Is it an act of scrupulousness to avoid carbonated drinks that contain a percentage of alcohol?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Is it an act of scrupulousness to avoid carbonated drinks?
The questioner : Like Pepsi, because they say that a small percentage of alcohol is added to it.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : So this small percentage is broken down and mixed into the carbonated substances?
The Shaykh : If this is true—and I am, of course, not a chemist—I say: there are two things here:
These beverages, assuming they contain some alcohol, and alcohol is, without a doubt, intoxicants; indeed, it is the mother of intoxicants. This is because intoxicants are usually composed of the intoxicating substance, water, and some sweet sugar substance. If alcohol is the intoxicating substance in all intoxicants, and intoxicants are, by the Shari'ah, the mother of all abominations, then alcohol is the mother of the mother of abominations, because it is the origin of intoxicants. Such that if this intoxicating substance is removed or taken out of the intoxicants, the intoxicants return to being a permissible drink. From this, we know that if intoxicants undergo fermentation, they become permissible, and their fermentation is nothing but the removal of the intoxicating substance from this substance. The questioner : e.
So any drink that is manufactured and something of the alcohol substance is thrown into it—and it is the mother of intoxicants as we mentioned—then the manufacturer of these drinks falls into a clear legal violation, which is possessing intoxicants, indeed possessing the mother of intoxicants, which is alcohol. And on that basis, if what you heard earlier is true that these drinks contain something of alcohol, then it is not permissible to manufacture them.
Then comes the question: Is it permissible to drink them? And this is the crux of the matter, as they say. I say: merely mixing a forbidden substance with a lawful substance does not make that lawful substance forbidden. Rather, one should look at this substance: did the forbidden prevail over it, or did the lawful prevail over it? This issue is clear from the discussion of water in the books of Islamic jurisprudence and the books of hadith, regarding the known disagreement among jurists: if impurity falls into water, does this water become impure? And is it permissible to drink it and perform ablution with it, or not? The disagreement on this is long, but the correct opinion is what is implied by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):Sunan Abi Dawud 66Sahih (Al-Albani); that is, as the scholars of the Muslims agreed: as long as its taste, color, or smell has not changed.
Accordingly, any water in which impurity falls, whether this impurity is urine, feces, flowing blood, or anything else, if one of the three properties of water changes due to this accidental impurity, the water ceases to be purifying water. At that time, it is not permissible to drink it unless it falls within the category of pure but not purifying. This, too, has another detail. The important point is that the falling of impurity into a liquid substance does not necessitate that this substance becomes impure and forbidden. The questioner : e.
And on that basis, if there is pure, purifying water, and a little or a lot of intoxicant falls into it—and intoxicant is forbidden by the explicit text of the Book and the Sunnah and the consensus of the Muslim community, with a disagreement regarding some intoxicants that is formal and does not harm our topic now—if the intoxicant falls into the water, does this water become forbidden to drink? And I do not say: does it become impure? Because the most correct of the scholars' opinions is that something being forbidden does not necessitate that it is impure. And the opposite of that: every impure thing is forbidden, but not every forbidden thing is impure. So intoxicant is forbidden, without doubt or doubt, like silver and gold. So if a person has something of these forbidden things in his pocket in one way or another, it does not mean that if he prays—in this state—his prayer is invalid; because he did not carry impurity; because the forbidden does not necessitate that it is impure. So intoxicant is forbidden, but it is not impure.
So if something of intoxicant falls in—and indeed, as we said earlier regarding alcohol, which is the mother of intoxicants—it does not necessitate that thisThe questioner : becomes impure, but rather it may become forbidden if it becomes intoxicant; that is, if the intoxicant or alcohol prevails overThe questioner : and makes it an intoxicant; at that time, it is not permissible to drink it. So these drinks about which the question was asked—like Pepsi and the like—if they contain something of alcohol, it does not make it intoxicating, and consequently does not make it impure. So it is permissible to drink it, but it is not permissible to manufacture it.
I hope you pay attention to this summary: it is not permissible to drink it if it contains something of the substance that turned the drink into an intoxicant, but it is not permissible to manufacture it because of pouring the forbidden into it. But it is permissible to drink it if it did not turn into an intoxicant. This summary must be distinguished between it and its opposite.
I repeat and I add: if a man prays and he has gold in his pocket, or is wearing a silk garment, he is committing a forbidden act. But this silk garment is not impure, and gold—also—is not impure. As for silver, there is disagreement regarding its prohibition. So if a person prays while carrying gold, or carrying silk, or carrying a bottle containing intoxicant, for example; his prayer is valid; because he is not carrying impurity. These are things that are forbidden and are not impure. Yes.
