(There is no divorce in a state of extreme anger); does this include the divorce of a drunkard?

The questioner : We previously issued a ruling that the divorce of a drunkard does not take effect, relying on the hadith: , and a clarification by al-Shawkani, and ... it has become clear that this was an error, and it is the opinion of the esteemed jurists; so what is the correct ... authentic position?

The Shaykh : I do not know what he means.The questioner : Did he mean ... or does he mean his presence, or does he mean you and me, or what does he mean?

Another questioner : He means his presence.

The Shaykh : He means his presence, so we say that we distinguish the hadith: We do not include the divorce of a drunkard, the oath of a drunkard, and all the actions of a drunkard in it; why? Because there is a very big difference between a person who is caught off guard by a situation that agitated him, upset him, and angered him, so he lost his composure, and consequently said things that should not be said, or things he would not say in his conscious and normal state; this person is naturally excused; because he did not consume the cause that leads to this which he condemns after he returns to his senses. As for the drunkard, it is forbidden for him to drink a drop of intoxicants, let alone a cup of it, let alone cups of it until he becomes unaware and does not realize what he is doing, so he divorces and ... and so on. So comparing the drunkard to the angry person is, as Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him, and forgive us and him) said: the most corrupt analogy on the face of the earth. His school of thought is that there is no analogy in Islam, and this is naturally one of his anomalies; therefore, when he says this phrase which I quoted from him, and he precedes it with what is not the school of the majority of Muslims, he says: "All analogy is invalid, and this is the very essence of invalidity from it." All analogy is invalid, and this—meaning—when he discusses the analogy of some jurists who expand in analogy in an impermissible way, he presents this introduction and says: "All analogy is invalid, and this is the very essence of invalidity from it, and it is the most corrupt analogy on the face of the earth." Why? Because it is from the category of comparing the opposite to the opposite, and in reality, some scholars fall into this, comparing the one who is not excused to the one who is excused, comparing—for example—the one who intentionally and deliberately leaves the prayer to the one who leaves the prayer while sleeping or forgetting. The sleeper and the forgetful one are excused by the text of the hadith to perform the prayer when he remembers it or wakes up for it. They say: By analogy, the one who intentionally leaves the prayer is like the one who forgets it, this is analogy!! Just as Ibn Hazm says: the most corrupt analogy on the face of the earth, like the one who compares the intentional killer to the killer of what? Mistake. Who says this is a legal analogy? Such a thing has been said in some legal rulings, including this issue, the issue of the triple divorce intentionally.
You find many people, even the elderly, not only in this era where we see contradictions, we see youth—meaning—who have broken free from all the constraints of the Shari'ah, and on the other hand—and praise be to Allah—we see youth turning to obedience, including prayer, but we see even in this era some middle-aged people entering the mosque, and we see them standing, sitting, praying, so we feel that these are making up what is owed to them. Where did this ruling come from? From this analogy of comparing the opposite to the opposite. He was an open sinner, he was a wicked person, he was negligent, he was leaving prayer, working in his trade... then he became forty or fifty years old and turned to his Lord. Now, what does he have to do? He has to make up these prayers that he delayed intentionally and deliberately. We ask the jurists: What is your evidence? He (peace be upon him) said: ? They say: If the sleeper and the forgetful one are ordered to make up the prayer, then the intentional one is even more so. No, it is the opposite, not... So I say, for example: the oath. If a person swears an oath without lying in it, meaning: his oath was not a grave oath, but he swore an oath and saw this... with his oath, then the hadith came to say: This has an expiation. The grave oath tells you: By the Great Allah, yesterday when you came to my house, I was not there, and he is a liar, he was there, and he confirms the oath and says: By the Great Allah; does this have an expiation? It has been found that some say: Yes, it has an expiation!! What is the evidence? By analogy to the one who swore an oath and then saw something better than it; so let him do what is better; but what does this have to do with this? This person swore truthfully. It is permissible for a person, because he made a mistake with him, to say: By Allah, I will not come to you again, then he returned to his senses and said: This severance has no Islamic justification, and he went to him and made expiation for his oath... As for one who lies "thank you" and swears by Allah falsely, this has no expiation; therefore, the principle of expiations in Islam is based on a mere deficiency that occurs to a person while he is overcome by circumstances.
We return to the analogy of the drunkard to the angry person, this is the analogy of comparing the opposite to the opposite. The angry person is excused, so the drunkard is not excused; so this one is not attached to that one. That drunkard consumed the causes that lead him to violating the Shari'ah; because he is drowning in violating the Shari'ah, and what is built on a defective foundation is defective. As for this angry person, the Messenger (peace be upon him) says: , he was confronted with what agitated him and angered him, he did not seek that at all; therefore, we see what came in the questioner's questionThe questioner : that some scholars issued a ruling that this is an error; meaning: the analogy of the divorce of a drunkard to the divorce of an angry person is not correct. I say: this statement is the correct one, the analogy of the divorce of a drunkard to the divorce of an angry person is not correct. The divorce of the angry person does not take effect; because he went out of the normal state, this state by which Allah (Mighty and Majestic) linked all the obligations, do this, do not do that, without intention, he lost his composure without his intention, as for that drunkard, he lost his composure by his own intention.