Articles

The Ruling of Islam on Drugs
Author : Dr Noah Ali Salman
Date Added : 28-08-2024

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all worlds, and peace and blessings be upon the guiding bringer of good tidings, our master Muhammad, and upon his family, his companions, and those who follow him with excellence until the Day of Judgment. To proceed:

Scholars have explained that Islamic law was established to preserve the five necessities of life, which form the material and spiritual existence of a human being: religion, life, progeny, intellect, and wealth.

This preservation, as brought by the Sharia, operates on two levels: the level of protection and the level of care.

As for the level of protection, it focuses on prevention and keeping away harm and harmful elements. The level of care, on the other hand, is concerned with striving to achieve the desired goal, which is the absolute worship of Allah the Almighty.

The intellect is arguably the most important of these objectives; for religion without intellect is mere rituals and heresies, the self without intellect is chaotic movement, lineage without intellect is aimless procreation, and wealth without intellect leads to corruption and destruction.

Therefore, the Shariah has made the intellect the basis for legal capacity; whoever loses the blessing of intellect is exempted from accountability, as they are neither fit for it nor capable of fulfilling it.

Anyone who observes the effects of drugs of all kinds and their various consequences will see that they pose a clear danger, an outright assault, and a decisive threat to these five necessities. A drug user does not care about the rulings of their religion, nor do they pay attention to their duty towards their Creator. They neither strive to obey Him nor fear disobeying Him, which results in the corruption of their faith and the loss of their hereafter.

Drugs obliterate the mind and conflict with the religion, which commands the prohibition of anything harmful to the individual and society. Scholars have discovered, and continue to discover, more about the physical ailments caused by drugs, whether on the brain, the heart, or other parts of the human body.

As for the harm to the mind, in addition to its impairment, doctors and specialists have extensively detailed the dangers of addiction to the human mind and its physiological structure. Regarding the harm to progeny, drug use weakens sexual ability, damages embryos, and undermines honor.

A drug user, in their obsession with consuming drugs, is ingesting a poison that is universally agreed upon by rational individuals, scholars, and doctors as being destructive to the body, damaging to the soul, and causing a slow death. When bodies are destroyed and weakened, and the balance of truth and goodness is disrupted, families, which are the natural incubators for the upbringing and strength of progeny, become corrupted.

A drug user loses their human integrity and dignity, becoming a puppet in the hands of death merchants, chasing after illusions and, ultimately, a grim demise. They lack sound thinking, necessary balance, and the ability to make wise choices, which rational individuals strive for. They sell themselves and squander their money, desperately seeking their own destruction in the most horrific and dreadful manner.

Given the aforementioned points—though just a small portion of the broader depiction of the condition of those deceived and ruined by drugs—the ruling on them is definitive prohibition, as unanimously agreed by the scholars. This is due to the confirmed negative effects, the undeniable harm, and the established risks they pose to individuals and societies. Among the evidence relied upon by scholars to declare drugs as forbidden are:

First: Allah says {what means}: "O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful." (Al-Ma'idah, 90). Drugs share the same reason for prohibition as alcohol, which is intoxication by impairing the mind and covering the grace of Allah upon the person; thus, they fall under the same ruling.

Second: Allah says {what means}: "He allows them the good things and forbids them the evil." (Al-A'raf, 157). It is inconceivable for a rational person to classify drugs as anything other than evils.

Third: Allah says {what means}: "And do not throw yourselves into destruction." (Al-Baqarah, 195). One of the fundamental principles in Islam is to avoid anything that is harmful to human health. The use of drugs leads to physical, psychological, and social harm.

Fourth: From Umm Salama (may Allah be pleased with her), she said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) prohibited every intoxicant and every drug that causes numbness." (Reported by Abu Dawood). Drugs, in their various forms, cause numbness and are destructive to the mind and body.

Fifth: Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: "Allah does not prohibit wine because of its name, but He prohibits it because of its consequences. Therefore, any drink that has the same harmful consequences as wine is also forbidden, just like the prohibition of wine." (Reported by Al-Daraqutni).

As for the statements from scholars regarding the prohibition of drugs, some of them are:

First: It is mentioned in "Hashiyat Ibn Abidin" (Vol.3/P.239) that: "The scholars of both the Shafi'i and Hanafi schools agreed that a divorce pronounced by someone who has lost his mind due to consuming hashish is valid, based on their fatwa on its prohibition."

Second: It is also mentioned in the same source (Vol.6/P.457) that: "The consumption of narcotics such as hashish, cannabis, and opium is prohibited because they corrupt the mind and distract from the remembrance of Allah and prayer. There are reports of people who, after using these substances, suffered from mental disturbances and even death. The scholar who claimed that hashish was permissible is considered a heretic and innovator; Nujum al-Din al-Zahidi even stated that such a person could be considered an infidel and permissible to kill."

Third: It is mentioned in "Mughni al-Muhtaj" (4/187): "The two Shaykhs mentioned in the section on foods from Al-Ruyani that consuming hashish is forbidden. Al-Ghazali said in 'Al-Qawa'id' that the consumer of hashish should be punished and admonished. Ibn Taymiyyah stated that hashish first appeared in the late sixth century of the Hijra, during the rise of the Mongol Empire, and it is considered one of the greatest evils, even worse than alcohol in some respects. This is because it produces intoxication and pleasure similar to alcohol, and it is more difficult to quit than alcohol."

