Benefits of the Hadith: (… I said: Woe to you! By Allah, I have recited it to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and he said to me:
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : This is also evidence that one who makes a mistake in the Qur'an is corrected and the correct text is shown to him. It is also a witness to the chapter, where he said, "I recited it to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)." Who recited it to him? Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. And Abdullah ibn Mas'ud says that when he recited it and said, "I recited it to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)," this man said to him, "You have done well." Previously, he had been objecting to him and denying his recitation, but he was drunk. A drunkard raves, saying things and then retracting them. So after he had objected to him and said, "That is not how the verse is," and he said, "I recited it to the Messenger," he said, "You have done well." So now this drunkard has acknowledged that he was correct. But he says, "Then, while I was speaking to him, I noticed the smell of intoxicants on him. I said: Do you drink intoxicants and deny the Book? You will not leave until I flog you. He said: So I flogged him with the prescribed punishment." Did he flog him with the prescribed punishment according to you?
The student: He flogged him with the prescribed punishment.
The Shaykh : This is evidence that if the smell of intoxicants is found on someone, the prescribed punishment is carried out against him. This is a matter in which scholars have differed: if the smell is found on him or he vomits it, is he flogged or not? Some scholars said he is not flogged because it is possible he drank it by mistake, not knowing it was intoxicants, or that he was forced to drink it, or something similar. The prescribed punishments are averted by doubt. Others said, rather, he is flogged as long as he does not claim a doubt. Did the man claim a doubt, or did he remain silent in acknowledgment? He remained silent in acknowledgment. Good, he remained silent in acknowledgment, and therefore he flogged him. The correct view is that the prescribed punishment is carried out against him based on the smell and the vomiting, unless he claims a doubt, such as saying he drank it by mistake, or that he thought it was a permissible drink, or that he was forced to do so. In that case, it is lifted from him. It is also evidence that the speech of a drunkard has no legal standing, even if it is apostasy. This is because Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) flogged him for drinking intoxicants, not for denying the Book. He only denied the Book while in a state of intoxication. Accordingly, the statements of a drunkard are not taken into account, whether they concern acts of worship, transactions, personal status, or anything else. Based on this, if a drunkard acknowledges, saying, "I owe so-and-so one thousand riyals," is that established for him?
The students: No.
The Shaykh : No. If a drunkard acknowledges that he endowed all he owns, is he held to his acknowledgment? No. If a drunkard divorces his wife, is it valid? No, it is not taken. If a drunkard says, "I married my daughter to so-and-so," and so-and-so was present and said, "I accepted," is it valid? It is not valid, because all the statements of a drunkard are not held against him. The evidence for this is this report. In his statement, "He flogged him with the prescribed punishment," there are two issues. The first issue is how it was permissible for Ibn Mas'ud to flog him. Did he have authority? Yes, it is not possible for anyone to carry out the prescribed punishment except the one in authority. So either he had specific authority, meaning the governor of Kufah granted Ibn Mas'ud the authority to carry out the prescribed punishments, or he had general authority, meaning he was a governor. This returns to history.
The reader: In Homs.
The Shaykh : In Homs? Yes, in Homs. Either he had specific authority, meaning the one in authority there told him to carry out the prescribed punishments, or it was general authority, acting on behalf of his governor or independently. This returns to history. The second issue is his statement, "He flogged him with the prescribed punishment." The apparent meaning is that the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants is a prescribed punishment. This is the well-known view of the majority of scholars, that the punishment is a prescribed punishment. But is it forty or eighty? Some scholars said it is forty, with no increase. Some said it is eighty, with no decrease. Some said it is forty, with no decrease, but there is no harm in increasing it up to eighty. These are three opinions. The first is forty without increase. The second is eighty without decrease. The third is forty without decrease, and what is between that and eighty is left to the independent legal reasoning of the imam. The correct view is that the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants is not a prescribed punishment, but rather a discretionary punishment. The evidence for this is that the drinker of intoxicants in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was brought and struck with palm branches, sandals, and garments, and the like, without the one in authority standing and specifying the number of lashes for them, but rather about forty. This is one piece of evidence. The second piece of evidence is that when 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) saw that people had increased in drinking it, he gathered the Companions, meaning the people of consultation who have opinion, and consulted them. 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "O Commander of the Faithful, the lightest of the prescribed punishments is eighty." So 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) raised the punishment to eighty. The indication from this is from two angles. The first angle is that they said, "The lightest of the prescribed punishments is eighty." If the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants were a prescribed punishment, the lightest of the prescribed punishments would have been forty. Second, if the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants had been a prescribed punishment of forty, it would not have been permissible for 'Umar or anyone other than 'Umar to increase it. The evidence for this is that if, hypothetically, fornication became widespread among people, would we raise the punishment for the unmarried fornicator to two hundred?
