Ibn Majah

Hadith Commentary:
Benefits and Issues:
It is clearly understood from this hadith that, in the terminology of the Shari‘ah, every intoxicating substance is considered khamr, and in the face of the Shar‘i usage, the literal (linguistic) meaning is disregarded. Therefore, just as every amount of literal khamr (wine made from grapes) is impermissible, with no consideration given to whether it is a small or large quantity, in the same way, every amount of any intoxicant is forbidden, regardless of whether it is a small or large quantity.

Explanation:
1:
If a person who drinks alcohol in this world dies without repenting, he will be deprived of the wine of the Hereafter.

Benefits and Issues:
Benefit: Its meaning is that such a person will be deprived of that wine which will be available to those who enter Paradise. In other words, he will not enter Paradise.

Benefits and Issues:
➊
Any intoxicating substance, whether it is drunk, eaten, inhaled, or introduced into the body through injection, is haram (forbidden).

➋
The use of narcotics, whether in small or large amounts, is haram in every case.

➌
If a beverage causes intoxication when consumed in large quantities, then its consumption in small quantities is also haram, even if it does not cause intoxication.

➍
The effect of tobacco is also similar to intoxication, and it has many harms. Therefore, hookah, cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, and all such types and forms are, according to Shariah, prohibited.

➎
The same ruling applies to the buying, selling, and production of these items—that is, they are prohibited.

Benefits and Issues:
From this, it is understood that the statement of some scholars is not correct—that wine made from grapes, whether in small or large quantity, is forbidden and the one who drinks it will be punished, but that intoxicating drinks made from other things are not absolutely forbidden; rather, a small amount, the drinking of which does not cause intoxication, is permissible. This hadith explicitly proves such statements to be incorrect. This is also supported by hadith 3392.

Urdu marginal note:
Imam Nasa’i rahimahullah has quoted the statement of Imam Ahmad rahimahullah for the reason that the Hanafis claim Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in declared this hadith weak, whereas such a statement is not established from Ibn Ma’in anywhere. What benefit is there in spreading baseless claims? Then, is there any single hadith from which one can be absolved simply by declaring it weak? Just wait and see what happens next.

(1) This hadith is an explicit proof that the drink called "badhq" is forbidden to consume. Badhq refers to the juice and extract of grapes which is given a slight boil and lightly cooked. In this way, its intoxicating effect becomes intense.

(2) This blessed hadith is evidence of the great jurisprudential insight of Abdullah ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu), as he gave an extremely concise yet highly eloquent and comprehensive answer to the issue. Thereafter, he stated this principle before him: "ma askara fahuwa haram"—that is, whatever is intoxicating is forbidden. This is exactly the same kind of concise statement as was given by the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).

(3) "It was not present"—meaning, in the era of the Noble Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), this (badhq) did not exist, nor did he know of it, but he laid down the rule that every intoxicating thing is forbidden.

(4) There are approximately thirty-five narrations from which this matter is understood, and the author's purpose is also this: that the reason for the prohibition of wine is intoxication. Therefore, whatever contains intoxication will, like wine, be absolutely forbidden—whether in small or large quantity. And this matter is completely clear according to custom, reason, and the Shariah. And this is the position of the majority of the scholars and the Companions and the Followers. However, the Hanafis do not understand this straightforward matter and have become entangled in complexities, even though the Hanafis are the greatest proponents of analogy (qiyas), and they also accept that the definitive reason for the prohibition of wine is intoxication. So then, what is the reason that if intoxication is found in something else, it should not be forbidden like wine? Wine is forbidden in both small and large amounts, but other intoxicating substances are, with less intoxication, considered lawful? Can any rational or Shariah-based justification be given for this? Absolutely not—especially those who advocate analogy cannot do so, when countless ahadith explicitly oppose this distinction. To clarify this very point, the author (rahimahullah) has established the next chapter, in which he has explicitly mentioned this issue. May Allah Ta'ala grant guidance. Amin.