Fourth: Ibn Taymiyyah said: "Hashish, which is made from grape leaves, is also forbidden. Its consumer should be punished in the same way as a drinker of alcohol. It is even worse than alcohol because it corrupts the mind and temperament, leading to behaviors such as effeminacy and other forms of moral corruption. Alcohol, on the other hand, leads to disputes and fighting. Both prevent remembrance of Allah and prayer. Hashish falls under the prohibition of alcohol and intoxication, whether by name or meaning." ("Al-Siyasah al-Shar'iyyah" / p. 108).

Fifth: Imam al-San'ani said: "It is forbidden to use anything that intoxicates, even if it is not a drink, such as hashish." ("Subul al-Salam"/Vol. 4/P. 53).

Sixth: In the Sixth Regional Conference on Drugs held in Riyadh in 1974, it was stated: "The Islamic scholars of various schools of thought unanimously agreed on the prohibition of the production, cultivation, and consumption of drugs, whether natural or synthetic, and on criminalizing those who engage in such activities."

In conclusion, the consequences of drug use are devastating to individuals and society, and they conflict with the rulings and wisdom of Islamic law. Therefore, the ruling on drugs is prohibition. Similarly, trafficking in drugs—whether through selling, buying, smuggling, marketing, or profiting—is also forbidden, as anything that leads to something forbidden is itself forbidden.

And all perfect praise be to Allah the Lord of the Worlds.

 

 

 

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

The imam recited a verse containing a prostration of recitation (*sajdat al-tilāwah*) but did not prostrate. After the imam's *salām*, a follower (*maʾmūm*) performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because the imam had not performed the prostration of recitation. Is it permissible to go against the imam in this way?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no sin on the imam if he omits the prostration of recitation (sujūd al-tilāwah), even deliberately. The maʾmūm (the one following the imam) is obliged to follow the imam in the prayer, so if the imam does not perform the prostration of recitation, it is not permissible for the follower to prostrate, because the imam is appointed only to be followed.
If the follower introduces a prostration after the imam’s salām but before his own salām, in a case where there is no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw), his prayer is invalidated if he knew it to be prohibited. Otherwise, he is excused on account of his ignorance and his prayer is not invalidated.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Imām al-Jamal ʿalā Fatḥ al-Wahhāb: “His statement: ‘So the omission of the hayʾāt (the non-essential sunnahs of the prayer) is not compensated for by prostration; if one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to his ignorance.’”
Since this issue is one that is hidden from the laymen, as it is among the subtleties of knowledge, and the laymen are excused for ignorance of whatever is of such a nature, and their act of obedience is not invalidated because of it, it may be said that the prayer of one who has not acquired knowledge of this issue is not invalidated, with the necessity of learning the rulings remaining. As for after knowing it, the prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on a mother giving the Zakat of her wealth to her children?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is permissible for a mother to give her children from the Zakat if they are among those who are eligible for it—such as being poor (Fuqara), possessing no wealth, and not being sufficiently provided for by the maintenance (Nafaqah) of others. This is based on the statement of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ regarding Zaynab, the wife of 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with them both): (Your husband and your children are the most deserving of those upon whom you spend in charity) [Narrated by Al-Bukhari].
 
It is stated in [Al-Hawi al-Kabir, Vol. 8/P.537]: 'As for the wife, it is permissible for her to pay her Zakat to her husband from all the designated shares... Our evidence is the generality of the saying of Allah the Almighty: "Zakat expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy", and the Hadith of Abu Hurairah that the Prophet ﷺ said to Zaynab, the wife of 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: (Your husband and your children are the most deserving of those upon whom you spend), and this is taken in its general sense.' And Allah the Exalted knows best.

What is the ruling on deliberately breaking the fast while being capable of fasting?

Whoever intentionally breaks their fast in Ramadan without a valid excuse has committed a major sin and bears great guilt. They must repent, seek forgiveness, refrain from eating and drinking for the rest of the day, and make up for that day after Ramadan.
They have lost an immense reward, which cannot be compensated even by fasting an entire lifetime as a voluntary act, because an obligatory fast cannot be equaled by voluntary fasting.
If the fast was broken through sexual intercourse, the person must:
● Make up for the missed fast (qada), and
● Perform kaffarah by fasting two consecutive months.
● If they are unable to do so, they must feed sixty needy people.

What is the ruling on men wearing rings (those made of silver and of other metals, such as iron), and are there conditions for men wearing rings?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is sunnah for men to wear a silver ring on the right hand, following the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It is reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, on the authority of Anas ibn Mālik (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) took a silver ring and had “Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh” engraved on it. He said: “I have taken a ring of silver and had ‘Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh’ engraved on it, so let no one engrave the like of its engraving.”
It is a condition that the silver ring not exceed the size customary in the local norm (ʿurf). If it does, that is extravagance (isrāf). A ring made of a metal other than silver, such as iron or copper, is permissible to wear without disapproval (karāhah), except gold, which is forbidden (ḥarām) for a man to wear.
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.1/p.586): “It is permissible, without disapproval, to wear a ring of iron or lead. It is sunnah for a man to wear a silver ring on the little finger of his right or left hand. Wearing it on the right is better, and it is permissible on the left, and on both together.”
It is also stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.97): “It is lawful for him, that is, the man, and likewise the khunthā (person of indeterminate sex), indeed all the more so, to wear a ring of silver, by consensus (ijmāʿ), because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a ring of silver, narrated by the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhārī and Muslim). Wearing it is in fact sunnah, whether on the right or the left, though the right is better according to the sound position, as stated in the chapter on clothing in al-Rawḍah… The Shāfiʿī jurists did not specify the permitted size of the ring, and they probably relied on custom (ʿurf), that is, the custom of that country and the habit of people of his standing in it. Whatever exceeds that is extravagance, as they said regarding a woman’s anklet. This is the reliable position (al-muʿtamad).” And Allah Almighty knows best.