The hadith "There is no divorce in a state of compulsion": Can the divorce of an intoxicated person be analogized to it so that it does not take effect?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... The divorce of the intoxicated person is based on the hadith and clarification ... by al-Shawkani ... it became clear that that is an error ... ?
The Shaykh : We say that we distinguish; the hadith "There is no divorce in a state of compulsion" does not include the divorce of the intoxicated person, the oath of the intoxicated person, and all the actions of the intoxicated person, because there is a very big difference between a person who is suddenly confronted with a situation that agitates him, annoys him, and angers him, and he goes out of his normal state, and consequently says what should not be said or what he does not want to say in his conscious and normal state. This is acceptable, of course, because he did not consume the cause that leads to such a thing, which he condemns after he returns to his senses. As for the intoxicated person, 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, and he divorces, and so on. So, analogizing the intoxicated person 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 is that there is no analogy in Islam, and this is, of course, one of his anomalies. Therefore, when he says this phrase that I quoted from him, and he presents before it what is not the school of the majority of Muslims, saying that all analogy is invalid, and this is from him the very essence of invalidity ... some jurists who expand in analogy in an unlegislated expansion ... Ibn Hazm says that all analogy is invalid, and this is from him the very essence of invalidity, and it is the most corrupt analogy on the face of the earth, because it is from the category of analogizing the opposite to the opposite. And in reality, some scholars fall into this; they analogize the one who is not excused to the one who is excused. They analogize, 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 forgetter are, by the text of the hadith, excused to perform the prayer when they remember it or wake up for it. They say the analogy for the one who intentionally leaves the prayer is to the one who forgets it ... They call this analogy? This is the most corrupt analogy on the face of the earth. We cannot analogize the intentional killer to the accidental killer. Details like this in some of the rulings of the Shari'ah, including this issue of the triple divorce intentionally. You find many people, even the elderly, not only in this era where we see contradictions, where we see young people who have broken free from all the constraints of the Shari'ah, but on the contrary, and praise be to Allah, we see young people turning to obedience, including prayer. But we see, even in this era, some middle-aged men who enter the mosque, and we see them standing and sitting and praying, and we feel that these people pray. Where did this fatwa come from? From this analogy, analogizing the opposite to the opposite. He was an open sinner, he was a wicked person, he was negligent, he was one who left prayer, he had all the major sins. Then he became forty or fifty years old and repented to his Lord. Now, after he left the prayers that he missed intentionally and deliberately, we ask the jurists: what is your evidence? Of course, the answer will be: "Whoever forgets a prayer or sleeps through it, let him pray it when he remembers it; there is no expiation for it except that." Is his ruling the ruling of the sleeper and the forgetter? What about the intentional one? I give an example of an oath. If a person swore an oath, and his oath was not of the type that is a grave sin (al-yamin al-ghamus), but he swore an oath and then wanted to return from his oath, the hadith comes and says Sunan an-Nasa'i 3785Sahih (Darussalam). This has an expiation. The grave oath: he says, "By Allah the Great, when you came to me yesterday, I was not there," and he is a liar; he was there, and he confirms his oath with the oath, saying, "By Allah the Great." Is there an expiation for this? Some say there is an expiation for it. 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 and expiate for his oath. This is an oath; what does this have to do with that? This is a truthful oath. It is permissible that someone made a mistake with him, so he says, "By Allah, I will not enter your house," and then he returns to his senses and says, "This is a boycott, and there is no Islamic justification for it," and he goes to him and expiates for his oath. As for the other, he lies in the first place and swears by Allah falsely, so there is no expiation for him. Therefore, the principle of expiations in Islam is based on a mere deficiency that befalls a person while he is overcome by his circumstances.
