And the ‘Writer of our Destiny’ Had written that Sunnis and...

And the ‘Writer of our Destiny’ Had written that Sunnis and Shias are brothers and so why should the Shia lag behind in this. And so as soon as the Imams (a.s.) Commanded us to stay away from innovations, they only glanced at it, as their elder brothers had already dealt with this matter beforehand. So they immediately divided Qiyas (Analogy) into three parts.

Mufti Jafar Husayn writes that there are three types of analogies: 1.Qiyas Mansus Ul Ala - As the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said that wine if forbidden because it is an intoxicant, it therefore means that every intoxicant is therefore forbidden. (One Mujtahid actually made tobacco unlawful based on this type of analogy). 2.Qiyas Ba Tariq Ul Ala - As Allah (s.w.t.) Has Said in the Holy Quran ‘Do not say UFF to your parents’, it therefore means that we should not harm them in the least.

3.Qiyas Mustanbat Ul Ala - When one does Istinbaat based on one’s opinion and arrives at the order. This Qiyas is incorrect from the Shiite point of view. Here I would like to say that to divide Qiyas into three types is in itself Qiyas, for there is no such division of it to be found in the statements of the Holy Infallibles (a.s.) who actually forbid Qiyas in its entirety. This subdivision was only done in order to keep their businesses going.

They concluded that if a Holy Infallible gives a particular reason for something then this is the only reason for it. What could also be the case that the Imam (a.s.) actually had more reasons to give but gave us only a particular one for a particular problem. In the same way a doctor knows what to say to a patient and an Imam (a.s.) know what to say to who and when.

So where did these people get the right to use analogies in matters of religion, the interpretation of which is the sole right of an Inafallible imam (a.s.). The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said that wine is forbidden due to the fact that it is an intoxicant. Just like where they have used their analogies in other matters, it is also possible in the absence of reasons other that this one, for them to declare wine to be lawful.

I can show you thousands upon thousands of people who, after drinking bottles upon bottles of wine, do not get intoxicated from it. So now if we use these analogies, then based upon the reason for the forbidding of wine being absent, wine would end up being lawful. The people who drink wine would then make the claim as to why wine should be forbidden to them when it does not intoxicate them.