Feasibility of Restricting the Evidence for the Punishment (Hadd) of Drinking Intoxicants (Shurb al-Khamr), Based on the Existence or Probability of Reasonable Harm

Drinking Intoxicants (shurb al-khamr) enters the realm of religious obligation and is one of the behaviors whose punishment can, under certain conditions, lead to execution. Achieving this ultimate punishment for its perpetrators is not particularly complex, as committing the act for the fourth time permits—and indeed obligates—the execution of the death penalty upon all responsible individuals. This description first reveals and then sets aside a new dimension. Behind this dimension lies the principle of caution in bloodshed (ihtiyat fi al- demā) as a foundational strategy to prevent the reckless implementation of the aforementioned punishment. The crux of applying this principle (caution) arises when the aforementioned penalty is intended to protect God, termed as safeguarding a pure "right of God". In this context, it appears there is a cyclical debate between the minimalists (those who define khamr consumption as only that which causes intoxication) and the maximalists (those who include all consumption, whether it leads to intoxication or not). In this balance, as will be clarified, one should generally adhere to the minimalist position and apply the principle of exoneration (bara'a) in cases of doubt. This article, using an analytical-fundamental method, proposes a demonstrable hypothesis and attainable conclusion. Evidently, what can be discerned from the observable evidence is the absence of a robust argument for extending the hadd punishment for khamr consumption to cases where no harm befalls the drinker or a third party. Although there may be doubt regarding the inherent harm of mere intoxication, it can be considered a form of harm and the point of intersection justifying criminalization. Therefore, it is desirable for the legislator to consider such foundations and contemplate reforms.