When the order for the prohibition of Khamr (intoxicants) was promulgated by Islam, all other religions of the world instead of forbidding wine favoured its use, and in some of them it formed an indispensable part of certain sacred ceremonies.  Under such circumstances, it was not an ordinary thing for Islam to prohibit wine.  The world was not yet prepared to recognise the value of this Commandment.  The medical authorities of the age held wine to be an excellent and highly invigorating beverage and they prescribed its use.  They believed it to be extremely beneficial to health.  But in spite of all these things Islam forbade wine and totally prohibited its use.  The prohibition too was not given in an arbitrary way, but was supported by candid arguments.  The arguments too are not biased, and its prohibition is accompanied by the admission that it has certain benefits.

            Some philosophers may have, under certain circumstances, looked upon the use of wine with disfavour but no other system has solved this question in the way in which Islam has done it.  Jainism, for instance, which is, truly speaking, not a religious system, but a philosophy, does, in a way, prohibit wine, but the question is, on what ground does it prohibit it?  The prohibition is not based on reason or any medical ground and no argument has been given to show that wine is in any way injurious.  The only reason for which Jainism forbids wine is that its preparation involves the destruction of life and as according to Jaini principles, it is unlawful to destroy life.  Therefore it is held to be improper for the perfect followers of Jainism to drink wine.

            Thus it is clear that Jainism does not promulgate a general prohibition of wine nor does it base its prohibition on the fact that wine, in itself ,is an injurious thing and that the drinking thereof will produce an evil effect on those who consume it.  The only reason for which Jainism disapproves of the use of wine is that its preparation involves a violation of the fundamental principle of Jainism which holds it to be unlawful to destroy life under any circumstances.

            In short, Islam stands unique among all religions and among all systems, in the prohibition of wine and in basing that prohibition on reason.  And what further compels our admiration for Islam is the fact that the Commandment was given at a time when the people were not prepared to fully understand its significance.

            Some Muslims may take the attitude of those historians who have a vested interest in the uniqueness of events and situations and propose that the whole story of the success of the prohibition of  khamr in Medina was simply a miraculous achievement of Islam, of its blessed Prophet and of its Holy Book.  An approach of anaytical social science, on the other hand, may require more convincing arguments that this was so.  This latter approach may on the contrary bring out a number of interesting generalization and hypothesis.

            Modern social scientists believe that there is no singular theory of social change; some assert that it may be a waste of time to look for such global explanations of social change.  They all accordingly agree that the layman’s attitude of pointing to a single isolated factor as the only cause of major social change is nothing more than a mythical contention.  Human collective behaviour is too complex for behavioural scientists to observe single isolated cause followed by single isolated effect.  This is so because the cause themselves have causes and their effects have other effects that may in turn become causes for other effects in the intricate network of social cobweb.

            With this modern outlook to social change, are we justified in asserting that Islam is the only or even the major single cause for the revolutionary success of anti-alcohol dependence campaign in Medina?  Without any religious bias the answer is “yes, it is”.  It is at least the single major cause. This proposition is not a layman’s attitude nor does it conflict with the pluralistic approach of modern social science.

            When we speak of the influence of Islam in bringing about major revolutionary changes in the life of the pre-Islamic Arabs, are we referring to its greatest contribution of transforming primitive ignorants from the crude concreteness of prostrating themselves to stone gods which they had carved with their own hands to the most pure and abstract belief of monotheism of  “there is no god but Allah”,  the Almighty, the Lord of the earth and the heavens?”

Are we talking about the cardinal inspirations of Prophet Muhammad’s life which was a human testimony of the Revelation he received and who was loved and revered as no other man was? Are we thinking of the considerable inspiration of collective and individual Islamic rituals of Prayers, Fasting and Zakat in the life of pioneer Muslims?  Are we referring to the Holy Qur’an, its style of stirring eloquence which defied the Arabs with its monumental beauty and which remains to this day as the supreme classic of Arabic literature?  Or are we referring to the moral commandments and laws with which Islam has uprooted the primitive life of the Arabs.

            So, when we talk about Islam we are not talking about a single cause, indeed we are not even talking about a religion in the limited sense of the word.  Islam is a way of life encompassing the spiritual, moral, economic, political and aesthetic facets.  And through it retained some of the compatible pre- Islamic Arab culture patterns, since Islam was not after change for the sake of change, it has created a new culture and civilization, a new outlook to life, to god and to the place of man in this universe.  It is only this new complex superimposed way of life in Medina which is responsible for the new outlook to alcoholic intoxication and to the success of the remarkable mass abstinence with negligible relapses.