Chapter

Whoever apostatizes from Islam while legally accountable and acting of his own free will—whether male or female—is to be called back to it for three days, …

The upshot is that an intoxicated person’s statements are never legally valid, whether they concern himself or others. His actions are treated as those of one who acts mistakenly: he is held accountable for those actions for which a person acting by mistake is held accountable—unless we know that he intended to reach this prohibited act by consuming the intoxicant. In that case, his action is treated as that of a sober person, and he is held accountable for it.

But if the person who consumed an intoxicant is excused due to ignorance, forgetfulness, or coercion, then neither his actions nor his statements are legally valid. As for his actions, he is held accountable only to the extent that one who acts mistakenly is held accountable. Thus, one who did not know that this drink was intoxicating and drank it incurs no liability; likewise, one who knows that the drink is intoxicating but forgets and drinks it, or one who is forced to drink an intoxicant, is excused. His divorce does not take effect, his acknowledgment is not binding, and he is not held accountable for his actions, except to the extent that one who acts mistakenly is held accountable. (1)

Then the author of Zād explained how one who apostatizes from Islam is to be dealt with:

“Whoever apostatizes from Islam while legally accountable and acting of his own free will—whether male or female—is to be called back to it for three days.”

“Whoever” is a conditional particle, and its apodosis is: “is to be called back to it for three days.”

His words, “from Islam”: what is meant here by Islam is Islam in its specific sense—the Islam brought by Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. This is because Islam has two meanings: a general meaning, which includes everyone who submits to Allah, the Exalted, from