They said, “O Messenger of Allah, we have a drink made from honey that is called bitʿ, and another made from barley-corn that is called mizr.”
He answered—he who had been endowed with words both concise and comprehensive—
“Every intoxicant is unlawful.”
With this single universal statement he, peace and blessings be upon him, clarified that whatever induces intoxication is prohibited, and that whatever intoxicates is classed as wine. These are two true, all-embracing propositions that coincide; knowledge of either one suffices to establish the prohibition of every intoxicant, for such knowledge does not depend on grasping them both together.
Whoever knows that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Every intoxicant is unlawful,” and believes in him, necessarily knows that an intoxicating nabidh is forbidden. He might, however, entertain doubt as to whether the Prophet meant only the intoxicating amount or the very genus of the intoxicant; this is merely uncertainty about the scope of the statement, and once the Prophet’s intent becomes clear, the ruling is clear as well.
Likewise, if one learns that nabidh counts as wine—and awareness of this strengthens the case for prohibition—then the matter is settled, because those who permit the disputed nabidh do not label it wine. Yet when the text states, “Every intoxicant is wine,” that alone is proof enough for the people of faith who know that wine is forbidden. As for someone who does not know wine to be unlawful because he does not believe in the Messenger, he will derive no guidance from the Prophet’s words.
And if a person acknowledges that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah yet is unaware that he forbade wine, the statement “Every intoxicant is wine” will not benefit him; what benefits him is the statement “Every intoxicant is unlawful,” through which he comes to know the prohibition of wine. For “wine” (khamr) and “intoxicant” (muskir) are two terms for the same reality in the Sacred Law, inseparable in both their general and specific senses according to the majority of scholars who declare every intoxicant unlawful.
Our aim here is not to lay out the legal ruling in detail, but merely to draw attention to the illustrative example, for