Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/220)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

intoxicants. Thus, if he becomes intoxicated and starts speaking incoherently, then says to his wife, “By Allah, I will never have intercourse with you,” does īlāʾ take effect or not? The author holds that it does take effect, because intoxication is unlawful and he is therefore not excused. An intoxicated person should not be treated leniently by disregarding what he says and holding him unaccountable; rather, he should be dealt with strictly.

According to this reasoning, it is stipulated that he must have become intoxicated in an unlawful manner. But if he became intoxicated in a permissible manner—for example, if he drank a beverage without knowing that it was intoxicating and became intoxicated from it—then no prescribed punishment applies to him; that is, he is neither punished nor are his words legally effective, because he is excused.

The correct view is otherwise: the statements of an intoxicated person carry no legal effect—not his divorce, īlāʾ, ẓihār, emancipation of a slave, or endowment. He is not held accountable for anything at all, because he has lost his reason and is therefore like an insane person. It is not correct for us to punish him for something that was neither his act nor his choice. Rather, we punish him for drinking wine, since that was his choice. Thus, if he drank wine forgetfully, out of ignorance, or under compulsion, he is not punished, not even by flogging. As for this statement that he made, we do not punish him for it, because it was not by his choice.

His statement, “and one who is ill whose recovery is hoped for”: what is meant here by an ill person is one incapable of intercourse, not someone suffering from bodily illness. For a person with bodily illness may validly make īlāʾ, whether his recovery is hoped for or not. Rather, what is meant is one incapable of sexual intercourse. If his recovery is hoped for, his īlāʾ is valid; but if recovery is not hoped for, his īlāʾ is invalid, because he is unable to have intercourse.

For example, if a man is castrated—that is, his penis has been severed—he is incapable of intercourse, so īlāʾ from him is invalid, because he is not capable of intercourse, whether he swears īlāʾ or does not. But if a man is incapable of intercourse because of an affliction affecting the organ of intercourse, yet recovery is hoped for, then it is valid.

Thus, the author’s wording—may Allah have mercy on him—is misleading, and in this he followed

المسكر، فإذا سكر وصار يهذي، وقال لزوجته: والله ما أجامعك أبداً، فهل يقع الإيلاء أو لا؟ المؤلف يرى أنه يقع؛ لأن السكر محرم فهو غير معذور، فلا ينبغي أن يعامل السكران بالرخصة وعدم المؤاخذة بما يقول، بل ينبغي أن يشدد عليه، وعلى هذا التعليل يشترط في السكران أن يكون قد سكر على وجه محرم، أما لو سكر على وجه مباح، مثل أن يشرب شراباً ما علم أنه مسكر فسكر منه، فهذا لا حد عليه، يعني لا عقوبة عليه ولا حكم لكلامه؛ لأنه معذور، والصواب خلاف هذا، وأن السكران لا حكم لأقواله، لا طلاقه، ولا إيلائه، ولا ظهاره، ولا عتقه، ولا وقفه، فلا يؤاخذ بشيء أبداً؛ لأنه فاقد العقل فهو كالمجنون، وكوننا نعاقبه بأمر ليس من فعله، ولا من اختياره ليس بصحيح، بل نعاقبه على شرب الخمر؛ لأنه باختياره، ولهذا لو نسي أو جهل أو أكره على شرب الخمر ما يعاقب، ولا بالجلد، فهذا القول الذي قاله ما نعاقبه عليه؛ لأنه بغير اختياره. قوله: «ومريض مرجو برؤه» المراد بالمريض هنا العاجز عن الوطء، وليس المريض مرض البدن؛ لأن المريض مرض البدن يصح منه الإيلاء، سواء كان يرجى برؤه أو لا يرجى، لكن المراد العاجز عن الجماع، فهذا إن كان يرجى برؤه فإن إيلاءه صحيح، وإن كان لا يرجى فإيلاؤه غير صحيح؛ لأنه لا يمكنه الوطء، فمثلاً إذا كان الرجل مجبوباً، أي: مقطوع الذكر، فهو عاجز عن الوطء، فلا يصح الإيلاء منه؛ لأنه ليس بواطئ، سواء آلى أم لم يولِ، وإذا كان الرجل عاجزاً عن الوطء لحادث أَلَمَّ بآلة الوطء، لكن يرجى أن يشفى، فيصح. إذاً كلام المؤلف ﵀ فيه إيهام، وقد تبع في هذه