Repeated Drinking of Intoxicants
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the scholars differed on whether the drinker is to be flogged this flogging even if he repeats it a hundred times, or whether he is to be killed on the fourth time if it is repeated three times. There are three opinions on this:
The first opinion is that of the majority, which is that he is to be flogged this flogging and not killed, even if he is flogged a thousand times.
The second opinion is that of the Zahiris: that if he is flogged three times for drinking intoxicants, he is to be killed on the fourth time, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):Sunan an-Nasa'i 5661Sahih (Darussalam), and this is the opinion of the Zahiris.
These are two opposing opinions: one that he is not killed under any circumstances, and one that if he is flogged three times, he is killed on the fourth time in all cases.
The third opinion is that he is killed if people do not stop without it. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him): he is killed if people do not stop without it. For example, if we leave him to drink and we flog him, and he drinks and we flog him, and he drinks and we flog him, and he continues to do so, and people like him do the same, then if people do not stop except by killing, he is killed.
As you can see, this opinion combines the evidence and refutes the claim of the majority that the hadith is abrogated, because the majority hold that killing the drinker on the fourth time is abrogated. But as we know, the condition for abrogation is that combination is not possible and that the chronology is known. If combination is possible, there is no abrogation, and if the chronology is not known, there is no abrogation either, because if the chronology is not known despite the conflict, we do not know which is first. The claim that this is the abrogating text is no more valid than the claim that it is the abrogated text. Therefore, abrogation requires two conditions, which are:
Knowledge of the chronology, and that combination is not possible.
The opinion of Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) involves combination. He says that the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to kill on the fourth time is to be understood in this situation, which is when people do not stop without it.
And his opinion is the correct one, followed by the opinion of the Zahiris that he is killed, and the weak opinion is that of the majority. If people had acted according to this, I would not have seen people drinking it so much, as is the case in some Islamic countries where drinking intoxicants is like drinking Pepsi; it is kept in refrigerators and a person drinks it whenever he wishes, and may Allah protect us from that, despite the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):Sunan Ibn Majah 3374Sahih (Darussalam), which forbids entering Paradise according to one interpretation, or forbids enjoying the wine of Paradise even if one enters it, according to another interpretation of the meaning of the hadith.
The first opinion is that of the majority, which is that he is to be flogged this flogging and not killed, even if he is flogged a thousand times.
The second opinion is that of the Zahiris: that if he is flogged three times for drinking intoxicants, he is to be killed on the fourth time, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
It was narrated that Ibn 'Umar and a number of the Companions of Muhammad [SAW] said: "The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever drinks Khamr, whip him; then if he drinks (again), whip him; then if he drinks (again), whip him; then if he drinks (again), kill him.'"
إن شرب فاجلدوه ، ثم إن شرب فاجلدوه ، ثم إن شرب فاجلدوه ، ثم إن شرب فاقتلوهThese are two opposing opinions: one that he is not killed under any circumstances, and one that if he is flogged three times, he is killed on the fourth time in all cases.
The third opinion is that he is killed if people do not stop without it. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him): he is killed if people do not stop without it. For example, if we leave him to drink and we flog him, and he drinks and we flog him, and he drinks and we flog him, and he continues to do so, and people like him do the same, then if people do not stop except by killing, he is killed.
As you can see, this opinion combines the evidence and refutes the claim of the majority that the hadith is abrogated, because the majority hold that killing the drinker on the fourth time is abrogated. But as we know, the condition for abrogation is that combination is not possible and that the chronology is known. If combination is possible, there is no abrogation, and if the chronology is not known, there is no abrogation either, because if the chronology is not known despite the conflict, we do not know which is first. The claim that this is the abrogating text is no more valid than the claim that it is the abrogated text. Therefore, abrogation requires two conditions, which are:
Knowledge of the chronology, and that combination is not possible.
The opinion of Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) involves combination. He says that the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to kill on the fourth time is to be understood in this situation, which is when people do not stop without it.
And his opinion is the correct one, followed by the opinion of the Zahiris that he is killed, and the weak opinion is that of the majority. If people had acted according to this, I would not have seen people drinking it so much, as is the case in some Islamic countries where drinking intoxicants is like drinking Pepsi; it is kept in refrigerators and a person drinks it whenever he wishes, and may Allah protect us from that, despite the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):