This text does not contain any Farsi text to be translated. Please provide the Farsi text for translation.
Hassan Farshchian

According to the head of the National Emergency Organization, from September 1st to October 8th, 2018, 768 people were poisoned due to consuming counterfeit alcoholic beverages containing methanol. Out of this number, 170 people lost their kidneys, 16 people became blind, and 69 people lost their lives.

In the face of this tragedy, we are confronted with a tangible and external reality; whether we are in favor of consuming alcohol or against it, whether we consider it forbidden or permissible, whether we adhere to religious laws or not, this external reality exists. According to official statistics from the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the past month alone, at least 69 people have lost their lives due to consuming non-standard alcoholic beverages, and the number of victims continues to increase day by day.

Now, what is our duty in the face of this tragedy? What is the duty of the jurists and authorities? Can we turn a blind eye to the damages and devastating consequences of their indulgence in drinking alcohol? Does the government not have a duty towards the health and lives of its citizens? Is it only the religious duty of the pious to address this calamity?

Is it possible to find a solution to have these alcoholic beverages tested and certified without it being considered against religious or legal laws? Are religious authorities allowed to provide such services to consumers of alcoholic beverages?

Can we try their desired drinks without being influenced by others to consume alcoholic beverages, in order to make producers and consumers of these non-standard drinks aware of their potential dangers? Will this solution not be seen as a way to promote and advertise these drinks?

In this note, an attempt is made to present a solution from a “religious perspective” to reduce these damages. This solution is based on assumptions and preliminaries that are stated below. This proposal will be based on a well-known Islamic jurisprudential rule called “repelling harm takes precedence over bringing benefit”. After presenting these assumptions, this jurisprudential rule will be examined and then, with reference to a similar case, an effort will be made to propose a solution for the current situation in the Islamic Republic as a remedy for reducing the harms and vices of consuming these drinks.

First – Default Discussion Topics.

The purpose of this writing is not to present an abstract discussion; rather, the goal is to provide and propose a practical discussion in current conditions and with a series of initial assumptions.

A- From the view/perspective.“

Intrinsic.“

Being this writing.

This writing is presented in an intra-religious discourse, meaning that it seeks practical solutions based on accepted religious assumptions. Therefore, the audience of this writing is both the religious community and non-religious individuals who are interested in following the discussion from the perspective of the religious.

Of course, non-religious universities that do not have an interest in pursuing discussions from a religious perspective have simpler solutions. For example, the production, purchase, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages can be a solution that forces producers to comply with mandatory standards and prevents the production and consumption of non-standard products, like other foods and beverages. However, this solution cannot be used by the Islamic Republic government, nor by those who consider drinking alcohol to be forbidden and a sin. Therefore, we pursue the discussion through religious solutions.

B- The prohibition of alcoholic beverages in Islamic jurisprudence.

The second assumption is that production, purchase, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages is forbidden in Islam. This writing is not intended to discuss the sanctity or lack thereof of alcoholic beverages, nor is it meant to discuss the benefits and harms of alcoholic beverages. Rather, with the assumption of sanctity, the discussion will be raised.

Prohibition of alcoholic beverages in the law.

In this article, a country with the suffix “Islamic” is mentioned, which is the Islamic Republic. According to the current laws of the country, production, purchase, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited and considered a crime with a punishment. According to Article 265 of the Islamic Penal Code, the maximum punishment for drinking alcoholic beverages is eighty lashes. (2) According to Article 702 of the Law of Punishments, the punishment for production, purchase, sale, possession, transportation, and storage of alcoholic beverages is six months to one year imprisonment, seventy-four lashes, and also paying a fine of five times the customary value of the mentioned goods. (3).

The ineffectiveness of moral, religious, and current punishments.

In the past four decades, with the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran, religious, moral, health, and social advice and recommendations have been implemented. Various punishments from flogging to monetary fines have been experienced. However, in reality, we are forced to recognize the existence of these consumers in a de facto manner and think of a solution to protect against dangerous diseases and deaths caused by the consumption of non-standard alcoholic beverages.

Second- The principle of repelling evil with evil.

Definition of this rule.

In jurisprudence, it has been stated that the law is brought for the sake of promoting benefits and preventing harm. The followers and adherents are obligated to follow the law in order to promote benefits and prevent harm.

When a person is faced with two forbidden actions or two harmful actions, they must first refrain from both and choose another path. However, when a person is in a state of “conflict” – meaning they are forced to choose between two forbidden actions or two harmful actions and have no choice but to choose one of them – they must choose the action that has less harm and avoid the action that has more harm. In this situation, they have chosen to do the “less harmful” action, thus avoiding the “more harmful” action. This rule is called “the rule of avoiding harm by choosing the lesser harm.”

In some cases, jurists state that the sanctity of an unlawful action is removed and performing it becomes permissible. In this situation, jurists refer to a principle that allows necessities to make prohibitions permissible: “Necessities make the prohibited permissible.” A famous example of this is “eating carrion,” which, based on this principle, is allowed when there is a risk of death due to hunger.

