Hadith 3602

(2) The statement: And he did not order anything regarding him: It is said in al-Maraqat: It is possible that he was not dealt with after entering al-Abbas’s house because the punishment was not established against him by his confession or the testimony of upright witnesses, but he was found staggering in the path, and intoxication was assumed, so the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did not investigate him and left him as is. It is also possible that he was not dealt with because he was staggering in the path, meaning the effect of intoxication appeared in his walk, movements, and limbs, which does not warrant punishment. If it were that he did not recognize anything, even the earth from the sky, he would not have been left as is, and the punishment would have been enforced. This is what Abu Hanifa held.

(3) The statement: He has no blood money, etc.: Meaning, if he dies from a prescribed punishment or discretionary punishment, his blood is wasted, and nothing is obligated, neither on the imam nor the flogger, nor the one who disciplines by his order, without distinction between the punishment for drinking and others. This is our view, and that of Malik and Ahmad, contrary to al-Shafi’i, because the imam is commanded to enforce the punishment and discretionary discipline, and the action of the commanded is not conditioned on safety. Its details are in al-Fath and al-Tabyin. I say: The implication of the reasoning by the command is that this is not exclusive to the imam, as it was mentioned that every Muslim may enforce discretionary discipline during the commission of the sin, as he is commanded to remove evil, unless he can refer it to the imam, so enforcement is not required of him, unlike the imam, so reflect. Also, our evidence is these narrations. (Taken from Explanation of Protection, Foundation of Care, Attainment of Desires, and Refutation of the Perplexed)

(٢) قوله: ولم يأمر فيه بشيء: قال في (المراقات): يحتمل أن يكون إنما لم يعرض له بعد دخوله دار العباس من أجل أنه لم يكن ثبت عليه الحد بإقرار منه أو شهادة عدول، وإنما لقي في الطريق يميل فظن به السكر، فلم يكشف عنه رسول الله ﷺ وتركه على ذلك. ويحتمل أن يكون إنما لم يعرض له من أجل أنه يميل في الفج أي يظهر أثر السكر في مشيه وحركاته وأطرافه، وهو لا يوجب الحد، ولو كان هو أن لا يعرف شيئًا حتى الأرض من السماء لما تركه على ذلك وأقام عليه الحد، هذا ما ذهب إليه أبو حنيفة .

(٣) قوله: فلا دية له إلخ: أي من حد أو عزر فمات، يعني من حده الإمام أو عزره فمات فدمه هدر لا يجب به شيء، لا على الإمام ولا على الجلاد، والمعزر بأمره من غير فرق بين حد الشرب وغيره، هذا عندنا ومالك وأحمد، خلافًا للشافعي؛ لأن الإمام مأمور بالحد والتعزير، وفعل المأمور لا يتقيد بشرط السلامة، وتمامه في (الفتح) و(التبيين).قلت: ومقتضى التعليل بالأمر أن ذلك غير خاص بالإمام فقد مر أن لكل مسلم إقامة التعزير حال مباشرة المعصية؛ لأنه مأمور بإزالة المنكر إلا أن يفرق بأنه يمكنه الرفع إلى الإمام، فلم تتعين الإقامة عليه بخلاف الإمام، فتأمل.وأيضًا حجتنا هذه الآثار. التقطته من (شرح الوقاية) و(عمدة الرعاية) و(نيل الأوطار) و(رد المحتار).