in speech, on the grounds that “When he becomes intoxicated, he speaks incoherently; when he speaks incoherently, he slanders; and the prescribed punishment for a slanderer is eighty lashes.” This makes clear that his deliberately becoming intoxicated—a condition likely to lead to slander—places him on the same footing as someone who deliberately commits slander. Here, the circumstance in which the rationale for the ruling is likely to be present is treated as equivalent to its actual presence, because that rationale is hidden: it may not be known whether he has committed slander, when he does so, or whom he slanders. Similarly, someone lying down may enter a state of ritual impurity without knowing whether he has done so; sleep therefore stands in place of actual ritual impurity.

This is a well-known principle of jurisprudence. If his legal acts belonged to this category, his wife would have to be divorced whether he pronounced divorce or not, just as he receives the prescribed punishment for slander whether he commits slander or not. Yet no one holds this view.

“The second ground”

His loss of reason can be known only through his own statement, yet his drinking makes him an evildoer, so his statement concerning his loss of reason and intoxication is not accepted. What this position actually entails is that the divorce does not take effect in reality, but that, in outward adjudication, his claim that grounds exist to invalidate it is not accepted. Someone adopting this position may distinguish acts he can perform unilaterally from others.

“The third ground”

This is the ground explicitly stated by the imams al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad: he remains subject to religious obligations, unlike an insane person, who is exempt from accountability, or someone asleep. This is because the insane person is exempt from accountability, whereas the intoxicated person is subject to punishment, as the Companions stated. There is no stronger ground than this.

Ahmad likewise said: “Nothing better has been said on this matter.”

This too, however, is weak. If what is meant is that he is subject to commands and prohibitions while intoxicated, that is false; for anyone who