Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Khamr and discretionary penalties (ta'zir) > Drugs and the application of the punishment
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 12:48 AM
This section is part of the full chapter: All sections of this chapter.
Nutmeg has been known since ancient times; its fruit was used as a kind of "spice" giving food a pleasant aroma, and the ancient Egyptians used it as a medicine for stomach pains and for expelling wind. Its tree rises to about ten meters, it is evergreen, and its fruit resembles pears; when ripe, the fruit turns into a hard shell: this fruit is what is known as nutmeg. It is cultivated in equatorial regions, in India, Indonesia and Ceylon. Its effect is similar to that of hashish; in the case of an excessive dose, a person suffers ringing in the ears, severe constipation, urinary retention, anxiety and restlessness, as well as depression of the central nervous system, which can lead to death.
As for its ruling, and that of hashish and opium, the scholars have held two opinions:
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Hajar al-Haytami held that they are absolutely prohibited, whether in small or large quantity, and Ibn Hajar related this view from the later Malikis and Shafi'is. Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, may Allah have mercy on him, counted their consumption among the major sins and said: "The seventieth major sin after the hundredth: consuming a pure intoxicant, such as hashish, opium and shaykaran (with fatha on the dotted shin, meaning banj, henbane), amber, saffron and nutmeg."
All these substances intoxicate, as al-Nawawi explicitly stated concerning some of them and others concerning the rest. What they mean here by intoxication is the covering of the mind, without the rapturous euphoria, for that belongs specifically to liquid intoxicants, and its discussion will come in the chapter on drinks. In light of what I have established concerning the meaning of intoxication for these substances, it is known that this does not prevent them from being called narcotics. When it is established that all these substances intoxicate or narcotize, their use is a major sin and an act of wickedness like wine: everything that has been reported as a warning against the one who drinks it applies to the one who uses any of these substances, for both share the removal of the intellect whose preservation the Lawgiver intends; for it is the instrument of understanding Allah, the Most High, and His Messenger, that by which man is distinguished from the animal, and the means of preferring perfections over deficiencies. Whoever takes what removes it therefore exposes himself to the warning concerning wine, which will be presented in its chapter. I composed a book which I entitled "Warning the Trustworthy against the Use of Kufta and Qat" when the people of Yemen disagreed concerning it and sent me three treatises, two for its prohibition and one for its licitness, asking me to clarify the truth about both. I therefore composed that book as a warning against both, even without asserting their absolute prohibition, and I digressed in it to mention the other solid intoxicating and narcotic substances, which I expounded at some length.
Its conclusion must be mentioned here, and we say: the basis for the prohibition of all of that is what Ahmad related in his Musnad and Abu Dawud in his Sunan:
"The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade every intoxicant and every substance causing stupor."
Weak hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (3686) and Ahmad (26676)
The scholars said: the substance causing stupor is everything that produces listlessness and numbness in the limbs; and all these substances mentioned intoxicate, narcotize and cause stupor. Al-Qarafi and Ibn Taymiyya related the consensus on the prohibition of hashish, and he said: whoever declares it lawful has disbelieved. He also said: the reason the four imams did not discuss hashish is that it did not exist in their time; it only appeared at the end of the sixth century and the beginning of the seventh, at the time of the Tatar state.
Al-Mawardi mentioned the view that the plant producing rapturous strength incurs the legal penalty. Then, what I mentioned concerning nutmeg is the opinion I gave in fatwa long ago, when a dispute concerning it broke out between the people of the two Sanctuaries and those of Egypt, and I found in it, after examination and painstaking research, citations they had not managed to find.
This is why a number of later scholars, when asked about it, expressed conflicting opinions, reasoning without any citation. When the question was put to me, I answered it with explicit citation and sound proof, refuting whoever contradicts what I have mentioned, however lofty his rank.
The gist of the question is: did any of the imams, or their followers, say that eating nutmeg is prohibited? And may some students of knowledge today issue a fatwa prohibiting its consumption without having seen any citation to that effect? If you say "yes", must one then submit to his fatwa?
The gist of the answer I gave to that question, which the mujtahid imam, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Daqiq al-'Id, explicitly stated, is that it intoxicates, I mean nutmeg; the later Shafi'is and Malikis related it from him and relied upon it, and that is quite sufficient. More than that, Ibn al-'Imad went so far as to treat hashish as analogous to this nutmeg: when he related from al-Qarafi, quoting certain jurists of his era, that the latter had distinguished, regarding the intoxicating effect of hashish, between the green leaf, in which there is no intoxication, and what it becomes after roasting, which intoxicates, he said: "The more correct view is that there is no difference, for it is assimilated to nutmeg, saffron, amber, opium and banj: it is an intoxicating and narcotic substance", and Ibn al-Qastallani mentioned it in "Takrim al-Ma'isha". End of quote.
Consider his use of the expression "the more correct view", and his making hashish, on which the scholars have consensus as to its prohibition, analogous to nutmeg: you will know that there is no doubt as to the prohibition of nutmeg, on account of its intoxicating or narcotic effect.
The Malikis and the Shafi'is on its intoxicating nature were joined by the Hanbalis: the leading scholar of their later generation, Ibn Taymiyya, pronounced in this sense, and they followed him on the fact that it intoxicates; and it is also the implication of the words of certain Hanafi imams. Thus, in the "Fatawa al-Marghinani" among them: "What intoxicates among banj and the milk of mares, that is, the females of horses, is prohibited, and the one who drinks it incurs no legal penalty; this is what the jurist Abu Hafs said, and Shams al-A'imma al-Sarakhsi explicitly stated it." End of quote.
You have learned, from the words of Ibn Daqiq al-'Id and others, that nutmeg is like banj: if the Hanafis hold that banj intoxicates, it is incumbent upon them to say that nutmeg intoxicates. It is therefore established, by what has been set out, that it is prohibited according to the four imams: according to the Shafi'is, the Malikis and the Hanbalis by explicit text, and according to the Hanafis by implication, for it is either intoxicating or narcotic; and the origin of this lies in hashish being assimilated to nutmeg, as has passed.
Such is what Shaykh Abu Ishaq mentioned in his book "al-Tadhkira", as well as al-Nawawi in "Sharh al-Muhadhdhab" and Ibn Daqiq al-'Id: it intoxicates. Al-Zarkashi said: "We know of no disagreement on this among us." It may fall under their definition of the drunkard: he whose ordered speech becomes confused and whose hidden secret is unveiled, or he who no longer distinguishes the sky from the earth, nor length from width. Then he related that al-Qarafi disagreed on this point: he denied its intoxicating nature and affirmed for it a corrupting nature, and he then rebutted him and went on at length declaring him mistaken and in error.
Among those who explicitly affirmed its intoxicating nature are also the botanists among the physicians, to whom the reference reverts in this matter, as well as Ibn Taymiyya, followed in this by the later scholars of his school who came after him.
The truth in this matter lies outside both generalizations: the generalization of intoxication and the generalization of corruption. The term intoxication is used in an absolute sense to mean any covering of the mind, which is a broader usage; and it is used to mean the covering of the mind together with euphoria and rapture, which is a more specific usage, and this is what is meant by intoxication when the term is used unrestrictedly.