We return to the analogy of the intoxicated person to the angry person. This is analogizing the opposite to the opposite. The angry person is excused, and the intoxicated person is not excused, so this is not attached to that. The intoxicated person consumed the causes that lead him to violate the Shari'ah, because he is drowning in violation of the Shari'ah, so it is built on a defective foundation, and it is defective. As for this angry person ... by what agitated him and angered him, he did not seek that at all. Therefore, we see what came in the questioner's question that some scholars issued a fatwa that this is an error, meaning that the analogy of the divorce of the intoxicated person to the divorce of the angry person is an incorrect analogy. The divorce of the angry person does not take effect because he went out of the normal state, the state to which Allah (Mighty and Majestic) tied all the obligations: do this, do not do that. So he went out of his state without his intention. As for that intoxicated person, he went out of his state by his intention.
The Shaykh : Here are questions, it saysThe questioner : ... In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings. First, how should the suitor look at the girl he wishes to marry, and once he is sure that she will be his wife, what is permissible for him to see of her?
The Shaykh : The answer to this question is that he sees, in brief, what a mahram sees of her.
There is no divorce in a state of compulsion, and there is no divorce in ... a state of loss of reason
لا طلاق في إغلاق ولا طلاق في ... أذهب العقلThe Shaykh : We say that we distinguish; the hadith "There is no divorce in a state of compulsion" does not include the divorce of the intoxicated person, the oath of the intoxicated person, and all the actions of the intoxicated person, because there is a very big difference between a person who is suddenly confronted with a situation that agitates him, annoys him, and angers him, and he goes out of his normal state, and consequently says what should not be said or what he does not want to say in his conscious and normal state. This is acceptable, of course, because he did not consume the cause that leads to such a thing, which he condemns after he returns to his senses. As for the intoxicated person, 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, and he divorces, and so on. So, analogizing the intoxicated person 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 is that there is no analogy in Islam, and this is, of course, one of his anomalies. Therefore, when he says this phrase that I quoted from him, and he presents before it what is not the school of the majority of Muslims, saying that all analogy is invalid, and this is from him the very essence of invalidity ... some jurists who expand in analogy in an unlegislated expansion ... Ibn Hazm says that all analogy is invalid, and this is from him the very essence of invalidity, and it is the most corrupt analogy on the face of the earth, because it is from the category of analogizing the opposite to the opposite. And in reality, some scholars fall into this; they analogize the one who is not excused to the one who is excused. They analogize, 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 forgetter are, by the text of the hadith, excused to perform the prayer when they remember it or wake up for it. They say the analogy for the one who intentionally leaves the prayer is to the one who forgets it ... They call this analogy? This is the most corrupt analogy on the face of the earth. We cannot analogize the intentional killer to the accidental killer. Details like this in some of the rulings of the Shari'ah, including this issue of the triple divorce intentionally. You find many people, even the elderly, not only in this era where we see contradictions, where we see young people who have broken free from all the constraints of the Shari'ah, but on the contrary, and praise be to Allah, we see young people turning to obedience, including prayer. But we see, even in this era, some middle-aged men who enter the mosque, and we see them standing and sitting and praying, and we feel that these people pray
???
؟؟؟Whoever swears an oath, then sees something better than it, let him do that which is better and offer expiation for his oath.
من حلف على يمين ثم رأى غيرها خيراً منها فليأت الذي هو خير ويكفّر عن يمينهWe return to the analogy of the intoxicated person to the angry person. This is analogizing the opposite to the opposite. The angry person is excused, and the intoxicated person is not excused, so this is not attached to that. The intoxicated person consumed the causes that lead him to violate the Shari'ah, because he is drowning in violation of the Shari'ah, so it is built on a defective foundation, and it is defective. As for this angry person ... by what agitated him and angered him, he did not seek that at all. Therefore, we see what came in the questioner's question that some scholars issued a fatwa that this is an error, meaning that the analogy of the divorce of the intoxicated person to the divorce of the angry person is an incorrect analogy. The divorce of the angry person does not take effect because he went out of the normal state, the state to which Allah (Mighty and Majestic) tied all the obligations: do this, do not do that. So he went out of his state without his intention. As for that intoxicated person, he went out of his state by his intention.
The Shaykh : Here are questions, it saysThe questioner : ... In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings. First, how should the suitor look at the girl he wishes to marry, and once he is sure that she will be his wife, what is permissible for him to see of her?
The Shaykh : The answer to this question is that he sees, in brief, what a mahram sees of her.