Narcotics and drugging

Takhdir is a numbness that overcomes some limbs or the whole body; a narcotic makes a person lose consciousness in varying degrees, as with henbane, hashish or opium. Most jurists forbid taking narcotics that cloud the mind, and hold that they are forbidden for their harm rather than in themselves. ^{1 2 3}

Khadar is a slackness that comes over the limbs. A narcotic is a later coinage. Jurists distinguish tafttir (weakening, a wider term), faintness (which does not come from a drug), and intoxication (which removes the mind but leaves the senses and movement). Al-Hattab says an intoxicant clouds the mind without the senses, with elation; a stupefying substance clouds the mind without elation; a narcotic clouds mind and senses alike. ¹

Narcotics differ by their source. The book names hashish from the hemp plant, opium from the unripe poppy capsule, qat, cocaine, henbane, kafta, nutmeg and barsh, a mix of opium and henbane. It reports, citing Ibn Taymiyya, that hashish appeared at the end of the sixth Hijri century under the Tatars; the footnote spells the name as Ibn Qayyim, probably an OCR error. ²

• Most jurists forbid taking narcotics that cloud the mind, even when they do not produce the elation of an intoxicant. Solid narcotics that harm the mind or body are forbidden if taken in a harmful amount; what is taken for treatment is not, because the prohibition concerns harm, not the substance itself. ^{2 3}
• Ibn Taymiyya holds that anything that clouds the mind is forbidden, since clouding the mind is forbidden by consensus unless there is a legitimate purpose. ²
• Henbane, opium and hashish are forbidden outside treatment; a harmful dose of nutmeg is forbidden, though less severely than hashish. ³
• On qat there is a dispute: a Shafi'i jurist, Abu Bakr ibn Ibrahim al-Muqri, wrote for its prohibition; Hamza al-Nashiri held the same; Ibn Hajar's risala "Warning the Trustworthy about Eating Qat" also concludes for prohibition. ³

The basis is a report of Umm Salama: "he forbade every intoxicant and every stupefier". In one place the book calls its chain sound (Ahmad and Abu Dawud); in a footnote it calls Abu Dawud's chain weak. The record keeps both. Ibn Hajar takes it to cover hashish, since it intoxicates, stupefies and dulls. Al-Qarafi and Ibn Taymiyya report consensus on hashish's prohibition; Ibn Taymiyya says whoever permits it is an unbeliever, and that the four imams did not discuss it because it did not exist in their time. ^{3 4}

Most jurists hold solid narcotics pure, and dissolving them in water does not make them impure, since the impurity of intoxicants applies to liquid ones such as wine. Ibn Daqiq al-'Id reports consensus on their purity, though some Hanbalis preferred the impurity of solid ones. ^{3 5}

Asked about someone who would die if he stopped taking opium or hashish, Ibn Hajar al-Makki ruled that taking them is permitted, indeed obligatory, to preserve life, and that the dose should be reduced gradually until the habit fades. ⁵

Most jurists allow selling narcotics for treatment and make the destroyer liable. Some forbid selling hashish: Ibn Nujaym al-Hanafi, and Ibn al-Shihna, who says the seller is punished. Ibn Taymiyya holds hashish impure like wine. Sale without a lawful purpose is forbidden to the Malikis and the Shafi'is when the buyer is known or likely to misuse it, and the destroyer is not liable. ⁵

• Taken for treatment, the drug makes his acts invalid, according to most jurists. ⁵
• Taken without excuse, the Hanafis validate his acts except apostasy, confession of a fixed penalty and testimony. His divorce and manumission fall valid, and the Hanafi scholars ruled that divorce falls through hashish. ⁴
• The Malikis validate his divorce and manumission and hold him liable for penalties, but his contracts are not valid according to the prevailing view. The Shafi'is validate all his acts. Among the Hanbalis the sound view is that divorce does not fall from one whose mind was cleared by henbane without need; Ibn Taymiyya holds hashish like wine for the hadd. ^{4 6}

All agree there is no penalty for one who takes a drug for treatment even if it clouds his mind. Most jurists impose no hadd on one who takes a mind-clouding amount without excuse, except Ibn Taymiyya for hashish; all agree on ta'zir. The Shafi'is add that a person who has reached dependence is not disciplined but must quit gradually. ⁶