between what is in his favour and what counts against him; and between acts he can perform unilaterally and those he cannot. This disagreement exists within the school of Ahmad and elsewhere.

They also disagreed about someone who loses his reason through something other than intoxication, such as banj (a stupefying drug): should he be treated like an intoxicated person or an insane person? There are two views within the school of Ahmad and elsewhere. Each group among Ahmad’s followers relies on some statement of his concerning this. These are not one reported view from him and one view inferred by his followers; rather, they are two reported views, each resting on an interpretation. They also disagreed over whether someone compelled to drink wine incurs sin by doing so, with two opinions within the school.

Some of Ahmad’s followers, such as al-Khallāl, uphold the view that an intoxicated person’s divorce does not take effect. Others, such as al-Qādī, uphold the view that it does. Those who hold that his divorce takes effect rely on three grounds.

The first is that this serves as a punishment for him. Someone adopting this argument may distinguish between prescribed punishments and other matters. This is weak, however, for the Sharia has never punished anyone in this manner, by making a divorce take effect or preventing it from taking effect. Moreover, this causes impermissible harm to his innocent wife and others, for no one may be punished for another person’s sin. Furthermore, the punishment for an intoxicated person is what the Sharia has prescribed, such as flogging; punishing him otherwise alters the punishments prescribed by the Sharia. The Companions punished him only for what intoxication was likely to lead to, namely incoherent speech and slander