Your stand on alcohol consumption based on Quran
-
Are you saying both al-ithm and al-baghia are connected to Al-Haq? I see them two seperate words. I read it as Al-ithm is haram and Al-baghia without Al-haq is haram.
Peace,
To say "arrama/prohibit l-ith'ma/the detriment" is meaningless.
Read in context about causing detriment and tyranny on others.733 say merely arrama/prohibit lord mine the immorality what apparent therein and what unaware wal-ith'ma/and the detriment and the oppression/tyranny in other than/without the right/justification and that associate ye of with the god what not descended in it authority of and that thou say ye of about the god what not thou knowing
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Drinking wine in moderation (not to excess) has actually been shown to be good for the heart.
https//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3023893/
In excess it is definitely not good for the health.
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
I agree, individuals vary, but as a whole society there will be many
who are not moderate. There are moderate drug users but there
are drug addicts, there are moderate gamblers then there are those
who are addicted to gambling as well, we must consider what
is best for society as a whole.handshake
-
I agree, individuals vary, but as a whole society there will be many
who are not moderate. There are moderate drug users but there
are drug addicts, there are moderate gamblers then there are those
who are addicted to gambling as well, we must consider what
is best for society as a whole.handshake
Exactly. Drinking is not an individual evil but a social evil, therefore it is beyond the scope of individual behaviour. Like one may like to ski and accidnets occur many times skiing, but that is not likely ever to become a social evil, therefore it is up to the person or at the most his or her dependants, not of the whole of society.
On the other hand, counting one's perpetual moderation may be counting too much on something that is not in our hands. Many people who have been moderate drinkers stop being moderate drinkers when diffiulties confront them and then very easily slip into alcoholism. We see that all the time.
Moderation is nice, it is part of a picture where we drink for pleasure, but when people are in emotional, economical or any other turmoil, one does not even notice that one is not drinking for pleasure any more but to escape the situation where one is. Or in the extreme, people who were well off and become homeless, they may merely drink to warm themselves up in cold weather.Alcohol is dangerous, precisely because it can be so plesurable. That is a very big edge it has as against other drugs, where you seek the effect but the consumption of which is not enticing, but alcohol is pleasurable. And, as mentionned, there is not such a thing as perpetual moderation. All one can say is that for the moment one is moderate, but there is no gurantee whatsoever that it will always be so. And, like other drugs, there are people who are more prone to become alcoholics or drug users than others. Those people can benefit enormously of an environment where alcohol and other drugs are not common currency.
I guess that people who drink for pleasure either they do it in a culture where to stop drinking because that way you may help others or yourself in the future is simply unconceived or never seriously entertained because it is never weighed, or are people who think that if it is a pleasure why should I rennounce it if I do not do harm to anybody. In the first case, those societies where this is so pay the price, a very heavy one. In the second case, a society where many people turn to alcohol with moderation because it is so nice, the are paving the way to become a society of the first mentionned and also playing with fire, because with alcohol moderation may be only as long as one is not confronted with real afflicting conditions.
The attractiveness of alcohol induces many unhappy miscalculations.
Salaam
-
Saving innocent lives? That is very righteous to Allah/God (SWT).
How do you know that the life you are saving is innocent?
-
I agree, individuals vary, but as a whole society there will be many
who are not moderate. There are moderate drug users but there
are drug addicts, there are moderate gamblers then there are those
who are addicted to gambling as well, we must consider what
is best for society as a whole.handshake
When has trying to moderate society as a whole led to a better society? The mafias in the US were created out of the ban on alcohol, they grew through this ban. Alcohol is easily available today in countries like Pakistan, the only difference the ban made is that the suppliers are earning more. As a society we cannot be moderated, it leads to retaliation. The Russians tried to control their society through communism, we all can see the results. In Pakistan Bhutto banned alcohol and yet alcohol is now available in whichever house that needs it. The society before the ban was actually much more balanced then it is now.
-
When we find out who is really is innocent and do our service to the Almighty Uncreated Creator.