The students: No.
The Shaykh : No, we do not raise it. So the correct view is that the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants is a discretionary punishment, which returns to the opinion of the imam. But someone might say that a discretionary punishment is not allowed to be less than forty, because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) set the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants in his time at about forty. And because decreasing it below forty might lead people to be lax about it, so that they drink it frequently. Yes.
The student: He flogged him with the prescribed punishment.
The Shaykh : This is evidence that if the smell of intoxicants is found on someone, the prescribed punishment is carried out against him. This is a matter in which scholars have differed: if the smell is found on him or he vomits it, is he flogged or not? Some scholars said he is not flogged because it is possible he drank it by mistake, not knowing it was intoxicants, or that he was forced to drink it, or something similar. The prescribed punishments are averted by doubt. Others said, rather, he is flogged as long as he does not claim a doubt. Did the man claim a doubt, or did he remain silent in acknowledgment? He remained silent in acknowledgment. Good, he remained silent in acknowledgment, and therefore he flogged him. The correct view is that the prescribed punishment is carried out against him based on the smell and the vomiting, unless he claims a doubt, such as saying he drank it by mistake, or that he thought it was a permissible drink, or that he was forced to do so. In that case, it is lifted from him. It is also evidence that the speech of a drunkard has no legal standing, even if it is apostasy. This is because Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) flogged him for drinking intoxicants, not for denying the Book. He only denied the Book while in a state of intoxication. Accordingly, the statements of a drunkard are not taken into account, whether they concern acts of worship, transactions, personal status, or anything else. Based on this, if a drunkard acknowledges, saying, "I owe so-and-so one thousand riyals," is that established for him?
The students: No.
The Shaykh : No. If a drunkard acknowledges that he endowed all he owns, is he held to his acknowledgment? No. If a drunkard divorces his wife, is it valid? No, it is not taken. If a drunkard says, "I married my daughter to so-and-so," and so-and-so was present and said, "I accepted," is it valid? It is not valid, because all the statements of a drunkard are not held against him. The evidence for this is this report. In his statement, "He flogged him with the prescribed punishment," there are two issues. The first issue is how it was permissible for Ibn Mas'ud to flog him. Did he have authority? Yes, it is not possible for anyone to carry out the prescribed punishment except the one in authority. So either he had specific authority, meaning the governor of Kufah granted Ibn Mas'ud the authority to carry out the prescribed punishments, or he had general authority, meaning he was a governor. This returns to history.
The reader: In Homs.
The Shaykh : In Homs? Yes, in Homs. Either he had specific authority, meaning the one in authority there told him to carry out the prescribed punishments, or it was general authority, acting on behalf of his governor or independently. This returns to history. The second issue is his statement, "He flogged him with the prescribed punishment." The apparent meaning is that the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants is a prescribed punishment. This is the well-known view of the majority of scholars, that the punishment is a prescribed punishment. But is it forty or eighty? Some scholars said it is forty, with no increase. Some said it is eighty, with no decrease. Some said it is forty, with no decrease, but there is no harm in increasing it up to eighty. These are three opinions. The first is forty without increase. The second is eighty without decrease. The third is forty without decrease, and what is between that and eighty is left to the independent legal reasoning of the imam. The correct view is that the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants is not a prescribed punishment, but rather a discretionary punishment. The evidence for this is that the drinker of intoxicants in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was brought and struck with palm branches, sandals, and garments, and the like, without the one in authority standing and specifying the number of lashes for them, but rather about forty. This is one piece of evidence. The second piece of evidence is that when 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) saw that people had increased in drinking it, he gathered the Companions, meaning the people of consultation who have opinion, and consulted them. 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "O Commander of the Faithful, the lightest of the prescribed punishments is eighty." So 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) raised the punishment to eighty. The indication from this is from two angles. The first angle is that they said, "The lightest of the prescribed punishments is eighty." If the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants were a prescribed punishment, the lightest of the prescribed punishments would have been forty. Second, if the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants had been a prescribed punishment of forty, it would not have been permissible for 'Umar or anyone other than 'Umar to increase it. The evidence for this is that if, hypothetically, fornication became widespread among people, would we raise the punishment for the unmarried fornicator to two hundred?
The students: No.
The Shaykh : No, we do not raise it. So the correct view is that the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants is a discretionary punishment, which returns to the opinion of the imam. But someone might say that a discretionary punishment is not allowed to be less than forty, because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) set the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants in his time at about forty. And because decreasing it below forty might lead people to be lax about it, so that they drink it frequently. Yes.