drops in eyes and fasting

Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by abu Hasan, May 22, 2018.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i have seen the response below. will answer as soon as i get some time. in sha'Allah.
     
  2. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail New Member

    Aoa, brother abu Hassan. I am a medical doctor by profession. You can ask any doctor if you wish, all doctors deal this as a fact that the naslo-lacrimal duct is a route- a passage- that provides a conduit for the flow of tears from the eyes to the nasal cavity. In case of blockade of this duct, this leads to excessive lacrimation-tearing. The Nasal cavity communicates directly with the throat or the oropharynx.

    Answering your questions:

    if the illah is that, "if it is established, that a passage exists between eyes and throat (howsoever small), and if anything reaches the throat from this 'route' of the eyes, the fast is broken", then we need to answer:

    1. what about washing/splashing water on eyes and water entering the same passage?

    This is something that is impossible to avoid especially in wudu, therefore the fast would not break. Wudu itself, is impossible to avoid for a muslim intending to read namaz.

    Utilizing ear drops, is not something that is impossible to avoid. It IS avoidable.


    2. what about tears entering the passage?

    What about Saliva entering the throat, produced in your mouth by the salivary glands? Again this is something that is impossible to avoid.

    3. what about kohl entering the passage?

    the third one is very important here. this poses a major problem as follows:

    1. according to all the citations from hanafi books [unbeknown has pointed this out] the illah of the fast not breaking even if the taste is felt in the throat is because, it reaches there by the pores/masaam.

    2. so, according to contemporary scholars, if this is mistaken understanding by earlier ulama as they didn't know that a passage exists, then it follows that the fast should break - because the kohl enters the throat by the passage / manfadh and so also eye drops and anything else.

    3. if the above is true, that is according to "modern research" kohl entering the throat by way of eyes, breaks the fast, then how do you explain the hadith that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam applied kohl while fasting? who amongst us will dare to say (ma'adhAllah) that it was because of not knowing...? al-iyadhu billah.


    This doesnot change the rule.

    1) an accepted principle of Hanafi Fiqh, which is that anything which enters the throat or stomach through the pores does not invalidate the fast. Rather, when something reaches the throat or stomach through any routes or passages, only then does it invalidate the fast.

    According to the jurists,
    1) Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) wore Kohl during Ramadan. Therefore
    2)“Surma can be applied at any time, and even if the colour of the surma reaches the throat, there is still no problem, as it passed through the pores [masam]. There is no such hole (passage) in the eyes like in the nose and ears that invalidates the fast if something enters it.” [Fatawa Ridawiyyah 10:511]
    3)The reason as to why the fast will not break, even if the taste of the medicine (eyedrop) is sensed in the throat, is because the medicine that is inserted into the eyes reaches the throat through pores (masam) and not through a specific manfaz (passage).

    1 is a fact. 2 and 3 (the highlighted part) is an attempt to explain why 1 is a fact and also rationalize why putting medicines in the eye can be permissible. This attempt or more precisely the reasoning doesn't stand tall in front of what has been proven without a doubt on anatomical models, eye scans and even treating different disease etiology. Niether does it (putting eyedrops) stand tall at the face of the hanafi rule stated earlier i.e. Rather, when something reaches the throat or stomach through any routes or passages, only then does it invalidate the fast.

    The fact (1), however, remains the fact.


    The methodology is to treat 1 as a fact i.e Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) wore it and WEARING KOHL DOESNOT BREAK the fast without even delving into WHY IT DOESN'T. Because seriously THIS DOESNOT NEED ANY EXPLAINATION.

    However, at the same time necessarily comitting to the ruling that EYEDROPS invalidate the fast?
    Why?
    Because if this is not done, THEN it would undermine the HANAFI RULE ITSELF, in the light of evidence that nasolacrimal duct is a passage, which is "when something reaches the throat or stomach through any routes or passages, only then does it invalidate the fast." and one could ask the question

    "Why does putting eye drops not invalidate the fast where as drinking or eating medicine does, when both of them ultimately lead through passages to the throat*?"
    *Nasopharynx is in direct communication with oropharynx.

