Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/18)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Thus, in sum: if a person loses his reason through a legally recognized excuse, an ordinary excuse such as sleep, or a temporary excuse such as illness, the divorce does not take effect.

The opposite case is that of the sinful person

His statement, “The opposite case is that of the sinful person,” means that his divorce does take effect. Thus, whoever loses his reason without excuse, his divorce takes effect, because he has no excuse. An example is one who becomes intoxicated by his own choice: a person who—may Allah protect us—drinks and becomes intoxicated. His divorce takes effect because he is not excused. Intoxication is forbidden by the Quran, the sunnah, and the consensus of the Muslims.

The scholars differ regarding this issue. Some maintain that the divorce of an inexcusable intoxicated person takes effect; this is the established position of the school. They reasoned that he is not excused, and is therefore like one who is sober. They also held that this is more severe and more punitive for him; perhaps nothing will deter him from drinking wine except fear of this consequence, and thus it serves the interest of deterrence.

Some scholars said that the divorce of an intoxicated person does not take effect. If he has sinned, they said, he is punished for his sin; but if he speaks without reason, how can we hold him to the implications of words that he does not comprehend? This conflicts with the statement of the Messenger ﷺ: “Actions are only by intentions, and every person shall have only what he intended.” (1) For when this intoxicated person spoke and said, “You are divorced,” he did not intend it. Therefore, his divorce does not take effect. His being sinful entails a specific punishment: discretionary chastisement by flogging. As for punishing him on account of his words while he lacks reason, that is an addition; and it is not permissible for us to add to the punishment established by the sunnah. This is what has been authentically reported from Uthman (2), and he used to

(1) Its source has previously been cited on p. 17. (2) Al-Bukhari cited it in suspended form in al-Talaq (Divorce), chapter: “Divorce in cases of coercion, compulsion, and intoxication.” It was also recorded by Sa'id ibn Mansur in his Sunan (1:311), Ibn Abi Shaybah (4:75), and al-Bayhaqi (7:359). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar transmitted it with a connected chain from Sa'id ibn Mansur in Taghliq al-Ta'liq (4:453).

فالحاصل أنه إذا زال العقل بعذر شرعي، أو بعذر عادي كالنوم، أو بعذر طارئ كالمرض فإنه لا يقع الطلاق. وَعَكْسُهُ الآثِمُ، .............................. قوله: «وعكسه الآثم» يعني يقع طلاقه، فمن زال عقله غير معذور فإنه يقع طلاقه؛ لأنه لا عذر له، مثاله السكران باختياره، كإنسان ـ والعياذ بالله ـ شرب وسكر، فإنه يقع طلاقه؛ لأنه ليس بمعذور، فالسكر محرم بالكتاب والسنة وإجماع المسلمين. وهذه المسألة فيها خلاف بين أهل العلم، فمنهم من قال: إن السكران غير المعذور يقع طلاقه، وهذا هو المذهب؛ وعللوا ذلك بأنه ليس بمعذور فيه، فيكون كالصاحي، وبأن هذا أنكى له وأزيد في عقوبته، وربما لا يردعه عن شرب الخمر إلا الخوف من هذا الأمر، فيكون في ذلك مصلحة الردع. وقال بعض أهل العلم: إن السكران لا يقع طلاقه؛ لأنه إذا أثم عوقب على إثمه، لكن إذا تكلم بدون عقل، فكيف نلزمه بمقتضى كلامه وهو لا يعقله؟! فهذا يخالف قول الرسول ﵊: «إنما الأعمال بالنيات، وإنما لكل امرئ ما نوى» (١)، فإن هذا السكران حينما تكلم وقال: أنت طالق، ما نوى، فهذا لا يقع طلاقه، وكونه آثماً له عقوبة خاصة وهي التعزير بالجلد، أما التعزير باعتبار كلامه مع عدم عقله، فهذا زيادة، ولا يجوز أن نزيد على العقوبة التي جاءت بها السنة، وهذا هو الذي صح به الأثر عن عثمان ﵁ (٢)، وكان

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (١٧). (٢) علقه البخاري في الطلاق/ باب الطلاق في الإغلاق والكره والسكران … ، وأخرجه سعيد بن منصور في سننه (١/ ٣١١)، وابن أبي شيبة (٤/ ٧٥)، والبيهقي (٧/ ٣٥٩) ووصله عنه الحافظ في التغليق (٤/ ٤٥٣).