The ruling concerning an intoxicated person is that legal rulings apply to him as they do to a sober person, provided that he is sinful on account of his intoxication. If he is not deemed sinful—for example, if he drank something he did not know was intoxicating, or was compelled to drink it according to one of the two reports—then he is not held legally accountable, like an unconscious person.
As for the degree of intoxication that invalidates acts of worship and renders the drinker of nabīdh sinful, it is that which combines disturbance of speech, both in understanding and in making oneself understood, with disturbance of movement, both in walking and standing. Thus, he speaks with a broken tongue and incoherent meaning, and moves erratically and walks unsteadily. Aḥmad indicated this in the report of Ḥanbal, saying: “An intoxicated person is one who, when he places his clothes among other clothes, does not recognize them; when he places his sandals among other sandals, does not recognize them; and when he babbles, most of his speech is incoherent, whereas he was known for something other than that.”
It was related from Abū Ḥanīfah that the threshold of intoxication is reached when reason has departed, such that a person can no longer distinguish between the earth and the sky or recognize his mother from his wife.
As for the rulings concerning slanderous accusation and liʿān (mutual imprecation), the fixed penalty for accusing someone of zina is eighty lashes. It is a right belonging to a human being, established upon his request and waived by pardon. When five conditions are present in the person accused of zina and three conditions in the accuser, the fixed penalty becomes obligatory.
The five conditions required of the person accused are that he be an adult, sane, free, Muslim, and chaste. If he is a child, insane, enslaved, a disbeliever, or one whose chastity has been compromised through zina, the accuser is not subjected to the fixed penalty. Rather, he is disciplined because of the harm caused and to restrain the tongue. Al-Khiraqī said: “Whoever slanders an enslaved person or a polytheist, or a Muslim boy under ten years of age, or a Muslim girl under nine years of age, is disciplined but is not subjected to the fixed penalty.”
The apparent meaning of this is that if the boy is ten years old or the girl is nine years old, the accuser is subjected to the fixed penalty, even if the child has not reached puberty; the one who slanders such a child is still subjected to the fixed penalty.
The three conditions required of the accuser are that he be an adult, sane, and free. If he is a child or insane, he is subjected neither to the fixed penalty nor to discretionary discipline. If he is enslaved, he is subjected to forty lashes—half the fixed penalty prescribed for a free person—because of his diminished status due to enslavement. A disbeliever is subjected to the fixed penalty just like a Muslim, and a woman just like a man.
The accuser is deemed sinful, and his testimony is not accepted. If he repents, his sinfulness is removed and his testimony is accepted, both before and after the fixed penalty. Accusing someone of liwat or bestiality is like accusing him of zina with respect to the obligation of the fixed penalty. No fixed penalty is imposed for accusing someone of disbelief or theft; however, the accuser is disciplined because of the harm caused.
An accusation of zina is one that is explicit, such as saying, “You fornicator,” “You have committed zina,” or “I saw you committing zina.” If he says, “You wicked man,” “You evildoer,” or “You sodomite,” this is an indirect expression because such words may carry other meanings; therefore, the fixed penalty is not obligatory unless he intended by them to make the accusation.