According to the first usage, there obtains between the intoxicant and the narcotic a broad inclusion: every narcotic is an intoxicant, without every intoxicant being a narcotic. Applying the term intoxicant to hashish, nutmeg and their like aims at the narcotic effect, and whoever denies it in this context intends the more specific meaning.
The precise statement is this: it is of the nature of the drunkenness produced by wine and the like to generate euphoria, liveliness, rapture, drunken excess and truculence; and it is of the nature of the drunkenness produced by hashish and nutmeg to generate their opposites: numbness and listlessness of the body, prolonged silence and sleep, and the absence of truculence. By my phrase "it is of their nature", one may refute what al-Zarkashi objected to al-Qarafi: that certain wine drinkers display what has been described of hashish and the like, and certain consumers of hashish and the like display what has been described of wine.
The reply is that what is tied to its customary indicator is not affected by the departure of some individual instances, just as the shortening of the prayer in travel, being tied to the indicator of hardship, remains permitted even though hardship is absent in many of its particular cases. It thus becomes clear that there is no disagreement between whoever speaks of hashish and the like in terms of intoxication and whoever speaks of it in terms of narcosis and corruption: what is meant is a specific corruption, the one described above. Thereby is repelled the statement of al-Zarkashi: "This designation would include insanity and fainting, for they too corrupt the mind." It appears, by what has been established, that the statement of the jurist mentioned in the question, that it is a narcotic, is valid, and that the statement of whoever disputes it with him is void, except if he has an excuse for his ignorance.
After he learns what we have related from the scholars, if he claims its licitness, or the absence of its narcotic or intoxicating effect, he shall be subjected to a severe disciplinary punishment, deterring him and his likes. More than that, Ibn Taymiyya said, and the scholars of his school endorsed it: whoever claims the licitness of hashish has disbelieved. So let man beware of falling into this pitfall according to the imams of this venerable school.
And it is astonishing that anyone should hazard the use of nutmeg, given the corruption and sin we have mentioned concerning it, for his corrupt purposes, all the more so since all those purposes can be obtained through something else. The prince of physicians, Ibn Sina, stated in his Canon that the same weight of sunbul, that is, spikenard, or one and a half times its weight, takes the place of nutmeg: whoever used to consume some quantity of it, then consumed its weight and one and a half times its weight of sunbul, would attain all his purposes while remaining safe from sin and from exposure to the punishment of Allah, the Most High. All the more so as it has certain harms for the lungs mentioned by some physicians, while sunbul is free of those harms: its purpose is thus achieved through it, together with safety from its harms in this world and the hereafter. And Allah, the Most High, knows best what is correct. This is the end of my answer on nutmeg, and it contains precious matters (al-Zawajir 1/417 and 719, al-Fatawa al-Fiqiyya al-Kubra 4/229).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Intoxicating hashish is prohibited, and whoever declares lawful the drunkenness it produces has disbelieved; moreover, according to the soundest of the scholars' two views, it is impure like wine: wine is like urine, and hashish like feces. The legal penalty applies; the reason some jurists hesitated over the penalty is that they thought it covers the mind like banj, in which case a disciplinary punishment is applied; but the correct view is that it intoxicates. If it intoxicates, unlike banj and nutmeg, it is because it intoxicates through transformation, just as wine intoxicates through transformation; as for banj, it suppresses the mind and only intoxicates after transformation, like nutmeg. Whoever thinks that hashish does not intoxicate but suppresses the mind without pleasure does not know the reality of the matter: if it contained no pleasure, it would not be consumed, unlike banj and the like. For the prohibited things that souls do not desire, such as blood, the Lawgiver was content with the natural deterrent and made the punishment a disciplinary one; as for what souls desire, He made the legal deterrent like the natural deterrent, namely the legal penalty; and hashish belongs to this chapter" (Mukhtasar al-Fatawa al-Misriyya 1/499).
He was asked, may Allah have mercy on him, about one who eats hashish: what is due upon him?
He answered: "Praise be to Allah, this solid hashish is prohibited, whether one becomes intoxicated by it or not; intoxication from it is prohibited by the agreement of the Muslims. Whoever declares this lawful and claims it is permitted shall be asked to repent; if he repents, otherwise he shall be killed as an apostate: no prayer shall be offered over him and he shall not be buried in the cemeteries of the Muslims. As for the one who believes it to be an act drawing near to Allah and says: it is a morsel of remembrance and meditation, it stirs the dormant resolve toward the most noble stations and benefits on the path, he is graver and greater still, for this is of the species of the religion of the Christians who seek nearness by drinking wine, and of the species of those who hold obscenities to be acts of devotion and obedience. Allah, the Most High, has said:
"And when they commit an immorality, they say: we found our forefathers upon it, and Allah has ordered it upon us. Say: Allah does not order immorality. Do you say about Allah what you do not know?"
Surat al-A'raf, verse 28
And whoever declares this lawful out of ignorance, when some jurists have been heard to say: "They prohibited it without reason or transmission, and to prohibit what is not prohibited is itself prohibited", such a one knows neither Allah nor His Messenger, nor that hashish is prohibited and that intoxication from it is prohibited by consensus. When he learns this and does not acknowledge its prohibition, he becomes a disbeliever and an apostate as has preceded. Everything that suppresses the mind is prohibited, even if it produces no euphoria or rapture, for the suppression of the mind is prohibited by the consensus of the Muslims. As for the use of banj which does not intoxicate and does not suppress the mind, it falls under disciplinary punishment. The verifying jurists, however, knew that it intoxicates: only the wicked consume it, for the euphoria and rapture it contains; in this it resembles the intoxicating drink. Wine induces agitation and quarrelsomeness, while this induces listlessness and abasement; it involves, moreover, corruption of temperament and mind, the opening of the door of desire, and what it produces of complaisance toward indecency, to the point of belonging to the worst of intoxicating drinks. It only appeared among people with the coming of the Tatars" (Majmu' al-Fatawa 34/210 and 213; see also Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/507).
He was asked, may Allah have mercy on him, about what is due upon the eater of hashish and upon one who claims that eating it is permissible, lawful and permitted.
He answered: "Eating this solid hashish is prohibited; it is among the filthiest of forbidden things, whether one eats a little or a lot; as for the large quantity that intoxicates, it is prohibited by the agreement of the Muslims. Whoever declares this lawful is a disbeliever: he shall be asked to repent, otherwise he shall be killed as a disbelieving apostate; he shall not be washed, no prayer shall be offered over him, and he shall not be buried among the Muslims, and the status of the apostate is worse than that of the Jew and the Christian, whether he believes this is permitted to the common people or to the elite who claim that it is a morsel of meditation and remembrance, that it stirs the dormant resolve toward the most noble stations, and that this is why they use it" (Majmu' al-Fatawa 34/210 and 213).
The second opinion, held by the majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis and many Shafi'is such as al-Ramli and others, is that a small quantity of it is permitted and a large quantity is prohibited.
