تأملي در ادله و فتاواي مفطر بودن رساندن غبار و دود به حلق

A Reflection on the Evidences and Fatwās of the Invalidating (Breaking, Arabic: مُفِطر) of Letting Dust and Smoke Reach One’s Throat

مشهور فقها حكم به مفطر بودن «رساندن غبار غليظ به حلق» داده‌اند و بيشتر مراجع معاصر بنا بر احتياط واجب، آن را مفطر مي‌دانند. اما اين مسئله فروعات و ادلۀ مختلفي دارد كه به مناسبت آن‌ها، نظرات فقها نيز مختلف مي‌شود. فرع اول مسئله، قيد غلظت غبار يا اطلاق آن، و فرع دوم آن، الحاق دود و بخار به غبار است. در ميان ادله، ظاهراً روايت سليمان مروزي دليل اصلي اين حكم بوده است. اما وجود اصالت اطلاق و تعارض روايت عمرو بن سعيد با روايت سليمان مروزي، دو چالش مهم در دلالت روايت سليمان ايجاد مي‌كند. همچنين الحاق رساندن غبار غليظ به حلق، به مفطر اصلي اكل و شرب يا عدم الحاق آن مطرح است كه در اصل مسئله تأثير دارد. به نظر مي‌رسد حكم احتياط واجب از سوي فقها، راهي براي احتياط حَسَن و تخلّص از اين ابهامات است. با بررسي اين فروعات و ادله به اين نتيجه رسيده‌ايم كه اگرچه حكم احتياط واجب براي مفطر بودن غبار و دخان و بخار، به عنوان يك مفطر مستقل شهرت دارد، اما بسيار مشكل است.

Well-known (dominant) jurists have ruled that (letting thick dust reach one’s throat) is invalidating (breaking the fast), and most contemporary authorities consider it as an obligatory precaution. However, this issue has different arguments and branches, due to which the opinions of jurists also differ. The first branch of the problem is the concentration of dust or its absoluteness and the second branch is the addition of smoke and steam to the dust. Apparently, the narration of Soleiman Marvazi, among the evidences was the main reason for this verdict. However, the existence of the principle of the absoluteness and the conflict between the narration of Amr ibn Saeed and the narration of Soleiman Marvazi, creates two important challenges in the meaning of the narration of Soleiman. It has an effect on the issue to consider or not to consider attaching concentrated dust to the throat (letting thick dust reach one’s throat), to the main invalidating (breaking the fast, things which make a Fast void) eating and drinking. It seems that the verdict of obligatory precaution by the jurists is a way for better precaution and to get rid of these ambiguities. We have come to the conclusion by examining these arguments and branches that although the obligatory precautionary verdict for dust, smoke and steam is known as an independent breaking dominantly, but it is very difficult.