The opinion stated by the radio is baatil (baseles), in conflict with the Shariah and in conflict with the Fatwa of the Akaabir (Senior) Ulama. Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi (rahmatullah alayh) has written a treatise on the evil and hurmat (prohibition) of human organ transplantation. Reproduction of all the Shar’i proofs for the prohibition of human organ transplantation is beyond the scope of these pages. Insha’Allah, a booklet will have to be prepared and published on this subject so that the Shar’i evidence for the prohibition can be set out clearly and convincingly. Meanwhile the following factors will suffice in refutation of what radio channel ‘islam’ propagates:

(We have reproduced the question and answer verbatim with all its linguastic and grammatical atrocties as presented to us by the questioner.—The Majlis)

Firstly, the molvi sahib concedes that this drink is injurious for the health and body. He accepts that it is harmful. The factor of ‘harm’ is termed dharar in the terminology of the Fuqaha. Dharar is also a factor of prohibition. Eating a pure substance like sand is not permissible on account of the factor of dharar. Poison, inspite of being taahir (pure) is haraam on account of dharar.

Secondly, the molvi sahib appears to be unaware of the meaning of ‘alcohol’. He perhaps is not aware that every alcohol is an intoxicant, and Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi wasallam) said that every ‘muskir’ (intoxicant) is haraam. Regardless of the classification of the alcohol, the common factor of ‘sukr’ (the intoxicating agent) is common to all forms of alcohol. While the legal and Shar’i consequences of different types of alcohol vary, it does not follow that alcohol is halaal for consumption.

Thirdly, the argument of the quantity being ‘miniscule’ is baseless. It is in conflict with the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who said: “Whatever in big quantity intoxicates, its little quantity too is forbidden.” Thus, the ‘miniscule’ argument is stupid and untenable.

Fourthly, what is stated in Ahsanul Fataawa is not binding on us or on any one. Ahsanul Fataawa is not in the category of the works of the Fuqaha of former times. Each fatwa of Ahsanul Fataawa is subject to examination, criticism and verification. The particular fatwa on Coke, is the opinion of the venerable Mufti Sahib (rahmatullah alayh). His degree of investigation is inadequate and inconclusive for presenting a final word on the Coke issue.

Fifthly, the views of the contemporary Arab Ulama and even of contemporary liberal Pakistani Ulama are all suspect and products of liberalism. We cannot attach much significance and respect to the ‘fataawa’ of men who appear on television, run corrupt radio stations, violate laws of Hijaab, are lax on pictures, project the voices of females, attach little importance to the dress-styles of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and incline to the liberal ways of the western kuffaar in general. The words and views of such Ulama are of little significance. And, when unbacked by Shar’i daleel, are to be rejected and dismissed as products of their whims and fancies. Their great weakness which exposes the shallowness of their learning and understanding is that whenever they are bereft of Shar’i arguments and whenever they are unable to rationally and academically neutralise the arguments of their adversaries, then they run to the taqleed of liberal molvis and shaikhs operating under the facades of academies of modernism such as the Jeddah academy. They seek to awe and impress others with the names of ‘prominent’ personalities.But men of Ilm are not awed by names, especially if such names represent liberals of this age - liberal scholars who are weak in the presentation of Shar’i dalaa-il. They present generalities as their basis in the same way as ignorant modernists subject Qur’aanic aayaat and Ahadith to their personal interpretation based on whim and fancy. Also, the relationship which the liberal scholars have with government establishments is a curse. Such relationships exercise their baneful effects and influences on the ‘fataawa’ of the ‘academy’ scholars.

Sixthly, if the alcohol in Coke is not of the haraam category, then by the same token the alcohol in whisky, vodka, ship-sherry, gin and beer is also not haraam. The alcohol used in soft drinks is ethanol which is the very same alcohol used in the varieties of liquor which at least to this day the liberal molvis and shaikhs still say is haraam. But, they are opening the avenue for proclaiming liquor to be halaal. Tomorrow that day MUST come when the liberal scholars will proclaim liquor halaal. They will simply give it another name and fabricate some fanciful and devious ‘academic’ and technical arguments to bamboozle the masses and to satisfy the establishment (i.e. fussaaq governments and the wealthy).

If a ‘miniscule’ (one or two drops) of whisky is added to a cup of tea or to a glass of water, do these liberals say that it will remain halaal? If ethanol-containing whisky or vodka in miniscule quantity is haraam, then why should ethanol-containing soft drink not be haraam despite the miniscule amount? If Laager and Barbican Beer which contain ethanol have to be haraam, why not soft drinks which also contain ethanol, albeit in ‘miniscule’ quantity or in a quantity lesser than the quantity in whisky and vodka?