The Hanafi imam al-Haskafi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: ("Eating banj and hashish is prohibited"), which are the leaves of hemp ("and opium"), because it is a substance that corrupts the mind and diverts from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer ("but with a prohibition less than that of wine: if one eats any of that, no legal penalty is due upon him, even if he becomes intoxicated by it"), ("but he is given a disciplinary punishment less than the penalty"); thus in "al-Jawhara" (al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 5/424). And the Hanafi imam al-Haddadi said: "It is not permitted to eat banj, hashish and opium: all of that is prohibited, for it corrupts the mind to the point that a man becomes dissolute and corrupt through it, and it diverts him from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer; however, its prohibition is less than that of wine: if one eats any of that, no legal penalty is due upon him, even if he becomes intoxicated by it, just as drinking urine or eating feces is prohibited without incurring the penalty; rather he is given a disciplinary punishment less than the penalty. And Allah knows best."
Likewise nutmeg is prohibited, but with a prohibition less than that of hashish; this is what the author said. He related from "al-Jami'" and others that whoever declares banj and hashish lawful is a heretical innovator; more than that, Najm al-Din al-Zahidi said that he disbelieves and that his killing is permitted.
I say: our shaykh al-Najm al-Ghazi al-Shafi'i related, in his commentary on his father al-Badr's poem on major and minor sins, from Ibn Hajar al-Makki, that he explicitly affirmed the prohibition of nutmeg by consensus of the four imams and that it intoxicates.
Ibn Abidin said, may Allah have mercy on him: his words ("eating banj is prohibited"): banj, with fatha, is a plant called in Arabic shaykaran; it causes headache, induces stupor and confuses the mind, as in "al-Tadhkira" of Shaykh Dawud. He added in "al-Qamus": the worst is the red, then the black, and the safest the white. And in it: al-sabt: the day of the week, and the man who sleeps much; and al-musbit: the one who does not move.
In al-Quhistani: it is one of the two types of hemp tree: it is prohibited because it removes the mind, and upon this the fatwa rests, unlike another type of it which is permitted, like opium, because even if the mind is impaired by it, it is not removed; and this is how what is in "al-Hidaya" and other books permitting banj is to be understood, as in "Sharh al-Lubab". End.
I say: this is not apparent, for what impairs the mind is likewise not permitted beyond any doubt; how then can it be said to be permitted? The correct view is that the author of "al-Hidaya" and others intend the permissibility of a small quantity for treatment and the like, and whoever explicitly affirmed its prohibition intended the quantity that intoxicates. This is attested by what is in "Ghayat al-Bayan", from the commentary of Shaykh al-Islam: "Eating a small quantity of scammony and banj is permitted for treatment; whatever exceeds that, if it kills or removes the mind, is prohibited." End.
This is explicit in what we have said and supports what has preceded in our investigation: the restriction of the rule, namely that whatever intoxicates in large quantity is prohibited in small quantity, to liquid substances; and likewise he says of the other solid things harmful to the mind or otherwise: it is prohibited to consume the harmful quantity of them, excluding the small beneficial quantity, for their prohibition is not for their own essence but for their harm. And at the beginning of the divorce [discussion] in "al-Bahr": he whose mind is suppressed by banj or opium: his divorce takes effect if he used them for amusement and the deliberate introduction of ailments, for it is an act of disobedience; if he used them for treatment, it does not, because of its absence; thus in "Fath al-Qadir", and the text is explicit on the prohibition of banj and opium outside of treatment. And in "al-Bazzaziyya": the legal ratio legis proclaims its prohibition outside of treatment. End of the words of "al-Bahr".
In "al-Nahr" he held this distinction to be the correct view.
The upshot is that the use of the large intoxicating quantity is absolutely prohibited, as the words of "al-Ghaya" indicate; as for the small quantity, if it is for amusement it is prohibited, and if he becomes intoxicated by it his divorce takes effect, because the origin of his use was forbidden; and if it is for treatment and intoxication results from it, it does not. So seize this singular clarification.
There remains here something I have seen no one among us point out: if someone has become accustomed to eating something solid whose small quantity is not prohibited and whose large quantity intoxicates, to the point that he eats the intoxicating quantity without becoming intoxicated, whether it intoxicated him at the beginning or not, is it prohibited for him to use it, in consideration of the fact that it intoxicates others, or that it intoxicated him before the habit? Or is it not prohibited for him, in consideration of the fact that it is pure and permitted, and that the cause of its prohibition is intoxication, which no longer exists after habituation, even if his prior act that intoxicated him was forbidden, like one who has become accustomed to eating a poison to the point of eating what is normally lethal without being harmed, as has been reported of some? Let this be considered.
Yes, the Shafi'is explicitly affirmed that what counts is what suppresses the mind with regard to the generality of people, without habituation.
His words ("which are the leaves of hemp"): Ibn al-Baytar said: "Of Indian hemp there is a type called hashish: it strongly intoxicates if one consumes a little of it, about a dirham; whoever indulges in it is driven to the limits of dementia; some people have used it and their minds became deranged, and it even kills." More than that, Ibn Hajar related from some scholars that there are in eating hashish one hundred and twenty harms, religious and worldly, and he related from Ibn Taymiyya that whoever claims its licitness has disbelieved, and he said: the scholars of his school endorsed it. End of quote. Its like will come among us.
His words ("and opium"): it is the sap of the poppy; it courses through the body and suppresses both appetites if one persists in it, and it kills at two dirhams; once its use exceeds four days in a row, habituation sets in such that abandoning it leads to death, for it tears the membranes with tears that nothing else closes. Thus in "Tadhkirat Dawud".
His words ("because it is a substance that corrupts the mind"): to the point that a man becomes dissolute and corrupt through it ("al-Jawhara"). His words ("even if he becomes intoxicated by it"): because the Law made the penalty obligatory for intoxication from a drink, not from a food ("Itqani"). His words ("thus in al-Jawhara"): an allusion to his words: and eating banj is prohibited, and so on.
His words ("likewise nutmeg is prohibited"): likewise amber and saffron, as in "al-Zawajir" of Ibn Hajar al-Makki, who said: all these substances intoxicate, and what is meant here by intoxication is the covering of the mind, without the rapturous euphoria, for that belongs to the liquid intoxicant; it does not therefore prevent them from being called narcotics, and what has been reported as a warning against wine applies to them, for both share the removal of the mind whose preservation the Lawgiver intends. End.
I say: the like of it is cotton flower, for it is strongly gladdening and reaches the point of intoxication, as in "al-Tadhkira". All of these and their like: it is prohibited to consume the intoxicating quantity of them, excluding the small quantity, as we have set out; understand this well.
And the like of it, more fittingly, is bursh, which is a compound of banj, opium and other things; he mentioned in "al-Tadhkira" that its habitual use corrupts the body and the mind, suppresses both appetites, ruins the complexion, diminishes the faculties and exhausts, and much harm has nowadays occurred through it. End.
