—such as when we wish to demonstrate the prohibition of the contested nabidh. We may say, “Nabidh is intoxicating, and every intoxicant is unlawful,” or, “It is wine, and every wine is unlawful.”

Our statement, “The intoxicating nabidh is wine,” is known from the textual evidence—namely the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him, “Every intoxicant is wine.” As for our statement, “Every wine is unlawful,” it is established by both the revealed text and the consensus, and there is no dispute about it; the disagreement lies only in the minor premise. Indeed, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim relates that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Every intoxicant is wine, and every intoxicant is unlawful,” and in another wording, “Every intoxicant is wine, and every wine is unlawful.”

Some people imagine that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, expressed this in the logical mold of the logicians—setting out two premises in order to draw a conclusion, as they do. This is a grave misconception, for the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is far above employing such a method to convey knowledge. Even scholars of his community whose intellect and learning are far inferior would not be content to follow the logicians’ path; they regard the logicians as unskilled reasoners and say, “These people were adept in practical crafts such as arithmetic and medicine, but when it comes to universal, demonstrative, and certain sciences—especially the divine sciences—they were not its masters.”

Muslim dialecticians have clarified this in their writings and have discussed the matter at length. The fact that every wine is unlawful is a piece of knowledge already possessed by Muslims; they do not need syllogistic reasoning to establish it. Their doubt concerned only certain types of intoxicating drinks—such as nabidh made from honey or grains and the like—exactly as related in the two Ṣaḥīḥs from Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, who said: