Free-minds.org article on alcohol

[Joseph Islam]

LINK TO THE ORIGINAL THREAD
http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=469#p471

by Joseph Islam  , On God's Earth, Monday, December 26, 2011, 08:51 (1 day, 0 hours, 58 min. ago) @ Naushad
Naushad

Salamun Alaikum.

I respectfully cannot concur with the arguments or conclusion of the article.

The imperative verb 'ijtanib' has not only been used to condemn intoxicants, it is the same word used to condemn false deities (Taghut) and idols, falsehood and much suspicion. The strength of the condemnation of a word in the Quran should be based on the Quran itself. I note no references to 16:36, 22:30 or 49:12 in the article.

5:90   - With regards Intoxicants
16:36 - With regards idols
22:30 - With regards the abomination of idols
22:30 - With regards speaking of falsehood
49:12 - With regards much suspicion

No one would argue that the above is not condemned where the same imperative Arabic verb 'ijtanib' is utilised against them.

I also find an unnecessary restriction of the term 'sukara' in 4:43, an interpretation of which can be gleaned from verse 22:2 and well attested classical Arabic lexicons.

Please see my humble perspective from the following article.


ARE INTOXICANTS FORBIDDEN (HARAM) IN THE QURAN?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/intoxication%20FM3.htm

Regards,
Joseph.

--
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act'
George Orwell

http://www.quransmessage.com
Copyright © 2010 Quransmessage.com

[Joseph Islam]

LINK TO THE ORIGINAL THREAD
http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=469#p473

by Joseph Islam  , On God's Earth, Monday, December 26, 2011, 17:22 (16 hours, 29 minutes ago) @ Waqas

Brother Waqas,

Salamun Alaikum.

When God has clearly asked believers to 'ijtanib' something, should this not be enough for believers to take cue and stay away? The strength of the verb is well appreciated from its Quranic usage.

Albeit I do not deny the Arabic grammar cited in the article as it appears that the writer of the article is clearly familiar with Arabic as he correctly identifies the pronoun 'Hu' as a reference to a singular object. However, I find unconvincing (even on strength of 5:91) that 'Shaitan' is automatically the most appropriate address of the singular item as opposed to 'rijs'. I incline to the latter, hence my interpretation that the 'ijtanib' clearly addresses the khamr (as well as the maysir, ansab and azlam).

Please also take note of my contention with the interpretive restriction with 'sukara' in 4:43 which when applied to conclusion 2 does not always refer to 'intoxicants'.

Finally, I actually prefer your take in the two points you have advanced in (1) and (2) which for me does stand in tacit contrast to what I feel are the undertones in the conclusions drawn by the article. This I felt was a necessary clarification on your part. I don't feel that your conclusions are too far fetched than my own on this matter in what I think you intend to impart. However, I may be mistaken and I appreciate that you may disagree.

Your brother in faith,
Joseph.

--
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act'
George Orwell

http://www.quransmessage.com
Copyright © 2010 Quransmessage.com