His words ("this is what the author said"): and his wording: "Like hashish in prohibition is nutmeg: many Shafi'i scholars have given fatwa on its prohibition; among those who explicitly affirmed it from among them are Ibn Hajar, resident in Mecca, in his fatwas, and Shaykh Kamal al-Din ibn Abi Sharif in an epistle he composed on it; al-Aqsura'i, among our companions, gave fatwa on its prohibition, and I have seen this in his noble handwriting; but he said: its prohibition is less than that of hashish. And Allah knows best." End.
I say: the commentator will rather mention its prohibition according to the four schools (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/457 and 459).
Imam al-Tahtawi said, may Allah have mercy on him: he related that nutmeg is prohibited, but with a prohibition less than that of hashish, and Ibn Hajar al-Makki explicitly affirmed the prohibition of nutmeg by consensus of the four imams. End of quote. Perhaps the relation of consensus applies to the state of intoxication; as for the small quantity of it, and of every intoxicant other than wine and its like, its use is not prohibited according to the Imam [Abu Hanifa], according to the second case: when it does not intoxicate (Hashiyat al-Tahtawi on Maraqi al-Falah 1/441).
Al-Khattab the Maliki mentioned, may Allah have mercy on him: he said in "al-Tawdih": "A distinction of benefit to the jurist, by which he knows the difference between the intoxicant, the corrupting substance and the soporific: the intoxicant is what suppresses the mind without the senses, together with euphoria and elation; the corrupting substance is what suppresses the mind without the senses, without euphoria or elation, like baladhur honey; and the soporific is what suppresses the mind and the senses, like shaykaran. Three rulings follow from intoxication which do not follow from the last two: the legal penalty, impurity and the prohibition of the small quantity. This being settled, the later scholars hold two views on hashish: is it among the intoxicants or among the corrupting substances, while agreeing on forbidding its consumption? Al-Qarafi chose that it is among the narcotics; he said: for I have not seen them incline toward fighting and vindication; rather, upon them are abasement and humiliation, and weeping sometimes comes upon them. Our shaykh, known as Abdallah al-Manufi, chose that it is among the intoxicants, for we have seen those who consume it sell their properties for its sake; if they found no rapture in it, they would not do that. The proof is that we do not find anyone selling his house to buy shaykaran with it; and this is clear." End of the words of "al-Tawdih".
Al-Qarafi's wording concerning hashish is that it is a corrupting, not an intoxicating substance, and by this distinction is repelled the objection raised by some against his words ("except the intoxicant"), which would extend it to the plant that suppresses the mind like banj and shaykaran: these are corrupting or soporific substances, not intoxicants.
Al-Burzali related from al-Qarafi, concerning hashish, three views, the third of which distinguishes between its roasted state, in which it is impure and incurs the legal penalty, and its state before roasting, in which there is neither penalty nor impurity. Al-Qarafi chose, in the Forty Distinctions, that there is no legal penalty for it, but only the disciplinary punishment deterring from contact with it; he said: and prayer is not invalidated by carrying it.
Then he mentioned that opium is among the corrupting substances, and he said: "Whoever prays after consuming it, or after banj: his prayer is not invalidated, by consensus, and the same for the other corrupting substances." He said: "Like one who consumes of opium, banj and shaykaran an amount that does not reach the threshold of affecting the mind and the senses." End.
I say: on this basis, it is permitted for one who has been afflicted with eating opium and who fears death for himself if he abandons it, to consume of it the amount that does not affect his mind or his senses, and to strive to reduce it and to cut it off; and it is incumbent upon him to repent and to regret what has passed. And Allah knows best.
Derivation: Ibn Farhun said: "As for Indian drugs, if they are eaten for the purpose for which hashish is eaten, their consumption is forbidden; and if they are eaten for digestion and other benefits, they are not prohibited, and nothing of them is prohibited except what corrupts the mind." He mentioned before this that nutmeg, a large quantity of saffron, banj and shaykaran are among the corrupting substances: their small quantity is permitted and their ruling is purity.
Then al-Khattab said, may Allah have mercy on him: "Al-Burzali said: some of our imams permitted eating a small quantity of nutmeg to warm the brain, and some stipulated that it be mixed with medicines; the correct view is the general one." End.
(Derivation): what has preceded implies the permissibility of selling these things, opium, banj, nutmeg and the like; I have not seen an explicit text on it. The apparent view is that one should say in this matter what Ibn Rushd said concerning al-midhr, according to the view prohibiting its consumption: if it contains a benefit other than eating, it is permitted to sell it to one who will use it for other than eating, provided one is confident he will not sell it to one who will eat it; and the same is said of these things and of all the electuaries that suppress the mind: it is permitted to sell them to one who will not consume of them the quantity that suppresses the mind, provided one is confident he will not sell them to one who will consume it. And Allah knows best (Mawahib al-Jalil 1/151-152).
Al-'Adawi said, may Allah have mercy on him: "Al-Burzali said: hence some of our imams permitted eating a small amount of nutmeg to warm the brain, and some stipulated mixing it with medicines, not alone; the correct view is the general one, as the first said. End. And it is permitted to consume of opium, banj and shaykaran what does not reach the threshold of affecting the mind and the senses. End. Accordingly, it is permitted for one who has been afflicted with eating opium and who fears death upon abandoning it to use the small amount that does not affect his mind or his senses, and to strive to reduce it and cut it off; and repentance and regret for what has passed are incumbent upon him" (Hashiyat al-'Adawi on Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/84).
Shaykh Muhammad al-'Ilish said, may Allah have mercy on him: "As for the corrupting substance, also called the narcotic: it is what suppresses the mind alone, without euphoria or rapture; among them, according to the relied-upon view, are hashish, opium, bursh and nutmeg. And the soporific: it is what suppresses the mind and the senses; among them are banj and datura: they are both pure and fall within the exception; the use of their small quantity, which does not suppress the mind, is permitted, and their large quantity, which suppresses it, is prohibited and entails a deterrent disciplinary punishment, by beating or otherwise" (Manh al-Jalil 1/47).
It comes in "I'anat al-Talibin": (his words: "and by 'liquid' are excluded banj, hashish and the like"), that is, opium, nutmeg, amber and saffron: all these are pure, because they are solid, even though it is prohibited to consume of them the quantity that intoxicates (I'anat al-Talibin 1/91).
Imam al-Ramli, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about eating nutmeg: is it permissible or not? He answered: "Yes, it is permissible if it is a small quantity, and prohibited if it is a large quantity" (Fatawa al-Ramli 4/71).
Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-'Azim Abadi said, may Allah have mercy on him: "As for nutmeg, basbasa and Indian aloeswood: none of these produces intoxication either; there is only, in some of them, the stupor-inducing effect, and in some the narcotic effect; and there is no doubt that whatever intoxicates in large quantity has its small quantity prohibited, whether consumed alone or mixed with something else, and whether it becomes capable of intoxicating after mixing or not. These six things are decisively not of the species of intoxicants; more than that, some of them are not of the species of stupefacients or narcotics, according to the verified view" ('Awn al-Ma'bud 10/96).
