‘Abd al-‘Azīz, may Allah be pleased with him, concerning a group of people drinking intoxicants. He ordered that they be flogged, but was told, “One of them is fasting.” He replied, “Begin with him.” Then he said, “Have you not heard the words of Allah Most High?”

“He has already revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah’s revelations being denied and mocked, you must not sit with them until they turn to another topic; otherwise, you would be like them.”

‘Umar cited this verse as evidence because Allah Most High placed those present when wrongdoing occurs on the same footing as those committing it. Indeed, even an invitation to a wedding feast must not be accepted if the feast involves wrongdoing, unless the host abandons it—even though accepting the invitation is a duty owed to him. How, then, could one attend a gathering involving wrongdoing when no such duty calls for one’s presence?

If it is asked, “If this is a form of gambling, how could some of the early Muslims have considered it permissible?” the answer is: Those among the early Muslims who permitted chess without stakes are like those who permitted backgammon without stakes. Both views are reported from some of the early Muslims. Moreover, the excuse of some who played chess has become clear. Al-Sha‘bī, for example, played it when al-Hajjāj summoned him to appoint him as a judge. He decided to play so that he would be judged morally unfit and would not have to serve as a judge under al-Hajjāj. He considered it preferable to bear such wrongdoing in order to avoid assisting someone like al-Hajjāj in his oppression of the Muslims. He regarded the latter as a far graver evil, and could find no way to excuse himself except by something of this kind.

It may further be said: It is well known that the early Muslims who considered the disputed nabīdh drinks lawful, and those who permitted exchanging one dirham for two, were more numerous and more eminent than these. Ibn ‘Abbās, Mu‘āwiyah, and others permitted exchanging one dirham for two, interpreting the prohibition of usury as applying only to deferred exchanges, not to exchanges made on the spot. The same applies to those who thought that the term “intoxicants”