What is the ruling on mixed drinks containing some intoxicant and the impurity of khamr (intoxicants)?

The questioner : The one speaking now. The mother of Rabi' and the one that is widespread now, which contains in its composition khalud. And it is known that they become types, that khalud has types, perhaps reaching four or five, four parts. So are all these types intoxicating? And is every intoxicant

The Shaykh : I do not know about these types, whether they are all intoxicating or not, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: whatever intoxicates

The questioner : It possesses in color and in breaking.

The Shaykh : But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said , so if a drink, when a person consumes a lot of it, intoxicates him, and if he does not consume a lot, it does not intoxicate him, it becomes forbidden, and it is not permissible to give it, and it must be avoided. As for the questioner's statement that if it contains some of the 'aql (intellect/impurity), then if the part is small and does not affect what it is mixed with, it has no ruling, and the scholars have explicitly stated this. They said: if khamr (intoxicants) is mixed with something and its effect does not appear in taste, color, or smell, then it has no ruling, and the thing remains permissible. What indicates this is what was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in his saying: except what is dominated in its taste, color, or smell by an impurity that occurs in it. And what indicates this is also reasoning, for the original principle is that rulings are tied to their causes and effects, so if the cause is not present, the effect is not present, and this is a clear matter.
As for his question about khamr (intoxicants), whether it is impure or not? The stronger opinion in my view is that khamr (intoxicants) is impure with a sensory impurity, meaning that if it touches your clothes or your body, you are not required to wash them from it, even though it is one of the most vile things in terms of meaning. For this reason, Allah the Mighty and Majestic said: So it is a filth from work, meaning it is a practical filth. For this reason, it was paired with al-ansab (sacrifices for idols) and al-maysir (gambling) and al-azlam (divining arrows). And it is known that these three are not impure in themselves, but they are impure in meaning, because they are vile deeds. So these verses do not indicate the impurity of khamr (intoxicants), but rather indicate that it is impure with a conceptual, practical impurity, not a sensory, physical impurity. And based on this, if there is no evidence for its impurity, then the original principle for things is purity. And it is not necessary that a forbidden thing be impure, as is known, because impurity is newer than prohibition. It is necessary that every impure thing be forbidden, but it is not necessary that every forbidden thing be impure. For example, smoking is forbidden; it is not permissible for a Muslim to smoke because of the harm it causes to his body, his wealth, and his behavior in most cases. And yet, smoke is pure. If a person prayed while holding smoke, his prayer would not be invalidated. And this is forbidden, and yet it is pure and not impure. So prohibition does not necessitate impurity.
And if the matter is such, and that washing for purity is only by evidence, we also say that we have positive evidence for the purity of khamr (intoxicants), a physical purity. And that is that when khamr (intoxicants) was forbidden, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not order the washing of vessels from it. And when the meat of donkeys was forbidden, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the washing of vessels from it. So that indicates that khamr (intoxicants) is not impure, otherwise it would have been necessary to wash the vessels from it. Rather, in Sahih Muslim, it is narrated that a man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) with a skin of khamr (intoxicants) after khamr (intoxicants) had been forbidden, and he offered it as a gift to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he did not know that it had been forbidden. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Did you not know that it has been forbidden?" So the man opened the mouth of the skin or the vessel until he poured out the khamr (intoxicants) in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and in the place where people put their feet. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not order him to wash the vessel, nor did he forbid him from pouring it where the feet of Muslims tread. Even though impure things are not permissible to be poured where the feet of Muslims tread. But my saying this, I am not saying that to diminish the status of the news, but I say that the news is the mother of all evils, and that it is obligatory to flog its doer, and that if he is flogged four times, it is permissible for the one in authority to kill him and execute him if people do not stop without that, as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) necessitated. And this opinion is a middle position between those who say that if he is flogged, then on the fourth time he must be killed, and those who say that this hadith is abrogated. So the correct opinion in this matter is that killing him is subject to public interest. So if the one in authority sees that killing one who repeatedly drinks khamr (intoxicants) and is flogged for it is better, he kills him so that people will be deterred from the mother of all evils and the source of all evil.