Ahmad: "He does not uncover his armpits in any of the legal penalties", meaning he does not exaggerate in raising his hand when striking, for what is intended is his correction, not his death (al-Mughni 9/142, al-Lubab 2/311, al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/369, al-Sharh al-Kabir with al-Dasuqi's Hashiya 6/369, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 5/402, al-Muhadhdhab 2/278, al-Bayan 12/527, Matalib Uli al-Nuha 6/163).
The Hanbalis said in the school: "If the imam or his deputy sees fit to strike, in the penalty for drinking an intoxicant, with dried palm fronds or with sandals, he may do so, and with hands as well, according to the preceding hadith of Abu Hurayra" (al-Mughni 9/142, Matalib Uli al-Nuha 6/163).
The ruling on treatment with wine and with prohibited things:
The jurists disagreed on the ruling of treatment with wine: is it permissible or not?
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is according to the sounder view, and the Hanbalis, held that treatment with wine is prohibited, based on what Muslim and others related from 'Alqama ibn Wa'il, from his father Wa'il al-Hadrami:
"Tariq ibn Suwayd al-Ju'fi asked the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, about wine, and he forbade him or disliked that he make it. He said: I only make it as a medicine. He said: It is not a medicine, but a disease."
Reported by Muslim (1984)
And from 'Asim, from Abu Wa'il: "A man among us fell ill, and an intoxicating drink was prescribed for him; we went to Abdallah, meaning Ibn Mas'ud, and asked him, and he said: Allah has not placed your cure in what He has forbidden you."
"Allah has not placed your cure in what He has forbidden you."
Saying of Ibn Mas'ud, reported by al-Tahawi in "Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar" (1/108) and by al-Hakim in "al-Mustadrak" (7509)
And because it is prohibited in itself, it was not permitted for treatment, like the flesh of swine; and because necessity is not warded off by it, it was not permitted, like treatment with it for what it is not suited; and because, even if it contains a bodily benefit, it contains a religious harm, and the Creator, the Most High, forbade it despite His knowledge of it.
The Malikis explicitly stated that it is not permitted even if one fears death (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 5/369, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 8/109, al-Sharh al-Kabir with al-Dasuqi's Hashiya 6/369, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 5/401, Ahkam al-Qur'an 1/211).
As for the Shafi'is, according to the sounder view, they said: the prohibition applies when one does not find anything to take its place, even if his condition does not reach perdition; if he has no recourse except it and finds nothing else, drinking it becomes determined as obligatory, just as eating carrion becomes determined for the one compelled to it. Al-Damiri said, may Allah have mercy on him: thus the Imam related it from the consensus of the companions. No legal penalty is due upon the one who treats himself with wine according to the Shafi'is (Sharh Sahih Muslim 13/153, al-Najm al-Wahhaj 9/227-228, Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/508-509, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 11/96, Nihayat al-Muhtaj 8/15), and the penalty is due upon him according to the Malikis and the Hanbalis (al-Mughni 9/137, al-Insaf 10/230-231, Sharh al-Zarkashi 3/269-270, al-Mubdi' 9/101-102, Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/148-149, Majmu' al-Fatawa 24/272).
Imam al-Sarakhsi said, may Allah have mercy on him: "Every prohibited drink: it is not permitted to drink it for treatment, to the point that it is related from Muhammad that a man came asking his permission to drink wine for treatment; he said: (If there is yellow bile in your belly, take sugar water, and if there is moistness in you, take honey water: it is more beneficial for you.) In this there is an indication that necessity is not realized in resorting to the unlawful, for there is found of its kind what is lawful, and the purpose is attained through it. And the words of the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, indicate it:
"Allah has not placed cure in an impurity."
Cited by al-Sarakhsi in "al-Mabsut" (24/9)
and he did not intend by it the negation of cure absolutely, for that is observed in reality, and it is not possible for the report of the Lawgiver, may the prayer and peace be upon him, to be contradicted; rather the meaning is that He has not appointed any impurity as a cure such that no lawful thing is found that does its work or is stronger than it" (al-Mabsut 24/9).
However, the Hanafi jurists said that seeking cure through the prohibited is only impermissible when one does not know that it contains a cure; as for one who knows that it contains a cure and has no other remedy besides it, seeking cure through it is permitted, for Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned in the book of drinks: if a man fears thirst for himself and finds wine, he drinks it if it wards off his thirst; but he drinks only the measure that quenches him and wards off his thirst, and does not drink beyond sufficiency.
As for the words of Ibn Mas'ud, may Allah be pleased with him: "Allah, the Most High, has not placed your cure in what He has forbidden you", Abdallah may have said this concerning a disease for which a remedy other than the prohibited one was known, for he then has no need of the unlawful given the lawful; and it may also be said: the prohibition is lifted in case of need, so the cure is not then in the unlawful, but in what has become lawful.
If a physician advises a sick person to drink wine, one looks: if he knows with certainty that it cures, it is lawful for him to take it, and according to one view, it is not lawful for him to take it (al-Muhit al-Burhani 5/240, al-'Inaya 14/302, Durar al-Hukkam 4/7).
Ibn Nujaym said, may Allah have mercy on him: "Disagreement occurred among our shaykhs regarding treatment with the prohibited. In 'al-Nihaya', from 'al-Dhakhira': seeking cure through the unlawful is permitted if it is known to contain a cure and no other remedy is known. End. And in the 'Fatawa Qadhikhan', attributed to Nasr ibn Salam: the meaning of his words, may the prayer and peace be upon him: 'Allah has not placed your cure in what He has forbidden you', is that he only said this of things that contain no cure; as for what contains a cure, there is no harm in it. Do you not see that the thirsty one may drink wine out of necessity. End. Likewise the author of 'al-Hidaya' chose it in 'al-Tajnis': he said: if blood flows from a man's nose, he writes the Fatiha of the Book with that blood on his forehead and nose: that is permitted for healing and treatment; and if he writes with urine, if he knows there is cure in it, there is no harm, though it has not been related. And this is because the prohibition falls away when seeking cure; do you not see that the thirsty one may drink wine and the hungry one may eat carrion" (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/122).
It comes in "al-Durr al-Mukhtar": "There is disagreement regarding treatment with the prohibited, and the apparent position of the school is prohibition, as in the suckling [chapter] of 'al-Bahr'; but the author related there and here from 'al-Hawi': it is said: a dispensation is granted when the cure is known in it and no other remedy is known, just as wine was granted as a dispensation to the thirsty; and upon this the fatwa rests."
