to D

> D: For centuries specific doctrine and religion was rarely successful with drunks. ~~

Of course, but one should not confuse between specific doctrine & specific religion, with pure doctrine & pure religion.
Similarly, legislation itself is not doctrine, but itself may contain doctrine. "Religion" itself is a holistic and critical method of understanding the world", and so we are —in this context— able to say that every person must have a religion to some degree, as individuals inherently possess methods of understanding and processing the world around them.
If specific religion, then, was inherently a way to destruction, especially by alcoholism, then each individual would be ruined — and so would every interpretation of AA, or any other worldview, lead only to loss.

As we recognise that every person engages in a process of interpretation, belief formation, and worldview construction — so is "religion" understood as any comprehensive and critical method of understanding the world (including AA).
This concept bears a close resemblance, etymologically, to the word "religion", as as "religo/religare" (meaning "to bind fast" or "to reconnect" or "to anchor") is the Latin word that "religion" is derived from.
The Latin root suggests "to bind fast" or "to reconnect" or "to anchor", such as how the individual's method of understanding acts as a binding agent that ties them to a larger context—the intricate web of ideas, values, and perspectives that make up their worldview.
Similarly, the word for "religion" or "theology" in Arabic is "aqidah", the root of which means "to knot" or "to tie".

> D: So poor was the success that some decided to forbid drinking and in some instances kill drunks. ~~

Poor was the success of specific doctrine and religion, or poor was the success of *pure* doctrine and *pure* religion ?
If the former, then this cannot be used as a basis for generalisation upon all doctrines and all religions (most certainly not pure doctrine or pure religion).
If the latter, then this is itself making an implicit doctrinal claim against pure doctrine, such that its legislative ability supercedes pure legislation from the Most Knowing, Who is Free of Error.
It can only be a false equivalence to gauge & dismiss the success/possibility of the only pure candidate by many known to be impure.

In the case of the Prophet of Islam ﷺ, who legislated the pure truth from the Creator, it is well known in the authentic biographies of those involved in his ﷺ life that many of them were aggressive alcoholics prior to the advent of his ﷺ ministry.
However, when the prohibition from the Creator came, declaring alcohol non-negotiably unlawful, they were unanimous in spilling it and not returning to it.
This is reported in countless, massively successive historical transmissions from the period.
For example, in Sahih Muslim (one of the most authentic books of historical transmissions):
'Abd al-Aziz b. Suhaib reported:
They (some persons) asked Anas b. Malik, about Fadikh (that is, a wine prepared from fresh dates), whereupon he said: "There was no liquor with us except this Fadikih of yours."
It was only this Fadikh that I had been serving to Abu Talha and Abu Ayyub and some persons from amongst the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) in our house.
When a person came and said: "Has the news reached you?"
We said, "No."
He said: "Verily liquor has been declared forbidden."
Thereupon, Abd Talha said: "Anas, spill these large pitchers."
He (the narrator) said: "They then never reverted to it, nor even asked about this after the announcement by that person."
[Sahih Muslim — Book 23, Number 4883]

Similarly, some of the greatest scholars and their instructors, had previously been alcoholics.
For example, Abdullah Ibn Maslamah Al-Qanabi was an alcoholic, so severely addicted that he publicly appeared with bottles in hand and in stupor.
He died over 200 years after the Prophet of Islam ﷺ — Abdullah's story is well known.
It was after hearing the authentic narrations of the Prophet of Islam ﷺ that he turned from his alcoholism.

Abdullah not only turned from his alcoholism, but he went on to become a great teacher — with some of his students being Bukhaari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, and many others.
There is not a SINGLE educated Muslim today that seriously studies the Shari'ah that is not intimately familiar with Bukhaari and Muslim and Abu Dawood. Those scholars, along with billions today, owe a huge debt to that successfully recovered alcoholic — Abdullah Ibn Maslamah Al-Qanabi — whose recovery was successful due to specific legislation from God having reached him.

This is just one individual, and it should be reminded that it was not *doctrine* that moved what was within them, but *legislation* from God that they were called to and reminded of.

That same legislation, anyone will find, is responsible for Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mauritania, and Kuwait, having a near total (& world's highest) population of teetotalers. Millions!
More than any have ever been in a 12-step programme.
And this is not simply the case today, but for centuries. The list continues with Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, Pakistan, etc. having well over a majority of successful teetotalers.

Is near total teetotaling in nations for centuries "poor [in] success" ? Not just in addressing alcoholism, but its sources ?

> D: Yes AA avoids specific doctrine. In part  because the original members included agnostic and some atheists. But what resulted is a set of actions that can work for anyone (from any past or future religious leaning)  because AA is inclusive and not exclusive.

This side-steps the aforementioned epistemic dilemma whereby AA has implicitly removed the right of the Creator to prescription that legislates and leads to success for all individuals (including agnostics and atheists) specifically for the issues they are facing — while being properly based in instruction from Him (as to have the best relationship with Him).
If it were truly successful they would have abandoned alcohol and found the true legislation from God — not found a way to subvert accepting it.

> D: Alcoholics while drinking are insane. Logic, specificity and frothy appeal rarely suffice. ~~

The Most Merciful, the Creator knows best and understands the creation best, and would give the best call to life — so it is not our efforts that come between a person and their heart, but it is Him who comes between a person and their heart.

> D: And yes AA will run a foul and seem contrary to most fundamental  zealots. ~~
> D: AA does not care. And neither do I. ~~

The topic was not fundamental zealotry but foundational grounding for the methodology's knowledge and moral claims.
If there is only a circular methodology, then it cannot have foundational grounding whatsoever — especially not in presription from God.
How could it be that something fruitful and from God has no concern for knowledge or morality from Him? This is a trait befitting of apatheism, which establishes itself not because of what God has prescribed, but in avoidance of it. In which case, it is a huge testimony —not to AA— but to His Mercy that He rewards any of those efforts at all with sobriety.

I am afraid that this confirms the criticism that AA subverts concern for what can be known as from God, for actions repetitive and redundant, that have no room for the possibility of legislating by understanding Him in truth and making one's way sincerely for Him alone — instead preferring the aesthetic of a higher power for the license of legislating by itself.

How do you judge? Will you not reflect?
Or do you have some clear proof?
Is God not the Wisest of the Wise?

Is he who knows what is revealed from your Lord that is the truth, like him who is blind? Only those who reason will remember.
If God touches you with adversity, none can remove it except He. And if He touches you with good—He is Capable of everything.

He is the Supreme over His servants. He is the Wise, the Expert.

Alhamdulillah (all praise be to God).