perform his prayer, yet his divorce does not take effect, then an intoxicated person’s divorce is all the more deserving of being deemed invalid.

“When Māʿiz confessed to an offence carrying a prescribed punishment, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked him, ‘Are you insane?’ He replied, ‘No.’ He then ordered that his breath be smelled to make sure he was not intoxicated.”

This indicates that an intoxicated person’s confession is invalid. The incident involving Māʿiz occurred later, after wine had been prohibited, for wine was prohibited in the year 3 AH, after Uhud, by common agreement. It is authentically reported from ʿUthmān and other Companions, such as ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās, that an intoxicated person’s divorce does not take effect. No contrary position has been authentically established from any Companion.

Those who hold that his divorce takes effect have offered only a weak argument. Their principal contention is that he sinned by depriving himself of his reason. This is true and requires that he be punished for the sin of drinking, so the prescribed punishment is inflicted upon him for that. Divorce, however, is not a punishment imposed upon a Muslim for a sin. Were that so, the wife of everyone who drank wine or became intoxicated would be divorced. Yet those who hold this position say only that she is divorced if he pronounces divorce. Thus, they have given effect to his words, not his sin.

Moreover, while intoxicated, he might emancipate a slave, and emancipation is an act of devotion. If they uphold his emancipation, the distinction collapses; if they invalidate it, then there is even greater reason to invalidate his divorce, for Allah loves emancipation but does not love divorce.

Furthermore, anyone who bases this ruling on the sin committed must consistently apply it to someone who loses his reason through something other than an intoxicant, such as banj (a narcotic). This is the position of those among al-Shāfiʿī’s followers and others who agree with them, such as Abū al-Khattāb, who treat those affected by banj and those who are intoxicated alike. Most scholars, however, distinguish between the two, and this is explicitly stated by