Imam Ibn Abidin said, may Allah have mercy on him: "An inquiry regarding treatment with the prohibited. His words: (there is disagreement regarding treatment with the prohibited): in 'al-Nihaya', from 'al-Dhakhira': it is permitted if the cure is known in it and no other remedy is known. And in 'al-Khaniyya', on the meaning of his words, may the prayer and peace be upon him: 'Allah has not placed your cure in what He has forbidden you', as al-Bukhari related it: what contains a cure is of no harm, just as wine becomes lawful for the thirsty in necessity. Likewise the author of 'al-Hidaya' chose it in 'al-Tajnis': he said: if he has a nosebleed and writes the Fatiha with the blood on his forehead and nose, it is permitted for healing; with urine as well, if he knows there is cure in it, there is no harm, though it has not been related. And this is because the prohibition falls away when seeking cure, like the lawfulness of wine and carrion for the thirsty and the hungry. End, from 'al-Bahr'. And my master Abd al-Ghani conveyed that the disagreement does not appear in their words, because of their agreement on permissibility in case of necessity; and the condition of knowledge set by the author of 'al-Nihaya' is not contradicted by the condition of cure set by those after him; hence my father said in 'Sharh al-Durar': his words 'not for treatment' apply to what is merely presumed; otherwise, its permissibility with certainty is agreed upon, as he explicitly stated in 'al-Musaffa'. End. I say: this is apparent and consistent with what has passed in the argumentation of the Imam; but you have learned that the words of physicians do not yield knowledge, and the apparent view is that experience yields preponderance of opinion rather than certainty, unless they mean by knowledge preponderance of opinion, which is widespread in their words; reflect. His words: (and the apparent position of the school is prohibition) apply to what is presumed, as you have learned. His words: (but the author related, and so on): the object of 'related' is his words: it is said: a dispensation is granted, and so on; and the exception is directed at the unrestricted prohibition; if it is conditioned by the presumed, there is no exception. And the text of what is in 'al-Hawi al-Qudsi': if blood flows from a man's nose and does not stop, to the point that death is feared for him, and he knows that if he writes the Fatiha of the Book or the Ikhlas with that blood on his forehead it stops: no dispensation is granted him for it, and it is said: a dispensation is granted, just as a dispensation was granted for drinking wine for the thirsty and eating carrion in famine; and this is the fatwa. End. His words: (and no other remedy is known): this is what is explicitly stated in the wording of 'al-Nihaya' as has passed, and it is not in the wording of 'al-Hawi'; however, it is conveyed in his words: 'just as a dispensation was granted', and so on, for the lawfulness of wine and carrion obtains where nothing is found to replace them; this was conveyed. He said: al-Hamawi related that the flesh of swine may not be used for treatment even if it becomes the only option. And Allah, the Most High, knows best" (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/210).
The Hanafis, according to one view as has preceded, and the Shafi'is according to the view opposite the sounder one, held that drinking wine for treatment is permitted, just as it is permitted to drink urine, blood and the other impurities for treatment (al-Najm al-Wahhaj 9/227-228, Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/508-509, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 11/96, Nihayat al-Muhtaj 8/15).
Only some of them belong to the species of stupefacients according to some, and to the species of harmful things according to others: their small quantity is not prohibited, whether eaten alone or consumed in food or in medicines.
Yes, eating the excessive amount through which the stupor-inducing effect occurs is not permitted, for the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade every stupefacient, and he did not say that whatever stupefies in large quantity has its small quantity prohibited. We proceed according to the wording he gave and introduce nothing on our own authority: the prohibition attaches to the stupor-inducing effect, not to the stupefacient itself; its small quantity, which does not induce stupor, is therefore permitted ('Awn al-Ma'bud 10/96).
Ibn al-Qayyim said, may Allah have mercy on him: "As for treatment through intercourse, the Law does not permit it in any way; and as for treatment through embracing and kissing, if cure is realized through it, it is like treatment with wine according to whoever permits it; more than that, this is lighter than treatment with wine, for drinking it is a major sin, while this act is a minor sin" (Rawdat al-Muhibbin 1/379-380).
The ruling on gradually leaving prohibited things:
The generality of the jurists of the four schools have stated that a person afflicted with opium and narcotics and the like, who would perish if he abandoned them, may give them up gradually and not abandon them all at once.
Ibn Abidin said, may Allah have mercy on him: "Conclusion: Ibn Hajar al-Makki was asked about one afflicted with eating the like of opium who would perish if he did not eat it? He answered: if he knows that for certain, it is lawful for him, more: it is obligatory, because of his need to preserve his life, like carrion for the one compelled; and gradual reduction is incumbent upon him, little by little, until the stomach's craving for it disappears without its noticing; if he abandons that, he is a sinful deviant. End, in summary." Al-Ramli said: "Our principles do not contradict it" (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/461).
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, may Allah be pleased with him, was asked about one afflicted with eating the like of opium who would perish if he did not eat it: is eating it then permissible for him or not?
He answered, may Allah, Blessed and Most High, forgive him, with his words: "If the afflicted one knows with certainty, by the words of physicians or by correct and truthful experience, that there is no means of warding off the fear of his perishing except eating, from the like of opium, the amount he is accustomed to or close to it, it is lawful for him to eat it, more: it is obligatory upon him, for he is compelled to it for the preservation of his life; he is then like carrion for the one specifically compelled to it, and a group have explicitly stated this despite its clarity. Yes, Shaykh al-Islam, the hadith master Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, indicated something good that must be relied upon: it is that it is incumbent upon the user of such a thing to strive to cut it off gradually, by reducing each day, from what he is accustomed to, the equivalent of a sesame seed, for its reduction certainly does not harm him; if he persists in this, only a short while passes before the stomach's craving for it disappears and it forgets it without noticing and without being harmed by its absence. Through this its disappearance and cessation become possible: it is a means toward the removal of that prohibited thing in itself, even if partaking of it is obligatory, for obligation by circumstance does not contradict intrinsic prohibition, just as the compelled person's partaking of carrion is obligatory in his case due to the arising of compulsion, while it remains, in itself, under the description of intrinsic prohibition; and whatever is a means toward the removal of a prohibited thing becomes obligatory: this gradual reduction is therefore obligatory, and whoever abandons it is disobedient, sinful, a deviant whose testimony is rejected; he has no excuse for continuing its use if we have made it obligatory upon him in the present state for the preservation of his life. Reflect well upon this, for many of those forsaken, afflicted with this vile and hideous trait, cling to the continuance of their state of contempt and moral disfigurement, claiming that they grew up in it and it took hold of them, so that its use has become obligatory upon them. The reply is that this is true speech used for a false purpose; for we say to them: even if we granted you what you say, that does not prevent it from being incumbent upon you to strive to cut it off and to remove its harm and its disfigurement from your bodies, your religions, your minds and your acquisitions. One of the knowers informed me that opium can be cut off in seven days with a remedy a physician has proven; more than that, one of the righteous students of knowledge informed me that he was afflicted with it daily in large amount, so his condition deteriorated and his mind was suspended, and he realized that it is the greatest disfigurement, the greatest killer, the remover of every dignity, nobility, good manners and authority, and the procurer of every baseness, vice, abjection, filth and vileness. He said: I went to the noble al-Multazam and implored Allah, the Most High, with a sorrowful heart, with tears and groaning, with sincere burning and sincere repentance, and I asked Allah, Blessed and Most High, to ward off from me the harm of its absence; then I went to Zamzam and drank from it with the intention of abandoning it and of sufficiency against the harm of its absence: I never returned to it after that, and I experienced no harm whatsoever from its absence. End."
