usefulness" (Q. ٢:٢١٩). Thus it was said, "Wine is prohibited." People approached the Prophet, saying, "٠ Messenger of God, allow us to benefit from it as God, the Exalted, said." The Prophet did not answer them. Then the verse under consideration was re‌ vealed: "Draw not near to prayer when you are drunken."٩٧

A similar account has been related on the authority of AbU Hurayra.٩٨ Abu Maysara has, likewise, related on the authority of Umar b. al-Khanab:

When the ordinance regarding the prohibition of wine was revealed, he [Umar] said, "٠, God, elucidate for us in unequivocal terms the matter of wine." Hence, the verse which is in the "Surat al-Baqara" was revealed: "They question you about strong drink (khamr) and games of chance. Say that in both is great sin" (Q. ٢:٢١٩).
Umar was summoned and the verse was read to him. [He was not satisfied, and he prayed,] saying, "٠, God, elucidate for us in unequivocal terms the matter of wine." Hence, the verse which is part of the "Surat al-Nisa" was revealed: "Draw not near to prayer when you are drunken" (Q. ٤:٤٣).
Henceforth, the Prophets crier, when calling people for the prayer, used to announce,
"Do not draw near to prayer drunken." [Once again,] Umar was summoned and the verse was read to him. [Again he was not satisfied, and he prayed,] saying, "٠ God, elucidate for us in unequivocal terms the matter of wine." Hence, the verse which is part of "Surat al-Maida" was revealed. Once more Umar was summoned and the verse was read to him: ["Satan seeks only to cast among you enmity and hatred by means of strong drink" (Q. ٥:٩١)]. When the phrase "Will you then have done with?" was reached,
Umar said, "We have done with! We have done with!" ٩٩

Al-NasaI has also reported this tradition, with little variation in its wording. ١٠٠
As for the second view, [which considers that the verse was abrogated by the verse about the ablution], the obligation to perform the ablution before the prayer has no relation to the subject of the verse under discussion as its abrogator.
It is possible that those who hold the view that this verse has been abrogated are under the delusion that the prohibition to draw close to prayer in a state of intoxica‌ tion necessitates that the state of intoxication in question should be one which falls short of the stage where a person becomes neglectful of the obligations and their performance and therefore fails to pay attention to them. Accordingly, if the intoxi‌ cation reaches that stage, it would be inappropriate to require him to perform his obligations. Moreover, since we assume that a person drinking wine gets to the point of becoming intoxicated to this extent, and is still held responsible by the consensus among the scholars for carrying out the obligation of the prayer, this necessarily re‌ quires the abrogation of the purport of the verse.
However, this opinion is certainly an erroneous assumption, because the mean‌ ing of intoxication, as the phrase "till you know that which you utter" (Q. ٤:٤٣) sug‌ gests, is [that it reaches a] stage when the intoxication causes a loss of conscious‌ ness, and this prohibition may be taken to mean obligatory unlawfulness. As such, it is not negated by the loss of consciousness. The reason is that even if the perfor‌ mance of the prayer in this state is impossible, the loss of the consciousness is still of the persons own free will. Accordingly, the validity of punishment cannot reason‌ ably be nullified in the case of a person who has willingly refrained from carrying out his obligation. Hence, the linkage of prohibition with it is sound .before he will‌ ingly gets drunk. There are many such examples in the Sharia.