B- Quranic arguments for this rule.

Numerous verses from the Quran have been referenced for the permission and legitimacy of preventing corruption and mischief. Below are some of these verses mentioned.

• Verse of permission to eat carrion in times of necessity:

“It has been forbidden upon you to consume carrion, blood, pork, and anything that has been slaughtered in the name of anyone other than God… And whoever is forced by hunger, without inclining towards sin, then surely God is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Surah Al-Ma’idah, verse 3)

(4)

This verse refers to two corruptions. The first corruption is eating carrion and the second corruption is the destruction and death of a hungry person. The first corruption is less harmful and its action is “corrupt”, and the second corruption is more harmful because it leads to the death of a human being and its action is “destroy”. In this verse, it is allowed to hold onto the corrupt in order to repel the destroy, and to eat carrion. The precise point is that at the end of the verse, the mercy and kindness of God is mentioned. It seems that this point is being emphasized that in this case, not only will God forgive your carrion-eating, but He will also show kindness to you because you were forced and compelled to eat carrion.

• The verse of permission for war during the forbidden months, in exceptional circumstances:

They ask you about fighting in the sacred month. Say, “Fighting in it is a great sin, but turning people away from the way of God, and disbelief in Him, and preventing access to the Sacred Mosque, and expelling its people from it – that is a greater sin in the sight of God. And persecution is worse than killing.” (Al-Baqarah, verse 217)

I’m sorry, there is no Farsi text provided. Please provide the text for translation.

The first corruption mentioned in the above verse, which is the continuation of the actions of the polytheists who obstruct the path of God (mufsid), is more harmful than the corruption of war with the polytheists during the sacred months (fasid). Therefore, it is permissible to act against the corrupt in order to eliminate the corruption.

• Verse of Permission for the Oppressed to Reveal [Their Oppression].

“God does not like the raising of voices in bad language, except from someone who has been wronged, and God is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” (Surah An-Nisa, verse 148)

(6) شش

In the above verse, the first corruption is backbiting, slander, and exposing the injustices of others, which is an “evil deed.” The second corruption is allowing the oppressor to continue their injustices by remaining silent and not standing up against them, which is an “act of corruption.” To put an end to this “corruption,” it is allowed for the oppressed individual to resort to a less harmful “evil deed” and expose the oppressor’s injustices and wrongdoings.

• The verse allowing war with Muslims in exceptional cases.

“And if two groups of believers fight against each other, make peace between them and if one of them transgresses against the other, fight against the transgressing group until they return to the command of God…” (Al-Hujurat, verse 9).

(7) هفت

In this verse, the first corruption (corrupt) is the war against the group of Muslims to put an end to the war. The second corruption (corrupt) is the continuation of the war between two groups of Muslims. Therefore, it is allowed to act against the corrupt, meaning that permission has been given to wage war against the Muslim group that has been the aggressor in order to put an end to the war between the two Muslim factions.

There are rational and narrative arguments for this rule.

From a rational perspective, rejecting corruption for the sake of preventing harm is considered a very wise action, because by committing an act with less corruption, one avoids committing an act with more corruption. In the choice between two harmful actions, performing the one with less harm and avoiding the more harmful one is seen as “profitable.”

The life of the Prophet of Islam and the Imams also confirms this method. As an example, there is a famous narration that according to it, during the time of the Prophet, a man named Samara bin Jundab had a date palm tree in the house of a man from the Ansar tribe. Occasionally, without permission, he would enter the man’s house. The sudden and unauthorized entry of the owner of the tree would cause annoyance to the owner of the house and he complained to the Prophet. After the Prophet gave some suggestions to the owner of the tree, which were not accepted, he ordered them to cut down the tree and throw it out. (8).

In this story, there were two wrongdoings and damages. The first wrongdoing was the appropriation of another tree, and the second wrongdoing was the unauthorized entry of the owner of the tree into another land. The Prophet allowed for the lesser harm (i.e. cutting down the tree) to be done in order to prevent the greater harm (i.e. unauthorized entry of the owner of the tree).

The biography of wise men and the rulings of jurists also follow this principle. For example, jurists prefer to prevent the more harmful action (i.e. leaving a possibly alive infant) by performing the less corrupt action (i.e. cutting open the mother’s stomach) in the case of a deceased pregnant woman who may still have a living fetus.

This rule is similar to that rule.

Similar to this rule, there is also a rule regarding the conflict between the criteria of acting upon obligatory commands. When a person is obligated to follow two obligatory commands but is unable to act upon both of them, they must follow the one that is more important and beneficial. This rule is called the “rule of the most important and beneficial.” The rule of “repelling harm takes precedence over attaining benefit” applies to conflicts between two harmful actions or two corruptions. However, the rule of “the most important and beneficial” applies to conflicts between two beneficial or obligatory actions. But the criteria for preference in both rules is the same.

Third- Use the principle of “rejecting the corrupt to corrupt” in this matter.

Regarding the topic of our discussion in this article, if a solution is proposed for the standardization of these alcoholic beverages to be tested and examined, we are faced with two religious offenses from a religious perspective.