"He spoke truly in this and was truthful, for the eagerness of souls at its absence and the appearance of the signs of harm upon them are only due to the lack of purity of their growth, the corruption of their inner intentions and the persistence of their hidden yearning for it and their reliance upon it: they then find nothing to fill its place in the liver, and the harm of its absence becomes great in that case. As for the one who resolved sincerely to abandon it and drew near to Him, the Most High, in that with a sincere intention and a purified inner self: he finds no pain in abandoning it, by the strength and power of Allah, the Most High" (al-Fatawa al-Fiqiyya al-Kubra 4/259-260).
Al-Khattab said, may Allah have mercy on him: "It is permitted for one afflicted with eating opium who fears death for himself if he abandons it to consume of it the amount that does not affect his mind or his senses, and to strive to reduce it and cut it off; and it is incumbent upon him to repent and regret what has passed. And Allah knows best" (Mawahib al-Jalil 1/90).
Ibn al-Qayyim said, may Allah have mercy on him: "As for treatment through intercourse, the Law does not permit it in any way; and as for treatment through embracing and kissing, if cure is realized through it, it is like treatment with wine according to whoever permits it; more than that, this is lighter than treatment with wine, for drinking it is a major sin, while this act is a minor sin" (Rawdat al-Muhibbin 1/379-380).
The jurists disagreed on the ruling of mixing two kinds of things naturally suited to infusion (nabidh), such as infusing dates with raisins, or unripe dates with dates, or with fresh soft dates: is it prohibited, disliked or permissible?
The Malikis held that drinking the drink of two mixed ingredients, such as raisins and dates, or figs, or apricots or the like, is disliked, and this prohibition appears in two forms:
The first: that the two be mixed at the time of infusion, in that the dates and grapes, for example, are pressed, and after their crushing or pounding together, water is poured over them and they are left until the water becomes sweet.
The second form: that each be infused separately in a vessel, then, when the water of each has come out, they be mixed at the time of drinking.
The dislike applies where intoxication is possible but has not actually occurred, in that the infusion time grows long, such as a day and a night or more; otherwise, if the time is short, it is permitted; and if intoxication enters it, even by supposition, it is prohibited and impure.
According to one view among the Malikis, mixing two drinks is absolutely prohibited, from among the things naturally suited to infusion, such as unripe dates, fresh soft dates, dates and raisins, even without intoxicating strength, based on what Muslim related in his Sahih from Jabir ibn Abdallah al-Ansari, may Allah be pleased with them both:
"The Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade mixing raisins and dates, and unripe dates and dates." In one version: "He forbade infusing dates and raisins together, and forbade infusing fresh soft dates and unripe dates together." In one version: "Do not combine fresh soft dates and unripe dates, nor raisins and dates, into a nabidh." In one version: "He forbade infusing raisins and dates together, and forbade infusing unripe dates and fresh soft dates together."
Reported by Muslim (1986)
And from Abu Sa'id, may Allah be pleased with him: "The Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade mixing dates and raisins, and mixing dates and unripe dates."
"The Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade mixing dates and raisins, and mixing dates and unripe dates."
Reported by Muslim (1987)
And from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him, the Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "Whoever among you drinks nabidh, let him drink it of raisins alone, or dates alone, or unripe dates alone"; and in one version: "The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade us to mix unripe dates with dates, or raisins with dates, or raisins with unripe dates" (Muslim 1987).
And from Abu Qatada, may Allah be pleased with him, the Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "Do not make an infusion of zahw, the dates beginning to ripen, and fresh soft dates together, nor of raisins and dates together; make the infusion of each of the two separately" (Muslim 1988).
There are two views in the school on the cause of this: is it a purely devistic rule, or is it because of intoxication? Ibn Rushd said: "The apparent meaning of the Muwatta' is that the prohibition in this is purely devotional, without a cause." Ibn al-'Arabi said: "This question, I know of no reason for it to this day; if the prohibited thing were intoxication, let him mix it with whatever he wishes and drink it immediately; other than that, there is nothing in it but following, to the point that I related on this two strange questions: the first, Ibn al-Qasim said that it is not permitted to infuse the unripe date whose base has begun to ripen, and he spoke truly, for it falls under the two mixed ingredients; the second, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Hakam ran the prohibition of the two mixed ingredients upon its generality, to the point of forbidding it in the perfume drink: this is great rigidity regarding the wordings. End of quote" (al-Istidhkar 8/18-19, al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 2/244, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 3/31, al-Fawakih al-Dawani 2/288, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 2/330, Hashiyat al-Sawi 4/150, Manh al-Jalil 2/462-463).
The Hanafis held that there is no harm in the two mixed ingredients: that the water of dates and the water of raisins, or of fresh soft dates or unripe dates, once combined, be given a minimal cooking, and there is considered, in their cooking, the loss of two thirds; though cooking is not a requirement, based on what is related from Ibn Ziyad: he said: "Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, gave me to drink a drink such that I could hardly find my way home; the next morning I went to him and informed him of it, and he said: we gave you nothing but ajwa dates and raisins" (related by Muhammad ibn al-Hasan in "al-Athar" 1001).
And this is a type of the two mixed ingredients, and it was cooked; for what is related from him is the prohibition of the raw infusion of raisins, which is the raw form of it. And what is related, that he, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, "forbade combining dates and raisins, raisins and fresh soft dates, fresh soft dates and unripe dates", applies to the state of intoxicating strength, and that was at the beginning, at a time when there was among the Muslims tightness and hardship in the matter of food, so that one would not combine two foods and leave his neighbor hungry, but would eat one of the two and give the other in preference to his neighbor; then, when Allah expanded blessings upon His servants, He permitted the combination of the two blessings (al-Hidaya 4/111, al-'Inaya 14/365, al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 5/431, al-Lubab 2/341).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis held that the two mixed ingredients are disliked and not prohibited, such as the nabidh of dates with raisins, or unripe dates with dates, or with fresh soft dates, based on what Muslim related in his Sahih from Jabir ibn Abdallah al-Ansari, may Allah be pleased with them both:
"The Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade mixing raisins and dates, and unripe dates and dates." In one version: "He forbade infusing dates and raisins together, and forbade infusing fresh soft dates and unripe dates together." In one version: "Do not combine fresh soft dates and unripe dates, nor raisins and dates, into a nabidh." In one version: "He forbade infusing raisins and dates together, and forbade infusing unripe dates and fresh soft dates together."
Reported by Muslim (1986)
And from Abu Sa'id, may Allah be pleased with him: "The Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade mixing dates and raisins, and mixing dates and unripe dates" (Muslim 1987). And from Abu Qatada, may Allah be pleased with him, the Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "Do not make an infusion of zahw and fresh soft dates together, nor of raisins and dates together; make the infusion of each of the two separately" (Muslim 1988).