    Or
    one can undermine the scientific evidence itself claiming that nasolacrimal duct is an indirect passage, which is what you are attempting to try, i guess.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2019
    Ghulaam likes this.
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    bump.
     
    Seekers Path likes this.
  4. Umar99

    Umar99 Veteran

    I know, I just posted the ruling for anyone who is unaware and may be reading this.
     
  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    the premise that there is a passage between eye and throat is itself flawed. there is a route, true, but it is not a direct route as amply demonstrated below. let us discount everything i have said below. let us cite mufti qasim zia sahib, from this fatwa here.
    let us read it with some key words emphasised.

    This is the lacrimal punctum. When you produce tears or have another liquid in your eyes, some of it drains
    ---> into these holes
    ---> and then into the lacrimal sac,
    ---> the nasolacrimal duct,
    ---> and eventually into the back of your nose
    ---> and throat, where you might get a taste.’
    so where is this direct passage like that of the nose and mouth?

    ---

    apart from mere conjecture about previous fuqaha that they did not know, people have glossed over a much bigger thing.

    our hanafi imams have asserted that our scholars allowed kohl, because of the Hadith (see badayiy and others) - that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam applied kohl while fasting; does the theory that 'previous scholars were not aware of this passage' still hold, or is superseded by the action of the shaari'y?

    if the illah is that, "if it is established, that a passage exists between eyes and throat (howsoever small), and if anything reaches the throat from this 'route' of the eyes, the fast is broken", then we need to answer:

    1. what about washing/splashing water on eyes and water entering the same passage?
    2. what about tears entering the passage?
    3. what about kohl entering the passage?

    the third one is very important here. this poses a major problem as follows:

    1. according to all the citations from hanafi books [unbeknown has pointed this out] the illah of the fast not breaking even if the taste is felt in the throat is because, it reaches there by the pores/masaam.

    2. so, according to contemporary scholars, if this is mistaken understanding by earlier ulama as they didn't know that a passage exists, then it follows that the fast should break - because the kohl enters the throat by the passage / manfadh and so also eye drops and anything else.

    3. if the above is true, that is according to "modern research" kohl entering the throat by way of eyes, breaks the fast, then how do you explain the hadith that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam applied kohl while fasting? who amongst us will dare to say (ma'adhAllah) that it was because of not knowing...? al-iyadhu billah.

    mabsut sarakhsi, v3 p67:
    mabsut, v3p67b.png


    4. and unlike other cases, there is not warning about being careful in fasting either. [in the hadith, RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam said, rinse your mouth and wash your nose freely except when you are fasting - and be careful when you are fasting.]

    badayiy al-sanayiy, v2 p606
    badayiy, v2p606b.png
    why is there no warning on being careful in not letting water in the eyes? who amongst us will dare to say (ma'adhAllah) that it was because of not knowing...? al-iyadhu billah.

    5. also, if you say that it is a special case (that is, applying kohl) then you should specify why so.


    wAllahu a'alam.​
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2018
  6. sunni12

    sunni12 New Member

  7. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    @Umar99 I am not saying that injections will invalidate the fast. My point is that the reasoning applied to make injections permissible is also applicable to that of eye drops.

    If injecting through the needles is allowed - and needle sizes maybe comparable or larger than that of the puncta - then why should eye drops be disallowed - whereas scholars down the centuries have allowed them? Add to that the fact that the former is deliberate and the latter incidental.

    If you want to take the approach of scholars who declared it impermissible, then you should disallow kohl as well.

    See the information posted below which proves that the argument that past scholars did not know about the puncta is untenable and inadmissible.

    See the punctum sizes posted by sidi abu Hasan in post#12 below and compare it to the needle sizes here.

    Note that the thinnest is 33 gauge and about 100 microns. And not everyone uses that thin needles.


    [​IMG]

    Allah knows best.
     
    Juwayni likes this.
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    "pores between the eyes and throat" sounds like bad anatomy, and does not make sense.

    ----
    pores are tiny openings; so the lacrimal puncta can be treated as a pore. manafidh are open passages/pathways. in badayiy, this is even demarcated:

    badayiy, v2p606.png


    "...the bodily orifices such as nose, ear or anus..."

