Benefits of the Hadith: (… that 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : This is in the story of Hamzah drinking intoxicants. He (may Allah be pleased with him) drank intoxicants, and two camels belonging to 'Ali ibn Abi Talab passed by him. He had a slave girl singing to him, and she said: "Why, Hamzah, for the noble ones who are awake". So he took the sword, because she had incited him. He took the sword and cut the humps of the two camels, slit their bellies, and ate from their livers. So 'Ali ibn Abi Talab went to the Prophet (may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him) to inform him. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) went to Hamzah's house. When he came to him and spoke to him, Hamzah said to him: "Are you not merely the slaves of my father?" meaning you are nothing, and I do not accept your words, "Are you not merely the slaves of my father?" So the Prophet (may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him) returned and did not speak to him. In this is evidence for the permissibility of wearing the cloak (rida'), which is a well-known, mass-transmitted, and famous matter regarding the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), that he used to wear the cloak. But is the clothing, or is wearing the cloak, a form of worship or a custom? It is a custom. So if people customarily wear the shirt (qamis) and it is not their custom to wear the cloak, then the Sunnah is to wear the shirt, for a person to do as others do.
In this hadith of Hamzah, there is a difficulty, which is that Hamzah (may Allah be pleased with him) spoke words that, if he had spoken them while sober, would have been disbelief. What is the answer to this? The answer is that it contains evidence for the stronger position, which is that the intoxicated person is not held accountable for his words.
If someone were to say: Hamzah was not held accountable for that because it was before the prohibition of intoxicants, since Hamzah was martyred at Uhud in the third year, and the prohibition of intoxicants came later? The answer is that there is no connection between the permissibility of drinking and the permissibility of such speech, because if this speech were to come from a person while he is sober, he would be judged as a disbeliever. And whether drinking is lawful or forbidden does not affect the ruling; rather, what affects it is the presence or absence of intellect. For this reason, the stronger position is that the divorce of the intoxicated person does not take effect, and that if he speaks a word of disbelief, he does not become a disbeliever, and that if he frees a slave, the slave is not freed, and if he makes an endowment, the property is not endowed.
So if the intoxicated person were to say, for example: "I have divorced all my wives, I have freed all my slaves, I have endowed all my houses, and I have one hundred dinars for Zayd and one thousand dinars for 'Amr," is he held accountable for that? The correct view is that he is not held accountable for that, and that his speech is not considered at all, whether it pertains to the right of Allah or the right of a human being.
Now, are his actions like his words? That is, if this intoxicated person killed a person, taking a knife and killing him, do we consider this killing intentional or accidental? The school of thought (madhhab) holds that it is intentional, and he is killed in retaliation (qisas) for it, because the action of the intoxicated person is exactly like the action of the sober person.
The second opinion is that it is accidental, because he has no intellect, so it is like the intentional killing of a madman, and the intentional killing of a madman is accidental. Some scholars of knowledge detailed the matter and said: If he became intoxicated in order to kill, then it is intentional; and if he killed after becoming intoxicated, then it is accidental.
But how does one become intoxicated in order to kill? He is a man who wants to kill a certain person and sees that if he kills him while sober, he will be held accountable for it. So he gives himself a ruling to drink intoxicants to become intoxicated and then kill this man. We say in this case, if we know that the man became intoxicated for this purpose, then actions are by intentions, and at that time he is killed in retaliation. Yes.
In this hadith of Hamzah, there is a difficulty, which is that Hamzah (may Allah be pleased with him) spoke words that, if he had spoken them while sober, would have been disbelief. What is the answer to this? The answer is that it contains evidence for the stronger position, which is that the intoxicated person is not held accountable for his words.
If someone were to say: Hamzah was not held accountable for that because it was before the prohibition of intoxicants, since Hamzah was martyred at Uhud in the third year, and the prohibition of intoxicants came later? The answer is that there is no connection between the permissibility of drinking and the permissibility of such speech, because if this speech were to come from a person while he is sober, he would be judged as a disbeliever. And whether drinking is lawful or forbidden does not affect the ruling; rather, what affects it is the presence or absence of intellect. For this reason, the stronger position is that the divorce of the intoxicated person does not take effect, and that if he speaks a word of disbelief, he does not become a disbeliever, and that if he frees a slave, the slave is not freed, and if he makes an endowment, the property is not endowed.
So if the intoxicated person were to say, for example: "I have divorced all my wives, I have freed all my slaves, I have endowed all my houses, and I have one hundred dinars for Zayd and one thousand dinars for 'Amr," is he held accountable for that? The correct view is that he is not held accountable for that, and that his speech is not considered at all, whether it pertains to the right of Allah or the right of a human being.
Now, are his actions like his words? That is, if this intoxicated person killed a person, taking a knife and killing him, do we consider this killing intentional or accidental? The school of thought (madhhab) holds that it is intentional, and he is killed in retaliation (qisas) for it, because the action of the intoxicated person is exactly like the action of the sober person.
The second opinion is that it is accidental, because he has no intellect, so it is like the intentional killing of a madman, and the intentional killing of a madman is accidental. Some scholars of knowledge detailed the matter and said: If he became intoxicated in order to kill, then it is intentional; and if he killed after becoming intoxicated, then it is accidental.
But how does one become intoxicated in order to kill? He is a man who wants to kill a certain person and sees that if he kills him while sober, he will be held accountable for it. So he gives himself a ruling to drink intoxicants to become intoxicated and then kill this man. We say in this case, if we know that the man became intoxicated for this purpose, then actions are by intentions, and at that time he is killed in retaliation. Yes.