-
When has trying to moderate society as a whole led to a better society? The mafias in the US were created out of the ban on alcohol, they grew through this ban. Alcohol is easily available today in countries like Pakistan, the only difference the ban made is that the suppliers are earning more. As a society we cannot be moderated, it leads to retaliation. The Russians tried to control their society through communism, we all can see the results. In Pakistan Bhutto banned alcohol and yet alcohol is now available in whichever house that needs it. The society before the ban was actually much more balanced then it is now.
That is precisely what I hae kept saying. It is not about legal prohibition by anybody but about ourselves each person take her or his repsonsibility as a member of society out of conviction and helping others and oneself not to drink and that is about the only way to control such a thing. And that is why this infantilization of is it haram or is it not is of no use. It is not a matter of somebody borbidding anything to anybody else but of each responsible person standing up to those responsibilities and avoid alcohol for what it is, the corrupting work of shaytan.
Each one does whatever she or he deems right and no one has to answer but to God.
Salaam
-
When has trying to moderate society as a whole led to a better society? The mafias in the US were created out of the ban on alcohol, they grew through this ban. Alcohol is easily available today in countries like Pakistan, the only difference the ban made is that the suppliers are earning more. As a society we cannot be moderated, it leads to retaliation. The Russians tried to control their society through communism, we all can see the results. In Pakistan Bhutto banned alcohol and yet alcohol is now available in whichever house that needs it. The society before the ban was actually much more balanced then it is now.
thats true actually
but i want to add something
bhutto banned it due to the reason of sharia law pressure otherwise he himself claimed that he drink moderately and he was about to lift the ban but he become victim of sharia law
overall that ban give nation harm more than benefit only benefit is to the one who sells it in high price -
thats true actually
but i want to add something
bhutto banned it due to the reason of sharia law pressure otherwise he himself claimed that he drink moderately and he was about to lift the ban but he become victim of sharia law
overall that ban give nation harm more than benefit only benefit is to the one who sells it in high priceHe was a heavy drinker, but he was trying to capture the religious vote as well, thats why he banned alcohol. He was trying to be a dictator which thankfully never happened, but he still had a massive hand in the disintegration of the country, whereby Bangladesh became an independent nation just because this man was unwilling to accept that he had lost the election. He banned alcohol in the hope to garner more votes, nothing else.
-
He was a heavy drinker, but he was trying to capture the religious vote as well, thats why he banned alcohol. He was trying to be a dictator which thankfully never happened, but he still had a massive hand in the disintegration of the country, whereby Bangladesh became an independent nation just because this man was unwilling to accept that he had lost the election. He banned alcohol in the hope to garner more votes, nothing else.
BOLD although he was a heavy drinker but he claimed infront of public that he drink moderately which is not normal in a society like pakistan to claim such thing no doubt he was the gallant person nobody ever claim such thing ever and everybody know that everybody else drinks too
rest of your post is history
and the seperation of bangladesh happened due to "Yahya khan" not due to bhutto
and 90000 militants of pak army become war prisoners
5000 square miles area invadedand in this fragile moment bhutto takeover pakistan and he play his role well
release all the prisoners and area
and history is witness he was the best leader throughout the history of pakistan
his death was the start of pakistani curse
zia ul haq was the REAL disease of dictatorship -
BOLD although he was a heavy drinker but he claimed infront of public that he drink moderately which is not normal in a society like pakistan to claim such thing no doubt he was the gallant person nobody ever claim such thing ever and everybody know that everybody else drinks too
rest of your post is history
and the seperation of bangladesh happened due to "Yahya khan" not due to bhutto
and 90000 militants of pak army become war prisoners
5000 square miles area invadedand in this fragile moment bhutto takeover pakistan and he play his role well
release all the prisoners and area
and history is witness he was the best leader throughout the history of pakistan
his death was the start of pakistani curse
zia ul haq was the REAL disease of dictatorshipI will not get into a lengthy debate with you centered around political history of Pakistan as this is not the appropriate forum for it. Even though Bhutto holds the central and primary role in the separation of Bangladesh since he was not willing to accept the results of the election. But lets leave it at that and agree to disagree on this.
