Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/22)

his head resting on his shoulder. Some of them get up, drink, and then return, without realizing it. Thus, a sleeping person’s deliberate act is likewise deemed accidental, because he did not intend it, and intention is one of the conditions of deliberate killing.

According to the established position of the school, the deliberate act of an intoxicated person is deemed deliberate, because intoxication does not excuse him; all of an intoxicated person’s statements and actions are legally effective. Hence, his divorce takes effect, his acknowledgment is valid, as are his manumission and endowment. Thus, if an intoxicated man were to say, “All my wives are divorced, all my slaves are free, all my property is an endowment, and I owe so-and-so one thousand million,” the established position is that this is valid: all his wives are divorced, all his slaves become free, all his property becomes an endowment, and he owes the man one thousand million.

But the correct view is that an intoxicated person is not held accountable for his statements. Therefore, neither his manumission, nor his divorce, nor his endowment, nor his acknowledgment takes effect.

Likewise, there is a difference of opinion concerning the actions of an intoxicated person. Some scholars maintain that he is held accountable for his actions, because actions are stronger than statements: the fact that an intoxicated person ventures to act indicates that there is will behind it, unlike mere speech. According to this view, if he kills someone, it is deliberate killing.

But the correct view is that he is not held accountable for his actions either—unless he says that he will become intoxicated in order to kill. That is, he knows that if he were to go to a certain person and kill him while sober, he would be executed in retaliation; so he intends to become intoxicated in order to kill that man. This is undoubtedly deliberate killing, because he intended the crime before becoming intoxicated.

The difference between accidental killing and its two counterparts:

Accidental killing and quasi-deliberate killing share certain features and differ in others. They share the following:

واضع رأسه على كتفه، وبعضهم يقوم يشرب ثم يرجع وهو لا يعلم، فعمد النائم ـ أيضاً ـ يعتبر من الخطأ؛ لأنه لم يقصد، ومن شروط العمد القصد. وعمد السكران على المذهب عمد؛ لأنه لا يعذر به، وكل أقوال السكران وأفعاله معتبرة، ولهذا يقع طلاقه، ويصح إقراره، وعتقه، وإيقافه، فلو أن سكراناً قال: جميع زوجاتي طوالق، وجميع عبيدي أحرار، وجميع أملاكي وقف، وفي ذمتي لفلان ألف مليون! فالمذهب أنه يصح، فتطلق جميع زوجاته، ويصبح عبيده كلهم أحراراً، وماله كله وقفاً، ويلزمه لفلان ألف مليون. لكن الصحيح أن السكران لا يؤاخذ بأقواله فلا يقع عتقه، ولا طلاقه، ولا وقفه، ولا إقراره. كذلك أفعال السكران موضع خلاف، فمن العلماء من قال: يؤاخذ بأفعاله؛ لأن الفعل أقوى من القول؛ إذ إن كون السكران يجترئ على الفعل معناه أن هناك إرادة بخلاف القول، وعلى هذا القول يكون قتله عمداً. لكن الصحيح أنه لا يؤاخذ بفعله أيضاً، إلاّ إذا قال: إنه سيسكر لأجل أن يقتل، يعني أنه عرف أنه لو ذهب إلى فلان وقتله وهو صاحٍ أنه سيقتل به، فأراد أن يسكر لأجل أن يقتل هذا الرجل، فهذا لا شك أنه عمد؛ لأنه قصد الجناية قبل أن يسكر. والفرق بين الخطأ وقسيميه: يشترك الخطأ وشبه العمد في أمور، ويفترقان في أمور، فيشتركان في التالي: