Moreover, Mālik’s position is supported by reports from the early generations, including Ibn ‘Abbās, ‘Ā’ishah, ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Umar, and others, alongside his interpretation of the Quran’s apparent meaning. Those who permit such drinks, however, have neither textual evidence nor analogy to support them; rather, their position contradicts both. Furthermore, the prohibition of wine as a category is more stringent than the prohibition of unwholesome meats: wine must be avoided altogether, anyone who drinks it is subject to the prescribed punishment, and keeping it is impermissible.

Moreover, Mālik permitted destroying the wine itself, following the Sunnah reported on this matter, and prohibited turning it into vinegar. All of this reflects an adherence to the Sunnah absent from the position of his Kufan opponents. Since the Lawgiver’s prohibition of intoxicating drinks is more stringent than His prohibition of foods, the position that accords with the Lawgiver is sounder.

This is further illustrated by the fact that a group of the scholars of Medina deemed singing lawful, to the point that this view came to be attributed to the scholars of Medina generally. Yet ‘Īsā ibn Ishāq al-Tabbā‘ reported that Mālik was asked about the singing in which some people of Medina allowed themselves latitude. He replied, “Only the sinful among us do that.”

It is well known that this is less serious than what was deemed lawful by those who permitted such drinks. The widely transmitted texts from the Prophet—may Allah Most High bless him and grant him peace—prohibiting singing are not comparable to those prohibiting intoxicating drinks. It is therefore clear that the scholars of Medina follow the Sunnah more closely.