As for the second issue—namely, preparing nabīdh from a mixture of two ingredients—the majority hold that it is forbidden to combine two substances that are capable of fermenting.

Others say that doing so is merely disliked, while a third group deem it permissible. Yet another group maintain that every pair of mixed ingredients is unlawful, even—so far as I can tell at the moment—when the two do not in fact lend themselves to fermentation.

The root of their disagreement lies in their wavering over whether the prophetic prohibition should be understood as one of dislike or of outright ban. And if we take it as an outright ban, does that in turn render the object of the prohibition invalid, or not? For it is authentically reported from him—peace and blessings be upon him—that

“He forbade mixing dates with raisins, fresh unripe dates with ripe dates, and unripe dates with raisins.”

In another narration he—peace and blessings be upon him—said:

“Do not prepare nabīdh from fresh dates and raisins together, nor from dates and raisins together; rather, prepare each of them separately.”

From these texts three opinions arise, according to the various interpretations: one declaring the practice forbidden; one declaring it lawful yet sinful to engage in; and one declaring it merely disliked.

Those who deem it permissible have probably relied on the general wording that allows the preparation of nabīdh found in the ḥadīth of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī. Those who forbid every mixture either consider the very act of mixing to be the reason for the ban—rather than the increased potency that might result—or else cling to the broad wording that the Prophet forbade “the two mixed kinds.”

All are agreed that if wine turns into vinegar on its own, it is lawful to consume. They differ, however, when the conversion is deliberately sought, forming three views: prohibition, dislike, and permissibility.

Their dispute springs from a clash between analogy and textual evidence, and from divergent understandings of that evidence. Abū Dāwūd relates, on the authority of Anas ibn Mālik, that

“Abū Ṭalḥah asked the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—about orphans who had inherited wine. He said, ‘Spill it out.’ Abū Ṭalḥah then asked, ‘May I not turn it into vinegar?’ He replied, ‘No.’”

Whoever viewed the prohibition as a measure to block the means (sadd al-dhariʿah) treated it as a matter of dislike; whoever saw it as having no discernible rationale held it to be forbidden. According to the school that a prohibition does not necessarily render the prohibited object invalid, there would likewise be no ruling of unlawfulness here.

The analogy that counters the view of vinegar’s prohibition is that it is self-evident in the Law that differing rulings pertain only to differing substances. Wine is a substance distinct from vinegar, and vinegar is—in unanimous agreement—lawful. Hence, whenever the substance of wine is transformed into that of vinegar, it must be deemed lawful, however that transformation occurs.