What is the ruling on applying kohl for the fasting person, and should this ruling be disseminated among the people? And what is the ruling on offering condolences, given that it involves a degree of maintaining family ties?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Your Eminence, I read your book *Sharh Bulugh al-Maram*. It was in the chapter on fasting, and the topic was applying kohl. You inclined to the view that it does not invalidate the fast, giving preference to the opinion of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.
A judge in this assembly objected to me and said: How can it be that the Shaykh disseminates such things to the general public?! It seems that the more cautious approach is that applying kohl invalidates the fast. He spoke on this topic, saying: "Like his statement, and I do not like to stir up such matters, but, like his statement: 'Offering condolences is an innovation,' even though it involves a degree of maintaining mutual compassion among people." What is your response to this? May Allah reward you with good. I do not like stirring up matters, but...?
The Shaykh : No, no, there is no harm. Good, this is good.
The questioner : It is not supposed that he speaks to me alone, I mean.
The Shaykh : I say: There is no harm, there is no harm. May Allah reward you with good.
As for the issue of applying kohl, it must be clarified to the people. It must, because applying kohl is something that is sometimes needed. If we tell the fasting person, "Do not apply kohl," we have forbidden him what Allah has made lawful for him, while he is in need of it. We have restricted the people in what is broad.
And as for his statement: "The cautious approach is to follow it, and that is preferable," we say: What is the cautious approach? The cautious approach is following what the Sunnah indicates. The cautious approach is not taking the stricter view. Taking the easier view may be the cautious approach.
So the cautious approach 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:[Ali 'Imran 3:187] 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. What do you think of a man who needs kohl, or a woman, but he forgot until the dawn broke and he became fasting? If we say, "Do not apply kohl," he will have difficulty seeing. If we say, "Apply kohl and break your fast," 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 the truth is for him in it, because he is accountable for that.
And as for the issue of condolences: The reason leaving it was considered severing family ties is that people became accustomed to it, so the one who stayed away from it was considered by them to be severing family ties. But if people had left it off, as the Companions and the Tabi'un left it off, leaving it off would not have been severing family ties; it would have been a custom.
Therefore, if the students of knowledge had clarified this matter to the people and started with themselves, as we started with ourselves—our father passed away and we did not sit for condolences, and our mothers passed away and we did not sit for condolences—if the scholars had done that, there would have been much good, and people would have left these customs. Especially in some countries, when you pass by the house where the deceased died, you say, "This is a wedding house," because of the lights, the people coming in and out, the chairs, and the things that do not conflict with the Shari'ah, but there is extravagance and waste in them.
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 left these customs off, and condolences were offered if one found the bereaved in the market or in the mosque, and also if one was bereaved, not if a relative died. Some relatives do not care about the death of a relative, and perhaps they rejoice when a relative dies. There may have been quarrels, disputes, and lawsuits between him and his relative, so when he dies, he says: "Praise be to Allah who has relieved me of him."
So condolences are for the bereaved only, as came in the hadith:Sunan Ibn Majah 1602Da’if (Darussalam) It did not say: "Whoever offers condolences to one whose relative died."
So in such matters, it is obligatory for the students of knowledge to clarify the truth to the people so that people proceed in them with guidance, not with desire. Yes.
The questioner : The objection.
The Shaykh : In any case, everyone has his opinion, but but the obligatory...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I say: I say: May Allah bless you. It is obligatory for one who is sincere to Allah and to the rulers of the Muslims, if he sees something in his brother that he considers an error, that he, yes, speak to his brother directly and say to him: "You said such and such, and it was unclear to us," so that confusion does not arise among the general public.
And also, if the one who erred returns to the right from himself, that is better than if he returns when 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. His pride in sin takes him. So it is obligatory for the scholars, if they see an error in their brothers, to speak to them. The error may be in their understanding, and it is correct, and they return to it.
And for that reason, I would like you to say to this brother who said, "The cautious approach," to clarify to him that the cautious approach is following what came in the Book and the Sunnah. That is the cautious approach.
So where in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of His Messenger is it that kohl breaks the fast? Where is that? If he has a text from the Qur'an or the Sunnah, then on my eyes and head. If he does not have a text, the original ruling is that the fast is valid and established by the evidence of the Shari'ah. And it is not possible for us to restrict Allah's servants and forbid them what Allah has made lawful for them except with evidence.
Allah will ask us: Why did you forbid this thing to My servants without My permission? So the matter is not light. Forbidding the lawful is like making the unlawful lawful, but it is more severe. Because making the unlawful lawful involves easing, but forbidding the lawful involves strictness. And the Islamic religion leans toward ease and simplicity more than it leans toward restriction and difficulty.
