Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Fornication: proof, conditions and punishment > The legal status of the punishment
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
The sheet on this page sets out the general conditions that determine whether the punishment (hadd) is due, which the source presents in the case of the drinker: knowledge that it intoxicates, knowledge of the prohibition, free will and absence of necessity, then the status of one who knows the prohibition without knowing that the punishment is due. These conditions hold for establishing any punishment: without knowledge, without will, or under coercion, the hadd is not established.
Every ruling is reported as the sheet attributes it, with the Quranic references and the cited hadiths.
The punishment applies only to one who drank knowing that most of this drink intoxicates; otherwise there is no punishment, for he neither knows its prohibition nor that he commits a disobedience by it; he resembles the one on whom perfume is wafted. Ibn Qudamah said this is the view of the generality of scholars.
Most of the jurists (Hanafis, Ibn Wahb of the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis) state: knowledge of the prohibition is a condition of the punishment being due against the drinker. If he drank and then said: I did not know it was forbidden, and he was raised in the land of the Muslims, his word is not accepted and the punishment is established, without excuse; if he is a recent convert to Islam or raised in the steppes, his word is accepted, against the retained Maliki madhhab and one Shafi'i view. The Hanafis detail: he must know the prohibition in reality or by ruling, by virtue of being in our territory; the convert from hostile lands who drinks before knowing the prohibition is not punished, but if he commits zina or theft, the punishment is established despite his claim; one born in the territory of Islam who drinks as an adult is punished and is not believed. The Shafi'is say: if his Islam is recent and he says he did not know the prohibition, there is no punishment, for it may be hidden from him and the punishments are warded off by doubts; for one who grew up in the land of Islam mixing with Muslims and then claims ignorance, two views in the madhhab: his word is not accepted (al-Adhra'i, ad-Damiri, Ibn Hajar, ar-Ramli), or no punishment and his word is accepted (al-Khatib ash-Shirbini, who notes that the apparent sense of the companions' words is the absolute one). The Hanbalis say: whoever drinks without knowing the prohibition incurs no punishment either, for Umar and Uthman said: no punishment except against one who knows it; if he claims ignorance, he is examined: if he grew up in the land of Islam among Muslims, his claim is not accepted, for it hardly escapes such a one. The Malikis say: whoever drinks without knowing the prohibition, like the stranger who entered the territory of Islam or the Bedouin who never read the Book, is not spared the punishment, for Islam has spread and no one is ignorant of its punishments.
The jurists of the four schools state: whoever is coerced into drinking is excused, the drink is permitted to him, and neither the punishment nor the sin weighs on him, whether he was coerced by threat and beating or his mouth was opened to pour the drink in; by the Prophet's word: Allah has lifted from my community error, forgetfulness and what they did under coercion (an authentic hadith by the sheet). The Shafi'is in one view and the Hanbalis in a narration hold that the punishment applies despite the coercion.
The jurists of the four schools agree: whoever is compelled to drink to ward off choking when he finds nothing else is excused, by "whoever is compelled, neither coveting nor transgressing, no sin upon him" (surah al-Baqara 173); warding off choking with wine is obligatory when death is feared and nothing else is found, for it preserves life. The vizier Ibn Hubayrah said: they agreed that one who chokes on a morsel, fears death and finds nothing but wine to ward it off may use it.
The jurists then differ over deadly thirst and hunger. The Hanafis and the Shafi'is in one view: drinking wine for deadly thirst is permitted. The majority (Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis) with a detail among them: it is not permitted for thirst or hunger. The Malikis: it is not permitted out of fear of dying of hunger or thirst, for choking actually or firmly presumptively disappears with wine, while hunger and thirst do not disappear with it but increase, given the heat and digestion it carries; in a view chosen by Ibn al-'Arabi, it is permitted for thirst and hunger if it repels them, since it relieves them as a whole even for a moment. The Shafi'is in the soundest view: it is not permitted for a thirst or hunger that does not reach destruction, by the generality of the prohibition and because drink calls to drink; if the matter reaches destruction, it becomes obligatory like carrion for the compelled one, and no punishment applies in either case; in the opposite view it is permitted as urine and blood are, and as one treats illness with impurities. The Hanbalis: if he drinks for thirst a wine mixed with what quenches, it is permitted at necessity, as carrion is permitted in famine and as it is permitted for choking; the hadith of Abdallah ibn Hudhafah illustrates it: the Byzantines took him prisoner and their tyrant confined him in a house containing water mixed with wine and roasted pork, so that he might eat and drink; he refused for three days, and when they feared his death they released him and he said: Allah had made it lawful for me for I was compelled, but I would not give you cause to rejoice at the harm of Islam. If he drinks the wine pure, or mixed with a little that does not quench, or as medicine, it is not permitted to him and the punishment applies. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: wine is permitted to ward off choking by consensus, and to ward off thirst in one of the two views; those who forbid it say it does not quench thirst, and this is Ahmad's basis: the matter therefore rests on actual quenching; the necessity of thirst felt as deadly is greater than that of hunger, which is why drinking impurities in thirst is permitted by consensus.
The jurists of the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, and this is the import of the Hanafis' words, state: one who knows wine is forbidden but does not know that the punishment applies for drinking it is punished; for if he knows the prohibition, what is incumbent on him is to abstain from it.
The sheet shows that the hadd is never established blindly: without knowing that the drink intoxicates or that it is forbidden, without free will and without pressing necessity, the drinker is not punished; and even one who knows the prohibition without knowing that a punishment is attached to the act falls under it, for having failed the abstinence he knew. The reader finds there the scale of excuses, from the new convert's ignorance to coercion and extreme need, reported madhhab by madhhab.