And this is blameworthy because its cause is forbidden. Intoxication may also result from listening to stirring sounds that induce such a state. This too is blameworthy, for a person may not listen to sounds he has not been commanded to hear if they deprive him of reason. Causing the loss of reason is forbidden, and whenever a means not sanctioned by the religion leads to it, that means is forbidden. Any accompanying pleasure of the heart or spirit—even through things containing an element of faith—is outweighed by the loss of reason that accompanies it. Allah has not permitted us to delight our hearts or spirits with the pleasures of faith, or any other pleasures, through anything that causes us to lose our reason. This differs from the case of someone who loses his reason through a prescribed means, or through something that befalls him which he has no way of warding off.

Intoxication may occur without any action on the person’s part, as when he unintentionally hears something that rouses what lies within him and stirs what is dormant, or something similar. He is not blameworthy for this, and he is excused for whatever proceeds from him while deprived of reason. The pen of accountability is lifted from anyone who loses his reason through a cause that is not forbidden, such as someone who falls unconscious, someone who is insane, and others like them.

As for someone who loses his reason through wine, does he remain religiously accountable while deprived of reason? There are two well-known views on this. There is also a well-known disagreement over the validity of a divorce pronounced by someone in this state. Someone who loses his reason through banj (a stupefying plant) is placed in the same category, according to those followers of al-Shāfi'ī and Ahmad who hold this view. Another view distinguishes between it and wine, since one is craved and the other is not. For this reason,