for which there is neither retaliatory killing, nor blood-money, nor expiation, since the legal right is that he be put to death.

Al-Rawḍ al-Murbiʿ and its commentary state: “If a person dies while a ḥadd is being carried out, the rightful course is that he be killed; nothing is owed by the one who administered the punishment, for he executed it in the manner legislated by Allah the Exalted and by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.”

Al-Muwaffaq said: “We know of no disagreement among the scholars regarding the rest of the ḥudūd: when they are carried out in the prescribed way without any excess, no liability attaches to the one upon whom death falls.”

3 – As for one who dies from the collateral effects of a discretionary punishment (taʿzīr), the field of taʿzīr is broad and subject to the judgment of the sharʿī judge. He may consider either the amount or the manner of the punishment. Should death result, it is deemed an error on the part of the ruler, and the compensation is paid from the public treasury (bayt al-māl).

4 – The ḥadith under discussion can be interpreted in one of two ways:

First: the penalty for drunkenness is a discretionary punishment, not a fixed ḥadd. Its implementation, therefore, rests on the judge’s discretion, and if he errs he must pay the blood-money.

Second: the ḥadd for wine is the lightest of the ḥudūd in both number and manner. Thus Muslim narrates from Abū Hurayrah: “A man who had drunk wine was brought to the Prophet ﷺ. He said, ‘Beat him.’ Abū Hurayrah said: ‘Among us were those who struck him with their hand, others with a sandal, and others with their cloak.’”

Ḥāshiyat al-Rawḍ al-Murbiʿ comments: “What is lighter in number is likewise lighter in manner.” Hence the meaning of the ḥadith is that the mildest ḥadd, in both quantity and quality, is the ḥadd for the wine-drinker. If he were to die, his blood-money would be given to his heirs, because his punishment would then have exceeded what Allah has prescribed. And Allah knows best.