The Ruling on the Hadith: “There is no divorce in a state of compulsion”

Question:
Is the hadith an authentic hadith? And what about the divorce of a drunkard, or one who intends to frighten his wife, for example, saying: “If you leave the house, you are divorced”?

Answer:
The hadith has some weakness, but it has corroborating narrations that support it and strengthen it, and it is used as evidence due to its corroborations from the Book and the Sunnah. Among these is the story of Moses when he threw down the tablets due to anger, and also His saying—(Exalted and Majestic is He): [Surat al-Nahl: 106].
Compulsion (Ighlaq) is coercion and intense anger that seals off a person’s intention and understanding, so that he cannot visualize the consequences of the divorce. Rather, due to the intensity of the anger and the severity of the coercion, the wife becomes cheap in his eyes, so he does not care about her and divorces her to get rid of this coercion and the injustice of his beating or threatening him with something that harms him, or the like. Or it is the intensity of his anger whose causes, indicators, and means have become apparent, until his intention is sealed off and the whole world is closed off to him, so that he cares about nothing except getting rid of this woman because of the severe dispute, fighting, or cursing that occurred between him and her, or the like.
Likewise, the drunkard; because the drunkard is like the insane and the imbecile. When it is established that his mind was gone due to intoxication, imbecility, insanity, or severe anger that removed his consciousness at the time he divorced, then the divorce does not take effect.
These issues involve detailed distinctions: If his consciousness is completely gone, this is the view of everyone, all the scholars. If his consciousness is completely gone due to the intensity of anger until his sense is lost, then the divorce does not take effect. Likewise, imbecility where one has no sound mind, and so is insanity; there is no divorce for such a person. And so is the drunkard who ate or drank something that removes his mind, without intending it; according to everyone, his divorce does not take effect.
The disagreement is only in two issues: one of them is: the drunkard who intentionally becomes intoxicated until his mind is gone intentionally. The majority hold that his divorce takes effect, and ... Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) and a group of scholars held that it does not take effect when it is established that he divorced while in a state of intoxication, even if he intended to drink; because his punishment is the prescribed legal penalty (Hadd), not the severance of his wife from him. Rather, his punishment is known, and it is the prescribed legal penalty. As for removing his wife from his protection, that is not part of the prescribed legal penalty.
Likewise, the second issue: If his anger is severe, but his mind is not completely gone, rather his anger intensifies, his mind is sealed off, and he cannot control himself, but he is below the level of the insane, not reaching the point of complete loss of consciousness. This is the point of disagreement.
Some held that it does not take effect, by analogy to the insane, the imbecile, and the drunkard. And some held that it takes effect, by analogy to light anger, by analogy to the sane. The stronger view is that it does not take effect when the anger is severe and the causes of severe anger are apparent; because it is analogous to one whose mind is gone; for the person with severe anger cannot control himself and cannot visualize the consequences, and he may fall into matters that harm him while he is unaware.