The Permissibility of Applying Kohl for the Fasting Person
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
His Eminence the Shaykh: I was reading your book (Sharh Bulugh al-Maram) in the chapter on fasting in a gathering, and the topic was applying kohl, where you leaned toward the view that it does not invalidate the fast, following the preference of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. So a judge in this gathering objected to me,And he said: saying, "How can the Shaykh publish such a thing to the general public? It seems the more cautious view is that applying kohl invalidates the fast."And he spoke on this topic until he said: This is like his statement that offering condolences is a religious innovation, even though offering condolences involves a degree of maintaining mutual compassion among people.
So what is your response to such a statement?
As for the issue of applying kohl: It is necessary to clarify this to the people, because applying kohl is something that is sometimes needed,If we say to the fasting person: and we have not forbidden them from applying kohl what Allah has made lawful for them, and they are in need of it, so we have restricted the people in what is broad.
And as for His saying: If caution means following these people, then we ask: What is caution?Caution: Caution is following what the Sunnah indicates, and caution is not taking the stricter view; taking the easier view may be the caution. So caution is conforming to the Shari'ah, and it is obligatory for us, when we know a ruling from the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), to clarify it to the people: [Al Imran: 187] especially in matters that people need.
And people need kohl, especially those who are accustomed to it and whose eyes do not function properly without it. So what do you think of a man who needs kohl, or a woman, but he forgot to apply it until the dawn broke and he became fasting,If we say: and he does not apply kohl, so he is distressed in his vision,And if we say: or he applies kohl and breaks his fast, so we have invalidated his fast.
And there is no evidence for that.
So this is our answer to this issue and to others as well. Everything that people need clarified, it is obligatory for the scholar to clarify what is clear to him regarding the truth in it, because he is accountable for that.
And as for the issue of condolences: So the reason for abandoning condolences was that it would be severing family ties, because people had become accustomed to it, so the one who did not attend was considered by them to be severing family ties. But if people had abandoned it as the Companions and the Successors abandoned it, then abandoning it would not have been severing family ties, and abandoning it would have become a custom. For this reason, if the students of knowledge had clarified this matter to the people, and started with themselves as we started with ourselves—for example, if our father passed away and we did not sit for condolences, or if our mother passed away and we did not sit for condolences—if the scholars had done that, there would have been much good in it, and people would have abandoned these customs, especially in some countries,If you pass by a house where someone has died, you say: where this is a house with a wedding! Because you see in it, inside and out, lights, chairs, and things that contradict the Shari'ah, and there is extravagance and waste in it.
So it is obligatory for a person to know the truth from the Book and the Sunnah, not from the customs of people. If people had abandoned these customs and condolences were offered wherever the one being consoled was found, whether in the market or in the mosque, it would have been better.Also: Condolences are for the bereaved only, or for a close relative. Some relatives do not care about the death of their relative, and perhaps they rejoice when their relative dies. There may have been quarrels, disputes, and litigation between him and his relative,If someone dies, he says: and he says, "Praise be to Allah who has relieved me of this."
So condolences are for the bereaved only.As came in the hadith: (Whoever consoles a bereaved person has a reward like his) So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: (a bereaved person),And he did not say: (Whoever consoles one who has lost a deceased person).
So in such issues, it is obligatory for the students of knowledge to clarify the truth to the people, so that people will be upon guidance, not upon desire. In any case, everyone has his own opinion.
But I say: It is obligatory for one who is sincere to Allah and to the leaders of the Muslims, if he sees something in his brother that he considers to be an error, that he speak to his brother directly,And he says to him: saying, "You said such and such, and it has become unclear to us, so that confusion does not arise among the general public."
Also: If the one who made the error refrains on his own, that is better than if he is refuted. And perhaps if he is refuted, he will be stubborn and commit the error even though the error has become clear to him; he is seized by arrogance in sin.
So it is obligatory for the scholars, if they see an error in their brothers, to speak to them. And perhaps the error is in their understanding and it is actually correct, and they return to it.
Therefore, I would like you to say to this brother who said: Caution: that caution is: what came in the Book and the Sunnah. This is caution.
So where in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah is it stated that kohl is a fast-breaker? If he has a text from the Qur'an or the Sunnah, then it is on my eyes and head. And if he does not have a text, then the original ruling is that the fast of the one who applies kohl is valid and established by the evidence of the Shari'ah. We cannot restrict Allah's servants or forbid them what Allah has made lawful for them except with evidence.Because Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) will ask us: Why have you forbidden this thing to My servants without My permission? So the matter is not easy, because forbidding what is lawful is more severe than permitting what is forbidden. Permitting what is forbidden involves easing, whereas forbidding what is lawful involves strictness. The Islamic religion leans toward ease and simplicity more than it leans toward restriction and difficulty. And although both forbidding what is lawful and permitting what is forbidden lead their doer to destruction, because it is a fabrication against Allah,Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: [An-Nahl: 116].