    ===
     
    Bazdawi and Unbeknown like this.
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    imam sarakhsi also considers it analogous to dust and smoke.

    mabsut, v3p67.png

    ===
    if we treat the nasolacrimal punctum as a passage, pathway, 'route' etc. then why do we gloss over the fact that it opens in the nose and not in the throat? from the anatomy we have read, there is no DIRECT passage from the eyes to the throat. specialists, please correct, if i am wrong.

    with that caveat, read imam sarakhsi's fatwa.
     
    Unbeknown likes this.
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    in this fatwa: http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/?p=7090 in sha'Allah, we will examine some aspects post-ramadan, but here are some more quick points:


    ----
    just for perspective, in badayiy al-Sanayiy: 2/608:

    badayiy v2p608.png

    if a person fasting applies kohl in the eyes, the fast does not break
    even if he feels the taste in his throat, according to most ulama.

    ibn abi layla said: this will break the fast.

    as for us [hanafis]: our proof is the hadith reported by abdullah ibn mas'ud raDiyAllahu anhu who said: "RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam came out [of his house] in ramaDan and his eyes were full of kohl; umm salamah had applied kohl in his eyes."

    this is because there is no direct pathway from the eye to the stomach/abdomen, nor to the brain [i.e. the frontal sinuses]; so the taste that one experiences is because of the traces [trickling down?] not because the thing itself is dropped per se [ayn]; and like dust and smoke it does not invalidate the fast.

    similarly, if one applies oil in his hair [i.e. the head] or his body and it is absorbed, this will not harm - because it is the traces that reach, not that the substance reaches directly....


    ====
     
  11. Umar99

    Umar99 Veteran

  12. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    One point I noticed regarding this voluntary/involuntary distinction is that the respected mawlana himself has used an involuntary occurrence [which does not break the fast] as valid proof for a voluntary act - that it will not break the fast too.

    I mean his fatwa about injections available here in which he writes:

    Three proofs will be presented regarding this.

    1. The fast does not become invalid from a snake bite, even though the poison from a snake bite enters the body, but despite this even then, the respected scholars of Fiqh have not regarded this as something which invalidates the fast. Rather, they have included this amongst those legally valid excuses due to which it is permissible to break the fast.
    Thus the case of snake bites [an involuntary occurrence - which people try to avoid rather than risk] is being used as one of the proofs for the permissibly of injections [a completely voluntary act].

    To say that it has only been used as proof because it proves that something that is injected into the flesh does not invalidate the fast - would in fact be arguing the standard hanafi position in regards to eye drops. Because in this case you have overlooked the "voluntary" "involuntary" distinction.

    So does the position regarding permissibility of medicine in the eye.

    Another point worth noting is that in case of eye drops or lenses, the seeping into the nose is completely incidental - no one deliberately injects medicine in the nose - whereas in the case of injections the intent is to inject it in the muscle/veins.

    What a big difference between the two - and yet - we are told that the one is completely impermissible and breaks the fast while the other is completely permissible.

    We know that saline I.V drips actually help to re-hydrate the body and yet it is said to not affect the fast but eye drops have no effect on the maqasid of fasting but are absolutely disallowed.

    I am unable to come to terms with this fatwa which is said to have the backing of 300 muftis.

    Allah knows best.
     
    Bazdawi likes this.
  13. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    An Untold Story: the Important Contributions of Muslim Scholars for the Understanding of Human Anatomy [link to PDF file]

    Quote from PDF pg#13:

    The nose (S5) has two pathways that end at the bone that resembles the filter (cribriform plate of the ethmoid bone), which lead to the two processes that look like nipples (olfactory bulb). The membrane of the brain (dura mater) is also pierced at this place to allow the odors to
    penetrate these openings. Interestingly, ibn Sina described the nasolacrimal duct and reported the presence of two channels between the inner corner of the eyes and the inner side of the nose, which explains the tasting of tears.


    ---


    S5 is the fifth section of of his, Al-Qanun fi Al-Tibb (The Canon of Medicine).