-
I will not get into a lengthy debate with you centered around political history of Pakistan as this is not the appropriate forum for it. Even though Bhutto holds the central and primary role in the separation of Bangladesh since he was not willing to accept the results of the election. But lets leave it at that and agree to disagree on this.
peace brother
i m not debating i m telling you some facts whats in the history of politics.
you can disagree if u want but that will not change the fact
God bless you -
Bhutto was the conspirator and Yahia Khan was the implementer of the genocide held in Bangladesh in 1971. The then Pakistani army under Yahia Khan's leadership killed thousands of unarmed Bangladeshis that include males, females, innocent babies, boys, girls, old men and old women throughout Bangladesh. They rapped thousands of Bangladeshi girls/women, fired houses/villages during March-December 1971. Same things happened in Mayanmar, where Nobel prize achiever (for peace) Sun Shu Chi with her allied Mayanmar army participated in Rohingya Genocide by killing Rohingya people village after village, raping their women and girls and firing their houses.
I am suprised how God alone people can support such war criminal like Bhutto, who are openly involved in crime against humanity.
-
its the matter of NEWS
we can see some of the historians are in favor of talking bout bhutto leadership skills.
and there was one party who was opposing the bhutto ideas .thats happened with every religious/poilitcal movement.
as per data of election it appears he(bhutto) win with aheavy lead.
but as per his personal life GOD knows best.
when wars like indo pak and indo bangala pak happened the loss from both sides is apparent and nobodys can deny that mistakes from the teoublemakers from
both sides played their roles well.but Good thing is this at this time space a CHANGE type revolution is going on and big corrupts like PMLn party and bhuttos party PPP is under multiple cases of corruption and money laundering.
Lets see even at this age some are still favouring the criminals.
but in the case of bhutto it was something fishy as per data so individual is free to read all that and then give their reviews. -
Peace,
To say "arrama/prohibit l-ith'ma/the detriment" is meaningless.
Read in context about causing detriment and tyranny on others.733 say merely arrama/prohibit lord mine the immorality what apparent therein and what unaware wal-ith'ma/and the detriment and the oppression/tyranny in other than/without the right/justification and that associate ye of with the god what not descended in it authority of and that thou say ye of about the god what not thou knowing
thank you brother Noon. you really solved this problem (and others completely). I really learned a lot from you. keep up your good work!
in everything we do, we have to do it with right justification. even eating pig is okay with right justification defines in Quran 2137 (forced by necessity, without disobedient, and not transgressor).
for other things, right justification can be defined using this logic.
-
I am suprised how God alone people can support such war criminal like Bhutto, who are openly involved in crime against humanity.
Who are GOD ALONE people ?
and i am surprised, how come people are careless to watch daily news?
in daily news the NEW leader and new HOPE of pakistan IMRAN KHAN is being comapred by bhutto of PAST , wonder people are comparing him with war criminal.i am surprised how he released the war prisioners and the captured area on critical conditions?
i am surprised he wins with heavey lead on the election that happened after 1971 seperation ? all majority of pakistan was favouring a war criminal.?
i m surprised once a great writer comes to pakistan to write a BOOK in which he suppose the write about FOUNDER of pakistan instead he suggest and write on BHUTTTO and he claimed thats the only leader in the history of pakistan worthy of writting a book , what a war criminal? hahahaha
i am surprised all parties people say him ZULIFKAR ALI BHUTTO (shaeheed) ? hahaha why? war criminals never labelled as shaheed ?
war criminal ( hitler) vs war criminal ( bhutto) ? interesting topic i m surprised people dun know the meanings of war criminals.
and my brother you dnt need to b surprised, niether i am GOD Alone nor i am from bhutto party the original bhutto party is hijacked by thiefs and robbers same like original GOD Alone is hijacked by war criminals like....... ( fill in the blanks)
