Comment by thendrill

It’s worth clarifying a few points about Islamic teachings and history regarding intoxicants.

First, the Quran does not categorically declare all intoxicants haram (forbidden) in the legalistic sense often assumed. The verse commonly cited (2:219) does not prohibit wine or similar substances outright — it acknowledges both the harm and potential benefit:

> "They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, 'In them is great sin and [yet] some benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit...'"

This is moral guidance urging caution and reflection — not a blanket prohibition. The prohibition as we know it today comes from later jurisprudence built atop evolving interpretations, often informed by societal conditions, not an explicit Quranic ruling alone.

Second, many prominent Islamic thinkers in classical times engaged deeply with altered states and substances — sometimes even celebratory of them. Avicenna (Ibn Sina), arguably the greatest polymath of the Islamic Golden Age, wrote on the medical and philosophical effects of opium and other psychoactives. Other thinkers — like al-Ghazali, Suhrawardi, and Sufi poets such as Rumi and Hafiz — explored the boundaries between mystical experience, reason, and sensory perception. In some cases, this included symbolic or actual engagement with intoxicants to describe the ecstasy of divine union.

The idea that “no Islamic leader in their right mind” would ever touch such substances overlooks both historical nuance and the breadth of Islamic thought — from orthodox jurists to radical mystics. The same diversity of perspective exists today.

If you are interested in learning more about the topic there is a great book about it : "Tripping with Allah: Islam, Drugs, and Writing Book by Michael Muhammad Knight"

Finally, equating religious belief with hallucination because both may involve altered cognitive states is philosophically flimsy. That a mushroom trip can lead someone to perceive “God” doesn’t invalidate faith any more than a dream invalidates memory. Experiences can reinforce prior belief without reducing them to mere neurochemistry. Correlation is not causation — and even if it were, that would not necessarily diminish the meaning of the experience.