    This was in the late 10th century and early 11th century C.E. - almost a millennium ago.

    As is evident from the above paper (and several articles across the internet, see this one for instance), some of history's greatest advancements in ophthalmology came from Muslim lands. We need not wait for Gray and Carter to tell us about tear ducts almost 900 years later.

    ---

    Remember that Sadr-al-shari'ah came from a family of physicians (hakeems) and he was a hakeem himself. And Alahazrat was an empiricist par excellence, see his Ĥusn at-Támmum li Bayāni Ĥadd at-Tayammum to get a feel of his research capabilities. And see this post by sidi abu Hasan as well.

    When these giants put their pens to paper, the ink did not despoil the face of the parchment with assumptions and conjectures, it only traced knowledge, in gilded lettering.

    wa lillaahil Hamd
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
  14. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    From the first fatwa:

    I am still trying to understand why the knowledge of the presence of the lacrimal duct is being billed as "new" research.

    For a start we have Gray's Anatomy whose first edition was published way back in 1858. It's publication history shows that it has seen several editions since and with each successive edition, newer material kept on being added to it.

    However, the lacrimal apparatus was described in the first edition itself - see pages 566-567 of the first edition here.

    Even if we assume (and quite a big assumption that would be) that he was the first to describe it - it still seems rather an impossibility that this information did not become widespread even in the next half a century (till 1900) - for Alahazrat and Sadr al-Shari'ah, not to mention scores of other scholars, to remain ignorant about it. Note that the British had established themselves in India long before 1858.

    See this paper: Physicians of colonial India (1757–1900)

    I recommend reading the following section of the above paper in full: Phase 2 (1820–1900): The Game of State Patronage.

    It will give you a sense of how much information and knowledge was exchanged between the West and the East and even translated into native languages.

    To quote the opening lines:

    In 1822, the British set up the Native Medical Institution (NMI) to prepare medical staff for the SMS. Courses were taught in Urdu and included both Western and Indian medical concepts.[9,10,11,13] Similarly, Sanskrit College in Calcutta, founded in 1824, also imparted medical education to Indians in both Western and Indian medicine.[9,10]

    ------

    But that is not all.

    See this paper: Origins of lacrimal surgery, and evolution of dacryocystorhinostomy to the present.

    I will quote just the first sentence:

    The creation of an alternative pathway from the lacrimal sac into the nose has been practiced for over two millennia.

    ---

    In the light of the above, the claim that scholars till as late as Alahazrat's time did not know about the presence of these ducts and assumed them to be pores is rendered highly questionable - untenable even.

    With due respect to all these scholars, there is no positive proof that Alahazrat and Sadr-al-Shari'ah or for that matter any of the earlier scholars did not know about these passages and assumed them to be pores.

    If anyone has such a proof, they are very welcome to share it.

    What is more likely is that, due their insignificant dimensions, they classified these ducts as pores and hence used the specific technical term.

    At the very least, they were consistent in their treatment of this duct - when they excused, they excused everything - water, tears, surma, medicine.

    But with the revised position - the axe has fallen squarely on the eye-drops alone.

    ---

    Allah knows best.
     
    ridawi, Juwayni and Bazdawi like this.
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    Bazdawi likes this.
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    disclaimer: these are readings by a non-specialist, so please make allowance for any erroneous understanding or mistaken notions that non-specialists would make; experts are welcome to correct any mistakes.


    ==================
    research paper, that has close up images of the punctum and also has a section on punctum size. (see table 1 on page 5).

    Characterizing the lacrimal punctal region using
    anterior segment optical coherence tomography

    Hannah M. Timlin, Pearse A. Keane, Alexander C. Day, Tahrina Salam, Mohammed Abdullah, Geoffrey E. Rose and Daniel G. Ezra


    paperwiley.png


    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/aos.12906

    ====
     
  18. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    see the second image on this page to how the fluid entering the punctum reaches the throat. notice that it is not direct.

    https://pocketdentistry.com/the-paranasal-sinuses/

    ----
    [​IMG]




    so the balal, i was talking about is just to illustrate that the amount of water through the mouth, when it can reach the throat directly (and notice the size of the mouth and the amount of water you use when you rinse). this is exempt because it is unavoidable.

    now, the eye drops - compare the volume of the eye drop - and that ALL of it won't simply pour in the throat. just traces of which, mixed with tears enter the punctum and from there to the nasolacrimal duct, and fraction of those traces trickle to the throat. while water also reaches in the same manner, its taste is not detected. but the taste of eye-drops is detected.
     