The first corruption is the term used for testing and examining alcohol for users of non-standard alcoholic beverages. The harmful result of this action is that it indirectly gives a more secure license for alcohol consumption and individuals consume alcohol with more confidence.

The second corruption is the act of leaving users of non-standard beverages to their own fate. The result of this corruption is poisoning, blindness, or death of the users of non-standard alcoholic beverages.

The first corruption is “corrupt” because compared to the second corruption, which is “destructive” and a more dangerous and harmful matter, it is less damaging. The first corruption is related to a religious matter and the one who commits it has sinned. In religious teachings, there are also punishments for their sins in the afterlife. But the second corruption is a worldly matter, and in this world we witness physical damages from blindness to death for consumers. Therefore, in order to prevent “destructive” (meaning poisoning and death of consumers from non-standard drinks), we must take action against “corrupt” (meaning less harmful actions such as testing and checking alcohol for consumers) for our own benefit.

Fourth- Comparison with the health status of street women.

Comparison of alcohol consumption with the status of street women in customary and non-legal rights is not a completely accurate comparison; because these two have differences. One of these differences is that in customary legal systems, especially in non-Islamic legal systems, the consumption of alcohol is allowed and its use is considered permissible up to a certain amount and in non-harmful conditions such as driving, but the act of intoxication is also considered undesirable in customary legal systems. However, assuming that the above discussion is related to Islamic jurisprudence, both of these actions are considered forbidden and sinful by the religious authorities, so in this regard, comparing the two can bring us closer to the proposed discussion.

Fortunately, some institutions and people-based organizations provide health and mental services to street women. These include providing items such as condoms to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

We are also faced with two corrupt practices regarding the above: the first corruption is the provision of preventive measures for sexually transmitted diseases to street women. The result of this corruption is that indirectly, they continue their prostitution with a false sense of security and their clients approach them with more ease and without concern for the consequences of sexually transmitted diseases. The second corruption is the abandonment of street women and their clients to engage in unprotected sexual relationships. The result of this corruption is the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among street women and their clients, and their contamination with dangerous viruses and microbes, or even death.

The first corruption, which is a less harmful and “corrupt” act, compared to the second corruption which is a more pervasive and dangerous act, is considered. Therefore, in order to prevent “corruption”, which is the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among street women and their clients, we must take action against “corruption”, which is the distribution of condoms for the relationship between prostitutes and their clients, in order to prevent further harm and corruption.

Without a doubt, community organizations and other institutions that provide services and healthcare have no intention of promoting prostitution, nor does their action lead to the promotion of prostitution. Prostitutes have always existed and will continue to exist, and they have their own customers. Before condoms were invented, these relationships existed and still exist. But in the past, we did not have a preventive solution against this problem. However, now that we have this solution, we undoubtedly combat corruption by acting against it and by distributing condoms, we try to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases as much as possible.

Fifth – Summary of Proposal.

In the subject of non-standard alcoholic beverages, we are faced with dual corruption. Therefore, we have no choice but to dispose of the corrupt. Now, forty years have passed since the establishment of the Islamic government in our country. The use of these non-standard beverages is an external reality. Moral and health recommendations have been made and various punishments, from flogging to monetary fines, have been experienced. But in reality, we have no choice but to officially recognize the existence of these consumers and to protect against dangerous diseases and deaths caused by the consumption of non-standard alcoholic beverages, we must allocate centers to test these types of beverages. Producers or consumers should be able to anonymously test their desired beverage without fear of prosecution or punishment. Or if possible, immediate testing devices should be made available to them to ensure the standardization of their alcoholic beverages.

Notes:

1. “Methanol” claimed 768 victims this time, ISNA news agency, October 3rd, 2018.

2. Article 265 – The limit for consuming alcohol is eighty lashes (Islamic Penal Code, approved in 2013).

3. Article 702 – Anyone who produces, purchases, sells, displays for sale, transports, stores, or provides alcohol to someone else shall be sentenced to six months to one year of imprisonment, seventy-four (74) lashes, and also pay a fine of five times the customary (commercial) value of the mentioned goods (Penal Code, approved in 1996).

4. “It is forbidden for you to consume dead animals, blood, pork, and anything that has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (Surah Al-Ma’idah, verse 3)”

5. “They ask you about the sacred month – about fighting therein. Say, “Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah. And fitnah is greater than killing…” (Al-Baqarah, verse 217).

6. “Allah does not like the public utterance of evil speech except by one who has been wronged. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Surah An-Nisa, verse 148)

7. “And if two groups of believers fight, make peace between them. But if one of them transgresses against the other, then fight against the one that transgresses until it returns to the command of Allah. And if it returns, then make peace between them with justice and be fair. Indeed, Allah loves those who are fair and just.” (Surah Al-Hujurat, verse 9)

8. This story has become the root of a famous legal rule in jurisprudence, known as the “Principle of No Harm.” It is one of the most practical rules in jurisprudence and is derived from a saying of the Prophet, “There should be no harm inflicted or reciprocated.”