So what is your response to such a statement?
As for the issue of applying kohl: It is necessary to clarify this to the people, because applying kohl is something that is sometimes needed,If we say to the fasting person: and we have not forbidden them from applying kohl what Allah has made lawful for them, and they are in need of it, so we have restricted the people in what is broad.
And as for His saying: If caution means following these people, then we ask: What is caution?Caution: Caution is following what the Sunnah indicates, and caution is not taking the stricter view; taking the easier view may be the caution. So caution is conforming to the Shari'ah, and it is obligatory for us, when we know a ruling from the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), to clarify it to the people:
And [mention, O Muhammad], when Allah took a covenant from those who were given the Scripture, [saying], "You must make it clear to the people and not conceal it."
وَإِذْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثَاقَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ لَتُبَيِّنُنَّهُ لِلنَّاسِ وَلا تَكْتُمُونَهُAnd people need kohl, especially those who are accustomed to it and whose eyes do not function properly without it. So what do you think of a man who needs kohl, or a woman, but he forgot to apply it until the dawn broke and he became fasting,If we say: and he does not apply kohl, so he is distressed in his vision,And if we say: or he applies kohl and breaks his fast, so we have invalidated his fast.
And there is no evidence for that.
So this is our answer to this issue and to others as well. Everything that people need clarified, it is obligatory for the scholar to clarify what is clear to him regarding the truth in it, because he is accountable for that.
And as for the issue of condolences: So the reason for abandoning condolences was that it would be severing family ties, because people had become accustomed to it, so the one who did not attend was considered by them to be severing family ties. But if people had abandoned it as the Companions and the Successors abandoned it, then abandoning it would not have been severing family ties, and abandoning it would have become a custom. For this reason, if the students of knowledge had clarified this matter to the people, and started with themselves as we started with ourselves—for example, if our father passed away and we did not sit for condolences, or if our mother passed away and we did not sit for condolences—if the scholars had done that, there would have been much good in it, and people would have abandoned these customs, especially in some countries,If you pass by a house where someone has died, you say: where this is a house with a wedding! Because you see in it, inside and out, lights, chairs, and things that contradict the Shari'ah, and there is extravagance and waste in it.
So it is obligatory for a person to know the truth from the Book and the Sunnah, not from the customs of people. If people had abandoned these customs and condolences were offered wherever the one being consoled was found, whether in the market or in the mosque, it would have been better.Also: Condolences are for the bereaved only, or for a close relative. Some relatives do not care about the death of their relative, and perhaps they rejoice when their relative dies. There may have been quarrels, disputes, and litigation between him and his relative,If someone dies, he says: and he says, "Praise be to Allah who has relieved me of this."
So condolences are for the bereaved only.As came in the hadith: (Whoever consoles a bereaved person has a reward like his) So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: (a bereaved person),And he did not say: (Whoever consoles one who has lost a deceased person).
So in such issues, it is obligatory for the students of knowledge to clarify the truth to the people, so that people will be upon guidance, not upon desire. In any case, everyone has his own opinion.
But I say: It is obligatory for one who is sincere to Allah and to the leaders of the Muslims, if he sees something in his brother that he considers to be an error, that he speak to his brother directly,And he says to him: saying, "You said such and such, and it has become unclear to us, so that confusion does not arise among the general public."
Also: If the one who made the error refrains on his own, that is better than if he is refuted. And perhaps if he is refuted, he will be stubborn and commit the error even though the error has become clear to him; he is seized by arrogance in sin.
So it is obligatory for the scholars, if they see an error in their brothers, to speak to them. And perhaps the error is in their understanding and it is actually correct, and they return to it.
Therefore, I would like you to say to this brother who said: Caution: that caution is: what came in the Book and the Sunnah. This is caution.
So where in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah is it stated that kohl is a fast-breaker? If he has a text from the Qur'an or the Sunnah, then it is on my eyes and head. And if he does not have a text, then the original ruling is that the fast of the one who applies kohl is valid and established by the evidence of the Shari'ah. We cannot restrict Allah's servants or forbid them what Allah has made lawful for them except with evidence.Because Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) will ask us: Why have you forbidden this thing to My servants without My permission? So the matter is not easy, because forbidding what is lawful is more severe than permitting what is forbidden. Permitting what is forbidden involves easing, whereas forbidding what is lawful involves strictness. The Islamic religion leans toward ease and simplicity more than it leans toward restriction and difficulty. And although both forbidding what is lawful and permitting what is forbidden lead their doer to destruction, because it is a fabrication against Allah,Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: