha Allah. Like time of Imam Ali, he choose and send governors to diff places. Insha Allah no voting under Qaim. We common ppl are too stupid to choose proper gov. 

Edited December 10, 2015 by certainclarity

[Saintly_Jinn23]

3 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

 

Delegitimisation leads to a situation where a product can be banned and legislation then ensures that it stays that way.

 

Except legislation never seems to put the nail in the coffin and at the point does nothing substantial, except give the impression that the government is somehow important as far as that affair is concerned. If 90% of the population chooses to avoid alcohol in this case and the government decides "okay, now we can introduce legislation," what often happens is not the death of the substance but at best maybe like a 2% decrease from before or at worse something like a 10% increase from before which is more or less directly attributable to the government regulations.

 

13 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

And while the government may give a lot of earnest, thoughtful and academic arguments such as the ones you have done above in relation to alcohol. The observable fact is that 1000 lives (and those of their families) have been negatively affected which would otherwise not have been.

 

These are likely to be less well off people, who are suffering so that billionaire resort owners can make a bit more money.

 

That does stink, but I don't see why 1000 individuals choosing out of their own free will to ruin their own lives and negatively impact other lives justifies removing the right to at least choose for millions of other individuals. Even if government prohibition could have prevented those 1000 individuals from becoming addicted to gambling, you also have to consider what else the government may start to think it has the right to ban or permit at a whim once it takes it upon itself to start making moral choices for individuals. The problem is if people cannot be expected to exercise responsibility from themselves and learn from their mistakes because they refuse to do so, no amount of government force can really make them better people. Now, the classic argument against this is that government still can't just let people do what they want, whether they actually are good inwardly and whether their bad actions are allowed to affect others are completely different matters, government only really has a responsibility to perform the latter function. There's truth to this, of course, but the way those who advocate more intense authoritarianism for the sake of protecting people is very often fallacious. Certainly governments run by those who care about the country have some responsibility to check the negative effects of people's bad behavior and protect others from being harmed. But this shouldn't be used an excuse to continually seek to expand the state's or rulers' intrusion in the lives of people and turning them into bottle fed children who couldn't function at all without the government playing nanny for them, which only ends up bad for both the rulers (who are now over-burdened with every tiny little matter) and the people as well (who become less and less responsible as time goes on).

 

Government can certainly play a role in in discouraging behavior or even marginalizing obscene or immoral behaviors without the use of aggressive means. With alcohol, I suggested something like charging extra for companies to run beer commercials, or another suggestion for a less confrontational method than that would be to reward networks that refuse to run alcohol commercials, Such soft measures aimed at a peaceful process and less confrontational methods of marginalization, while not universally successful, have certainly worked for most things people have wanted to reduce in their societies. Usually those whose first instinct is to use forceful measures find that they've spent a lot more money, blood and sweat for only meager returns.

 

I should also add briefly that I think a lot of these problems have a lot to do with the nature of modern governments versus old ones. These issues I think are harder today because most nation-states are built on the premise that the country belongs collectively to "the people" and must either reflect the people's desires or must develop universal rules which apply to everyone equally. It's easier for someone who owns a piece of private land, for instance to manage what is or is not allowed on his or own property and who can do whatever for whatever reasons he or she sees fit and if anyone doesn't like it they can leave. That's probably a fundamental difference between Iran now and Iran in the 1820's. Today, Iran is the collective property of all Iranian "citizens" and it is focused on crafting universal permissions and restrictions that apply to all Muslims/Iranian citizens. In Iran of 1820, the country was pretty much all Fath Ali Shah's Qajar's private property and you were just living on it, so if he thought it was a good idea to actually impose a ban on one segment of the population and not the other, he was well within that right. Because we live in the modern era, where it's either absolute permission or absolute prohibition because anything else is seen as "unfair" as far as many people are concerned, it's a lot harder to come up with individualized solutions that work within the social fabric of each individual country. But I think in most contexts, be it through government pulling out completely and letting people manage themselves or by government getting involved non-violently, such peaceful and non-forceful methods that avoid overly complicated legislation and bureaucracy have always proven themselves to be superior.

[Reza]

4 hours ago, certainclarity said:

oh no no no:( no worldly voting imam qaim will send governors he chooses to diff places . No voting Insha Allah. Like time of Imam Ali, he choose and send governors to diff places. Insha Allah no voting under Qaim. We common ppl are too stupid to choose proper gov. 

 

I didn't mention voting.....

[certainclarity]

44 minutes ago, magma said:

 

I didn't mention voting.....

Oh good because u said using same worldy mechanics, and world mechanics is voting system. So I got scared

That is why I said what I said.God mechanics is appointing who he choses and qaim appointing who he think suitable, not ppl.

[Reza]

^^^^ Nope, but I'm not discussing specific logistics of it. I'm just saying there won't be a magic wand that will eliminate all alcohol miraculously, and will have to be handled through the worldly machinations available. As far as I know.

[Chaotic Muslem]

On 12/7/2015 at 7:02 PM, Wise Muslim said:

Why is alcohol forbidden if one is able to maintain the balance and not abuse it?

Don't go all muqtada on me. I know the jurisprudence and verses from the Qu'ran.

I am looking for more philosophical or scientific reasoning?

There are A LOT of things that are halal that are far worse than alcohol....

The science of the effect of food on human thinking and behavior is at its infancy.

Recently many articles were published demonstrating a proposed relation between bacterial gut and brain function. Some microbes like T.gondii is proposed to participate in causing schezophrenia and other psych disorders.

certain foods favors the growth of certain microbs. Certain microbs affect our body in subtle insidious way.

This is one way to explain the prohibition.

Another way is also a science in its infancy. Neurobehavioral science. The cause of addiction I still under study. Some say that the substance we consjme is not to be blamed. Some may consume alcohol without turning addicts while others will. But we wont know till we try right?

so the addiction here is seen as malfunction in the brain of addicts rather than blaming the substance.

But when addiction is established, there is no cure. You might read from Tim to time about some scientist claiming to find a cure to addiction but it never com to practice.

Addiction is a malfunction in the pleasure reward system and it can leads to self destruction like cancer which is abnormal. Nature usually behaves in a way to protect the organsm not the other way around.

[Ali Musaaa :)]

2 hours ago, Jaabir said:

This is an interesting dilemma. I don't mean to go against the generally accepted stance of Islam on alcohol, but studies have actually shown that a small amount of drinking a day has its benefits: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol-full-story/

 

How does this go against "the generally accepted stance of Islam on alcohol", when the Qur'an says:

 

They ask thee about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: "In both there is great evil as well as some benefit for man; but the evil which they cause is greater than the benefit which they bring." And they will ask thee as to what they should spend [in God's cause]. Say: "Whatever you can spare." In this way God makes clear unto you His messages, so that you might reflect (2:219)

 

[Saintly_Jinn23]

8 hours ago, magma said:

 

I didn't mention voting.....

I assumed he was making fun of me

[Reza]

1 minute ago, Saintly_Jinn23 said:

I assumed he was making fun of me

Nope.

[Haji 2003]

New advisory from the United States Surgeon General

Quote

This Advisory describes the scientific evidence for the causal link between alcohol consumption and increased risk for at least seven different types of cancer, including breast (in women), colorectum, esophagus, voice box, liver, mouth, and throat. The Advisory also helps to better inform the public of this relationship and offers key recommendations to reduce alcohol-related cancers.