Imam al-Nawawi said, may Allah have mercy on him: "These hadiths concern the prohibition of infusing the two mixed ingredients and drinking them: dates and raisins, or dates and fresh soft dates, or dates and unripe dates, or fresh soft dates and unripe dates, or zahw and one of the mentioned items and the like. Our companions and others among the scholars said: the cause of the dislike is that intoxication hastens toward it because of the mixing before its taste changes, so that the drinker thinks it is not intoxicating while it is. Our school and that of the majority: this prohibition is one of desirability, and it is not prohibited so long as it has not become intoxicating; and thus said the vast majority of the scholars. Some Malikis said: it is prohibited. Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, according to one narration from him, said: there is no dislike in it and no harm, for what is lawful alone is lawful mixed; the majority censured them and said: this is opposition to the bearer of the Law, for the authentic and explicit hadiths on its prohibition are established; if it is not prohibited, then it is disliked. The companions of Malik disagreed as to whether the prohibition is specific to drinking or extends to it and other than it; the sounder is the general application; as for mixing the two in the infusion, indeed in a fruit paste and the like, there is no harm in it. And Allah knows best" (Sharh Sahih Muslim 13/154-156).
Imam Ibn Qudama said, may Allah have mercy on him: "The two mixed ingredients are disliked: that is, that two things be infused in water, for the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade the two mixed ingredients. Ahmad said: the two mixed ingredients are prohibited. And he said, concerning a man who steeps raisins, tamarind and jujubes and the like, steeping them in the morning and drinking in the evening as a medicine: I dislike it, for it is a nabidh; but let him cook it and drink it on the spot. Abu Dawud related, by his chain, from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that he 'forbade infusing unripe dates and fresh soft dates together, and forbade infusing raisins and dates together'; and in one version: 'make the infusion of each separately.' And from Abu Qatada: 'The Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade combining dates and zahw, and dates and raisins; let the infusion of each of the two be made separately': agreed upon. The judge said: Ahmad means, by his words 'it is prohibited', when it gains strength and intoxicates; if it does not intoxicate, it is not prohibited, and this is the correct view, if Allah, the Most High, wills. The Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, only forbade it on account of its hastening toward prohibited drunkenness; if that does not exist, the prohibition is not established, just as he, may the prayer and peace be upon him, forbade infusion in the mentioned vessels for this cause, then ordered them to drink from them so long as the reality of intoxication is not present. Indicating the validity of this is what is related from Aisha:
"We used to make an infusion for the Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: we would take a handful of dates and a handful of raisins, throw them into it, then pour water over it; we infused it in the morning and he drank it in the evening, and we infused it in the evening and he drank it in the morning."
Authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (3708) and Ibn Majah (3398)
related by Ibn Majah and Abu Dawud. Since the infusion period was short, a day and a night, in which intoxication is not to be feared, it was not disliked; were it disliked, it would not have been done in the house of the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, for him. On this basis: what is done within a short period is not disliked, and what is done within a period in which it may lead to intoxication is disliked; and the prohibition is not established unless it is boiled or three days have passed over it" (al-Mughni 9/145, al-Kafi 4/333, al-Mubdi' 9/107, al-Insaf 10/237, Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/153, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/222-223).
Imam Ibn Qudama said, may Allah have mercy on him: "Issue: he said: ('And juice, when three days have passed over it, has become prohibited; if it is boiled before that, it becomes prohibited.')
As for juice that has been boiled like the boiling of a pot and has thrown off its froth, there is no disagreement on its prohibition. And if three days have passed over it without its being boiled, our companions said: it is prohibited. Ahmad said: 'Drink it for three [days] so long as it is not boiled; when more than three days have passed over it, do not drink it.' Most of the people of knowledge say: it is permitted so long as it is not boiled and does not intoxicate, according to the words of the Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:
"Drink from every vessel, and do not drink what intoxicates."
Authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (201)
and because the cause of its prohibition is the rapturous strength, which concerns only the intoxicant specifically.
Our proof: Abu Dawud related, by his chain, from Ibn Abbas:
"The Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had raisins infused for him; he drank it that day, the next day and the day after, until the evening of the third day; then he would order that it be given to the servants to drink or poured out."
Reported by Muslim (2004) and Abu Dawud (3713)
And al-Shalanji related, by his chain, from the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that he said: 'Drink juice for three [days] so long as it is not boiled.' And Ibn Umar said: 'Drink it so long as its devil has not seized it. He was asked: in how long does its devil seize it? He said: in three' (authentic hadith, reported by Abd al-Razzaq in "al-Musannaf" 16990 and by Ibn Abi Shayba in "al-Musannaf" 24334).
And because the intoxicating strength occurs within the three [days] usually, and it is hidden, requiring a standard: it was therefore permissible to make the three [days] a standard for it."
The Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, in the second narration, hold that no hadd applies to him: he may have been coerced, or he may not have known that it intoxicates, and the hadd is averted by doubt (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 5/113, al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/409, Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/511, al-Mughni 9/138, 139).
The jurists differed on the manner of beating the one subjected to the hadd for khamr: is he struck with the hands, with sandals and with the ends of garments, or is he flogged?
The Shafi'is, in the position retained by their school, along with some of the Hanbalis, hold that he is struck with sandals, hands and the ends of garments, based on the hadith of Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him), according to which:
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was brought a man who had drunk, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Beat him." He said: so among us, some struck him with their hand, some with their sandal, and some with their garment. When he had turned away, some of the people said: may Allah disgrace you. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Do not speak like this. Do not help Satan against him. Rather say: may Allah have mercy on you."reported by al-Bukhari 3695, Abu Dawud 4476, Ahmad 7973 and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih 5730
And because the hadd for khamr, being lighter than the others in number, had to be lighter than the others in its manner as well (al-Muhadhdhab 2/278, al-Bayan 12/527, Matalib Uli an-Nuha 6/163).
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is in one of their views and the Hanbalis in the position retained by their school, hold that the hadd for khamr is carried out by flogging with the whip. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "If he drinks khamr, flog him," and beating with the whip is what is understood from his unqualified use of the word flogging. He also commanded that he be flogged just as Allah, the Exalted, commanded that the fornicator be flogged, so that it was carried out with the whip, as for the other. The Rightly-Guided Caliphs beat with whips, and so did those after them, and it was thus a matter of consensus.
As for the hadith of Abu Hurayra, it belongs to the beginning of the matter; then the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) flogged, and the practice became settled. It is authentically established that "the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) flogged with forty, Abu Bakr flogged with forty, Umar flogged with eighty, and Ali flogged al-Walid ibn Uqba with forty." And in the account of the flogging of Qudama when he drank, Umar said: "Bring me a whip." Aslam, his freed slave, brought him a thin, small whip. Umar took it, passed his hand over it, then said to Aslam: I tell you, you have remembered his kinship with your family. Bring me a whip other than this one. He brought him a complete one, and Umar ordered that Qudama be flogged.
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: once this is established, the whip is to be a medium one: not so new that it wounds, nor so worn out that the pain it inflicts is slight. For it is reported:
A man confessed zina before the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) called for a whip for him. He was brought a broken whip. He said: more than this. He was brought a new whip whose tip had not been broken. He said: between these two.reported by Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam as a mursal report, and also reported from Abu Hurayra as a musnad report
It is also reported from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "A beating between two beatings, and a whip between two whips." Such is the beating: it is to be moderate, not so severe that it kills, nor so weak that it no longer deters; the arm is not raised to its full height, nor lowered to the point of no longer causing pain.