with eighty lashes.’ This is the lightest of the ḥadd penalties. Consequently, ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) set the punishment for the wine-drinker at eighty lashes. This amounts to an explicit indication that the penalty for drinking wine is not itself a fixed ḥadd, but a discretionary punishment, for ʿAbd al-Raḥmān had said, “The lightest of the ḥadd penalties is eighty,” and the Companions agreed; ʿUmar did not contest the point. He therefore raised the punishment to eighty lashes so that people would be deterred.

The Sunnah also relates that if a person drinks wine and is flogged, then drinks again and is flogged, then drinks again and is flogged, and does so a fourth time, he must be put to death. The literalists took this report at face value and ruled that the wine-drinker is executed on the fourth offense, for by then he has proved to be a corrupt element whom neither reform nor discipline benefits. The majority of scholars, however, hold that he is not to be killed; rather, each time he drinks he is to be flogged anew.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) adopted a middle course, saying: if wine-drinking becomes widespread among the people and they will not desist without the threat of execution, then the drinker is to be killed on the fourth occasion. This balanced position reconciles two considerations: the explicit texts—ʿUmar did not escalate the punishment to execution even though he complained of widespread drinking—and the hadith whose authenticity and continued applicability are disputed: is it abrogated or not, sound or not?

In any case, the view chosen by Shaykh al-Islam is precisely correct: when wine-drinking proliferates and people will not desist without execution, the drinker is to be killed at the fourth offense. Would that the rulers implemented this ruling; if they did, great good would surely follow.