The intellect is the distinguishing feature of man from animals which has not been found anything more harmful than wine for intellect and the descent of man into the position of animalism is the result of that. Wine has always been forbidden in the heavenly religions based on this, however, the time and manner of declaring its prohibition in Islam has led to the confrontation of two viewpoints in the instant prohibition with the intoxicate of sleep in the sense of the state of being intoxicated (Arabic: سُکارَی) in verse 4:43 An-Nisāʾ (Arabic: النساء, An-Nisāʾ) and gradual prohibition with the intoxicate of wine. The findings of this research by a library study and descriptive analytical method indicate the accuracy of the theory of instant prohibition with Quranic, narrational proofs and rational confirmations and historical evidence in declaring the prohibition of wine in Makkī (Arabic: المکّیّ, suras revealed in Mecca) verses in early Biʿtha (Arabic: بِعثة) and its emphasizing in verse 5:90 Al-Maʾidah (Arabic: المائدة, Al-Māʾidah). In contrast, the inaccuracy of the theory of gradual prohibition of wine was proved due to its content contradiction and opposition to the Holy Book of Quran, because it is stated, on the one hand, that wine in the first stage was forbidden during the prayer time with the revelation of verse 43 of An-Nisāʾ, the sixth Madanī (Arabic: المدنیّ, suras revealed in Medina) surah in order to justify the gradual theory with the gradual rational law, but on the other hand, it is stated to the absolute prohibition of wine in its verse 219 and also in some Makkī verses by violating the law of gradualness, by declaring that Surah Al-Baqarah is one of the first Madanī Chapters (suras) according to consensus that was revealed after the Hijrah (Arabic: الهجرة). Consequently, the occasions or circumstances of revelations in Sunni exegeses by negation the intoxication of wine in gradual theory have subjective exit from this verse for the motivation of defense of drinking wine of some people and the unjust attribution to others by incorrect justifying the allowance of wine until the revelation of verse 43 of An-Nisāʾ in Medina. Therefore, the distinction between declaring the prohibition of wine in Mecca in early Biʿtha and the delay of several years of execution of Ḥadd (fixed punishment) of Khmer (the drinking of alcohol, shurb khamr) in Medina in instant theory, in addition to creating strong motivation in leaving and religious final notice has also been a kind of educational method of Islam. While the announcement of the absolute prohibition of wine at the same time as the implementation of its Ḥadd (fixed punishment) with the revelation of verse 90 of Al-Maʾidah from the last Madanī Surahs (Surah Madaniyah) or Madani chapters in the gradual theory is against the educational method expected by them. The unjustifiable consumption of some companions of drinking wine in Medina until the revelation of the prohibition verse in addition to the achievement of the Quranic theory of Saib Tabrizi (Persian: صائب تبریزی, Romanized: Ṣāʾib Tabrīzī) is among the consequences of proving instant theory of the prohibition wine.

Drinking Intoxicants (shurb al-khamr) enters the realm of religious obligation and is one of the behaviors whose punishment can, under certain conditions, lead to execution. Achieving this ultimate punishment for its perpetrators is not particularly complex, as committing the act for the fourth time permits—and indeed obligates—the execution of the death penalty upon all responsible individuals. This description first reveals and then sets aside a new dimension. Behind this dimension lies the principle of caution in bloodshed (ihtiyat fi al- demā) as a foundational strategy to prevent the reckless implementation of the aforementioned punishment. The crux of applying this principle (caution) arises when the aforementioned penalty is intended to protect God, termed as safeguarding a pure "right of God". In this context, it appears there is a cyclical debate between the minimalists (those who define khamr consumption as only that which causes intoxication) and the maximalists (those who include all consumption, whether it leads to intoxication or not). In this balance, as will be clarified, one should generally adhere to the minimalist position and apply the principle of exoneration (bara'a) in cases of doubt. This article, using an analytical-fundamental method, proposes a demonstrable hypothesis and attainable conclusion. Evidently, what can be discerned from the observable evidence is the absence of a robust argument for extending the hadd punishment for khamr consumption to cases where no harm befalls the drinker or a third party. Although there may be doubt regarding the inherent harm of mere intoxication, it can be considered a form of harm and the point of intersection justifying criminalization. Therefore, it is desirable for the legislator to consider such foundations and contemplate reforms.

Although some Islamic jurists do not regard intoxication as a defense to murder, Islamic Criminal Act, according to some Islamic jurists, provides that homicide while intoxication does not involve retaliation (qisas) if (1) the drunk was in a state of automatism and (2) he did not make himself drunk in order to commit murder. While the Legislator has been subtle in reflecting this religious rule in some cases, but the Legislator was not precise in other cases including commission of crimes less serious than homicide and other crimes (Hodud and Ta'zirat) while intoxication. Consequently the Legislator could not provide a comprehensive act fully consistent with Sharia (Islamic law).

In this article, the view of Kathryn Kueny about “, wine”,in the Encyclopedia of the Qur’, ā, n, volume 5, pages 481 to 483 is propounded. Then, it has been probed using the jurisprudential, exegetic, and lexical books of Shī, ‘, a and Sunni and some articles of Iran’, s positive law. The author, at first, mentions the quiddity of wine and the location of winemaking, and then investigates the lexicology of the words khamr (ordinary wine), sakar (intoxication), and raḥ, ī, q (pure wine). Later on, the quiddity and difference between the worldly wine and heavenly wine is put forward. Finally, the jurisprudential principles for drinking wine and its metaphorical sense are mentioned.

This study has been performed on 42 patients with digoxin intoxication during ten years. The patients had arrhythmia in ECG and on clinical examination. Tne digoxin level in these patients were higher than 2ng/ml with radioimmunoassay method. The results were compared with Chung's study that was carried out on 180 patients intoxicated with digitalis.The commonest arrhythmia in our and Chung's studies were ventricular arrhythmias(50% VS 57.75% P<0.05) and the most rare one was nodal arrhythmia (7% VS 4.76%). Atrioventricular(AV) blocks frequency was 16.66% VS 51.66% (P<0.05) and atrial arrhythmias 19.04% VS 20% (P<0.04) and sinus arrhythmias were 9.52% VS 15.55% (P<0.7) in comparision with Chung's studies.Digoxin intoxication was three times more frequent in females than males. The highest frequency was obseved in 60 and over 60 years old (73.8%) and the commonest coexisting disease was corpulmonale.

Methanol is a clear liquid with high toxicity. Methanol intoxication may result from accidental exposure, overconsumption of compounds containing methanol with suicidal intent, or following consumption of distilled and contaminated alcoholic beverages. This report describes a case of transdermal methanol intoxication, which is a rare condition. A 58-year-old woman presented with nausea, vomiting, weakness, diplopia and dizziness. On neurological examination, she only had diplopia. On physical examination, a hyperemic lesion with clear borders was found over the right knee. The patient’ s recent medical history revealed that four days prior to the onset of symptoms, she had covered her knee with a methanol-soaked bandage in an attempt to alleviate her knee pain. She had a high osmolar gap as well as high anion-gap metabolic acidosis (HAGMA). Methanol intoxication was suspected due to HAGMA and high osmolar gap. Serum methanol levels were subsequently measured and found to be 37. 9 mg/dL. The patient was treated with intravenous (IV) bicarbonate, IV ethyl alcohol and hemodialysis. She was discharged with no central nervous system or ophthalmologic sequelae. Methanol poisoning should be kept in mind in patients with diplopia and unexplained metabolic acidosis. Although most methanol intoxication cases occur after oral ingestion, it should be considered that methanol poisoning may occur transdermally.