So the matter is this and that, both are[An-Nahl 16:116] Yes.
A judge in this assembly objected to me and said: How can it be that the Shaykh disseminates such things to the general public?! It seems that the more cautious approach is that applying kohl invalidates the fast. He spoke on this topic, saying: "Like his statement, and I do not like to stir up such matters, but, like his statement: 'Offering condolences is an innovation,' even though it involves a degree of maintaining mutual compassion among people." What is your response to this? May Allah reward you with good. I do not like stirring up matters, but...?
The Shaykh : No, no, there is no harm. Good, this is good.
The questioner : It is not supposed that he speaks to me alone, I mean.
The Shaykh : I say: There is no harm, there is no harm. May Allah reward you with good.
As for the issue of applying kohl, it must be clarified to the people. It must, because applying kohl is something that is sometimes needed. If we tell the fasting person, "Do not apply kohl," we have forbidden him what Allah has made lawful for him, while he is in need of it. We have restricted the people in what is broad.
And as for his statement: "The cautious approach is to follow it, and that is preferable," we say: What is the cautious approach? The cautious approach is following what the Sunnah indicates. The cautious approach is not taking the stricter view. Taking the easier view may be the cautious approach.
So the cautious approach 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. What do you think of a man who needs kohl, or a woman, but he forgot until the dawn broke and he became fasting? If we say, "Do not apply kohl," he will have difficulty seeing. If we say, "Apply kohl and break your fast," 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 the truth is for him in it, because he is accountable for that.
And as for the issue of condolences: The reason leaving it was considered severing family ties is that people became accustomed to it, so the one who stayed away from it was considered by them to be severing family ties. But if people had left it off, as the Companions and the Tabi'un left it off, leaving it off would not have been severing family ties; it would have been a custom.
Therefore, if the students of knowledge had clarified this matter to the people and started with themselves, as we started with ourselves—our father passed away and we did not sit for condolences, and our mothers passed away and we did not sit for condolences—if the scholars had done that, there would have been much good, and people would have left these customs. Especially in some countries, when you pass by the house where the deceased died, you say, "This is a wedding house," because of the lights, the people coming in and out, the chairs, and the things that do not conflict with the Shari'ah, but there is extravagance and waste in them.
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 left these customs off, and condolences were offered if one found the bereaved in the market or in the mosque, and also if one was bereaved, not if a relative died. Some relatives do not care about the death of a relative, and perhaps they rejoice when a relative dies. There may have been quarrels, disputes, and lawsuits between him and his relative, so when he dies, he says: "Praise be to Allah who has relieved me of him."
So condolences are for the bereaved only, as came in the hadith:
Whoever consoles a person stricken by calamity will have a reward equal to his.
من عزى مصابا فله مثل أجرهA bereaved person.
مصاباSo in such matters, it is obligatory for the students of knowledge to clarify the truth to the people so that people proceed in them with guidance, not with desire. Yes.
The questioner : The objection.
The Shaykh : In any case, everyone has his opinion, but but the obligatory...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I say: I say: May Allah bless you. It is obligatory for one who is sincere to Allah and to the rulers of the Muslims, if he sees something in his brother that he considers an error, that he, yes, speak to his brother directly and say to him: "You said such and such, and it was unclear to us," so that confusion does not arise among the general public.
And also, if the one who erred returns to the right from himself, that is better than if he returns when 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. His pride in sin takes him. So it is obligatory for the scholars, if they see an error in their brothers, to speak to them. The error may be in their understanding, and it is correct, and they return to it.
And for that reason, I would like you to say to this brother who said, "The cautious approach," to clarify to him that the cautious approach is following what came in the Book and the Sunnah. That is the cautious approach.
So where in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of His Messenger is it that kohl breaks the fast? Where is that? If he has a text from the Qur'an or the Sunnah, then on my eyes and head. If he does not have a text, the original ruling is that the fast is valid and established by the evidence of the Shari'ah. And it is not possible for us to restrict Allah's servants and forbid them what Allah has made lawful for them except with evidence.
Allah will ask us: Why did you forbid this thing to My servants without My permission? So the matter is not light. Forbidding the lawful is like making the unlawful lawful, but it is more severe. Because making the unlawful lawful involves easing, but forbidding the lawful involves strictness. And the Islamic religion leans toward ease and simplicity more than it leans toward restriction and difficulty.
So the matter is this and that, both are