    Noori likes this.
  20. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    wa alaykumu's salam.

    i just read it. there is some bad reasoning etc., but i won't dwell on it now. in sha'Allah if i get time, i will answer after ramadan.

    ---
    however, i just want to ask:

    1. is this passage (lacrimal duct) similar to the passages in the mouth and nose?

    2. how much of fluid (in volume) at any time can reach the throat? will any amount nullify the fast, even if it is merely a trace?

    3. is there a DIRECT connection from the eye to the throat, such that anything poured in the eye gets dropped in the throat?​


    suppose #1 is true, and you discount the size of the passage and treat it as the same?

    4. is fast invalidated if water reaches the throat through the mouth, when put voluntarily, such as for rinsing one's mouth in wuDu?​


    if so, then splashing water in the eye will lead to the following questions:

    5. does water splashed in the eyes reach the throat through the lacrimal duct?

    6. obviously, if it is an open passage that allows eye-drops to enter the throat, what stops water from entering it?

    7. does splashing water in the eyes voluntarily, invalidate the fast? this includes wuDu and ghusl and diving underwater.

    8. if the answer to #7 above is no (i.e. voluntarily splashing water in the eye will not invalidate the fast), then why should eye drops invalidate the fast?

    9. secondly, why should water reaching the throat through the mouth voluntarily or involuntarily whilst being cognizant of being in the state of fast invalidates the fast, and why should water reaching the throat by way of the nasolacrimal duct NOT invalidate the fast?

    seekers.png

    1. will the water entering the eyes intentionally break the fast?

    2. when you pour water on your face (intentionally, by the way), there is no way you can avoid it splashing on the nasolacrimal duct (unless you press it, to close it as explained below). does this break the fast? for example during wuDu, or ghusl, or say diving in water or for some other reason you immerse your head in water.

    3. i would like to see a fatwa that clearly says that pouring water in the eyes will break the fast because it enters the nasolacrimal duct. instead of saying "IF it enters". because, why should eye-drops be so definite that they enter the orifice, and water is subject to doubt?

    4. will the water/drops break the fast by merely entering the eyes, or ONLY if they reach the throat?


    seekers2.png

    people use eye drops because they HAVE to. not because it is a recreational activity that one can 'avoid' it. we should be sensitive to the need of the people and a number of people need to use eye-drops due to their medical condition. while previous fuqaha have already permitted it, revising it on the basis of "new research" or better understanding of anatomy, at the same time ignoring the nuance or finer points will only inconvenience the awam.

    look at the kinds of dispensations given: injections for medicine will not invalidate the fast. pouring drops in the ear will not as long as the eardrum is not punctured (according to new research cited) but eye drops will break the fast!

    the question is, if one taken an injection in the throat, will it invalidate the fast? or injections in the belly - will this invalidate the fast?

    wa billahi't tawfiq.

    -----
    the nasolacrimal punctum was defined rightfully as a masaam (مسام) by earlier fuqaha. the nasolacrimal punctum should be treated as such instead of treating it as a 'passage' (منفذ) or an opening. because even the skin pores

    the sunniway fatwa cites alahazrat's fatawa riDawiyyah in this regard.

    FR v10p511.png

    ----
    for example the pores of the skin - each of the pores is small, but collectively can absorb more than the amount a lacrimal punctum can take.

    see this article to understand pores: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337418/

    ----
    even if you discount all the arguments above, eye specialists say that pinching the area near the lacrimal punctum will block the passage and hence prevent fluid entering it.

    should the fatwa not explain this process instead of flatly saying eye-drops invalidate fast?

    wAllahu ta'ala a'alam.


    ==========
    some links to help in research:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1857553/
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2018

Share This Page