"And if a Muslim drinks it voluntarily, knowing that a large amount of it causes intoxication, then the hadd of eighty lashes is upon him if he is free, and forty if he is a slave."

The Shaykh :"If a Muslim drinks it, knowing that a large amount of it causes intoxication, then the hadd is upon him". If a Muslim drinks it, this excludes one who is not a Muslim, even if he is a committed person like a dhimmi (a non-Muslim under Muslim protection), for he is not subjected to the hadd. It is only if a Muslim drinks it, because the Muslim is the one who believes in its prohibition. As for non-Muslims, they do not believe in its prohibition, and for this reason, the hadd is not carried out against them if they drink intoxicants, but they are prevented from displaying it in the lands of the Muslims.
The second condition is "voluntarily". If he was coerced, then there is no hadd upon him, based on the saying of Allah the Exalted regarding disbelief, which is the greatest of sins: . However, the one coerced to commit a sin sometimes does it to remove the coercion, and sometimes does it for its own sake. So is the verse general, and the rulings general, or is it specific to the one who did it to remove the coercion?
The scholars differed on this. Some said that if coercion is present, the person is not punished for the act even if he chose to do it. Others said that for the absence of punishment, it is required that he intends to remove the coercion, not the act itself.
So if a man is coerced to drink intoxicants and it is said to him, "Either you drink this cup or we will kill you," and he says, "Since you have coerced me, give it to me," and he drinks it voluntarily, not to remove the coercion, is the hadd carried out? It depends on the two opinions. If we say that a person may not have the intention to remove the coercion in his heart, but rather says, "I was coerced to do this act, so I will do it," and this is the closest opinion, with the evidence being that had he not been coerced, he would not have drunk it. As for the opinion that it is necessary that he intends to remove the coercion, then the hadd is carried out. If he says, "I drank it for pleasure, not to remove the coercion," then the hadd is carried out. And the correct view is that the hadd is not carried out.
The third condition is "knowing that a large amount of it causes intoxication". From this, we understand that it is required that he knows that it is khamr (intoxicants) and that he knows that a large amount of it causes intoxication. If he did not know that it was khamr, meaning he thought it was a drink from among other beverages, and then he became intoxicated after drinking it, there is no hadd upon him. Why? Because he is ignorant of the ruling or the state? Of the state; he did not know that this was an intoxicant. Likewise, if he knew that it was an intoxicant, meaning it was, for example, juice, but he did not think that a large amount of it causes intoxication, then the hadd is not carried out, because it is required that he knows that a large amount of it causes intoxication. Now, if he knew that a small amount of it causes intoxication? The hadd is carried out a fortiori. And is it required that he be aware of the prohibition? You have forgotten the general conditions. It is required that he be aware of the prohibition. Is it required that he be of age? Yes. And of sound mind? Yes.
Now, the apparent meaning of the author's statement "then the hadd is upon him" is that whether he became intoxicated from it or not, if he knew that a large amount of it is an intoxicant and he drank it, even if he did not become intoxicated, the hadd is upon him, because it is forbidden, and the texts are general in the prohibition and general in the obligation of its punishment , and there is no condition in them that he must become intoxicated. So if he drinks it and a large amount of it causes intoxication, even if he did not become intoxicated from a small amount, the hadd is upon him. And it is known from the author's statement "then the hadd is upon him" that the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants is a hadd. The hadd was previously defined for us as a punishment determined by the Shari'ah for a sin. This is the well-known view of the madhhab (school of jurisprudence) of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him). Indeed, the well-known view of the four madhahib is that the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants is a hadd, but they differed in its amount, as will come later. It was also said that the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants is not a hadd, but rather a ta'zir (discretionary punishment), but it does not go below forty lashes.
So what is the evidence that it is a hadd, or that it is not a hadd?
The evidence of those who said it is a hadd is that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) determined it at eighty lashes, and that Abu Bakr struck forty lashes during his time. Abu Bakr and 'Umar have a Sunnah (the Prophet's way) to be followed, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . Abu Bakr and 'Umar are at the pinnacle of the rightly guided caliphs after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And on this basis, they have a Sunnah to be followed, obligatory to follow, by the text of the hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). But is it forty, or eighty, or forty as an obligation with the amount between forty and eighty left to the judgment of the imam? If most people reach eighty, and if they are fewer, it does not exceed forty. There is also disagreement on this. But the correct view is that it is not a hadd, but rather a ta'zir (discretionary punishment), though it is obligatory and does not go below forty. This is the apparent meaning of the words of Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) in *I'lam al-Muwaqqin* (The Guide to the Rights of the Ruler) that it is not a hadd. And it is apparent, and its aspect is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had this issue occur during his time, and he did not establish a hadd for it. It is known that the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs is subordinate to the Sunnah of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), not independent. So if something comes in the Sunnah whose apparent meaning contradicts it, then what the Sunnah brought is taken. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not establish a hadd for it, as established in *Sahih al-Bukhari* from the hadith of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and as the Companions agreed upon.