an intoxicated person, though sinful for drinking, does not know what he is saying. If he does not know what he is saying, he cannot have a valid intention, and “Actions are judged only by intentions.” His case is like that of someone who consumes something forbidden that renders him insane: although his insanity resulted from a sin, neither his divorce nor his other statements have legal effect.

Anyone who reflects on the principles and objectives of the Sharia will see that this view is correct, and that the view that an intoxicated person’s divorce takes effect has no sound evidence to support it. Hence many discerning scholars of the schools of Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī, such as Abū al-Walīd al-Bājī and Abū al-Maʿālī al-Juwaynī, apply these legal rulings to someone affected by drink. As for someone known not to understand what he is saying, his divorce unquestionably does not take effect.

The correct view is that divorce takes effect only when pronounced by someone who knows what he is saying. Just as his prayer is invalid in this state, his divorce does not take effect either. Allah has said:

“Do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying.”

And Allah knows best.

He—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—was also asked about “the conduct of an intoxicated person.”

Scholars, both earlier and later, have disagreed on this matter. There is disagreement within the school of Ahmad and elsewhere, and in many of his answers concerning it, Ahmad refrained from giving a definite ruling.

The views found within the school of Ahmad and elsewhere are: that his conduct is legally valid without qualification, encompassing both his statements and his actions; that it is all invalid; that a distinction is to be drawn between his statements and his actions; that a distinction is to be drawn between prescribed punishments and other matters; and that a distinction is to be drawn