The questioner : Like Pepsi, because they say that a small percentage of alcohol is added to it.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : So this small percentage is broken down and mixed into the carbonated substances?
The Shaykh : If this is true—and I am, of course, not a chemist—I say: there are two things here:
These beverages, assuming they contain some alcohol, and alcohol is, without a doubt, intoxicants; indeed, it is the mother of intoxicants. This is because intoxicants are usually composed of the intoxicating substance, water, and some sweet sugar substance. If alcohol is the intoxicating substance in all intoxicants, and intoxicants are, by the Shari'ah, the mother of all abominations, then alcohol is the mother of the mother of abominations, because it is the origin of intoxicants. Such that if this intoxicating substance is removed or taken out of the intoxicants, the intoxicants return to being a permissible drink. From this, we know that if intoxicants undergo fermentation, they become permissible, and their fermentation is nothing but the removal of the intoxicating substance from this substance. The questioner : e.
So any drink that is manufactured and something of the alcohol substance is thrown into it—and it is the mother of intoxicants as we mentioned—then the manufacturer of these drinks falls into a clear legal violation, which is possessing intoxicants, indeed possessing the mother of intoxicants, which is alcohol. And on that basis, if what you heard earlier is true that these drinks contain something of alcohol, then it is not permissible to manufacture them.
Then comes the question: Is it permissible to drink them? And this is the crux of the matter, as they say. I say: merely mixing a forbidden substance with a lawful substance does not make that lawful substance forbidden. Rather, one should look at this substance: did the forbidden prevail over it, or did the lawful prevail over it? This issue is clear from the discussion of water in the books of Islamic jurisprudence and the books of hadith, regarding the known disagreement among jurists: if impurity falls into water, does this water become impure? And is it permissible to drink it and perform ablution with it, or not? The disagreement on this is long, but the correct opinion is what is implied by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
Water is pure and is not defiled by anything.
الماء طهور لا ينجِّسه شيءAccordingly, any water in which impurity falls, whether this impurity is urine, feces, flowing blood, or anything else, if one of the three properties of water changes due to this accidental impurity, the water ceases to be purifying water. At that time, it is not permissible to drink it unless it falls within the category of pure but not purifying. This, too, has another detail. The important point is that the falling of impurity into a liquid substance does not necessitate that this substance becomes impure and forbidden. The questioner : e.
And on that basis, if there is pure, purifying water, and a little or a lot of intoxicant falls into it—and intoxicant is forbidden by the explicit text of the Book and the Sunnah and the consensus of the Muslim community, with a disagreement regarding some intoxicants that is formal and does not harm our topic now—if the intoxicant falls into the water, does this water become forbidden to drink? And I do not say: does it become impure? Because the most correct of the scholars' opinions is that something being forbidden does not necessitate that it is impure. And the opposite of that: every impure thing is forbidden, but not every forbidden thing is impure. So intoxicant is forbidden, without doubt or doubt, like silver and gold. So if a person has something of these forbidden things in his pocket in one way or another, it does not mean that if he prays—in this state—his prayer is invalid; because he did not carry impurity; because the forbidden does not necessitate that it is impure. So intoxicant is forbidden, but it is not impure.
So if something of intoxicant falls in—and indeed, as we said earlier regarding alcohol, which is the mother of intoxicants—it does not necessitate that thisThe questioner : becomes impure, but rather it may become forbidden if it becomes intoxicant; that is, if the intoxicant or alcohol prevails overThe questioner : and makes it an intoxicant; at that time, it is not permissible to drink it. So these drinks about which the question was asked—like Pepsi and the like—if they contain something of alcohol, it does not make it intoxicating, and consequently does not make it impure. So it is permissible to drink it, but it is not permissible to manufacture it.
I hope you pay attention to this summary: it is not permissible to drink it if it contains something of the substance that turned the drink into an intoxicant, but it is not permissible to manufacture it because of pouring the forbidden into it. But it is permissible to drink it if it did not turn into an intoxicant. This summary must be distinguished between it and its opposite.
I repeat and I add: if a man prays and he has gold in his pocket, or is wearing a silk garment, he is committing a forbidden act. But this silk garment is not impure, and gold—also—is not impure. As for silver, there is disagreement regarding its prohibition. So if a person prays while carrying gold, or carrying silk, or carrying a bottle containing intoxicant, for example; his prayer is valid; because he is not carrying impurity. These are things that are forbidden and are not impure. Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.