Firstly, this question is a subsidiary of a broader issue, which is: Can a Muslim rely on the information provided to him/her by a third party in the matters of consumables, drinks, clothing, and accessories, or should he/she investigate more details? For example, buying meat labeled as ‘ḥalāl’ or ‘kosher,’ or nail polish labeled as allowing water to reach the nail, or barley drink labeled as ‘ḥalāl,’ and so on.
Moreover, what is the default ruling for these things, is it permissibility, with the consequent lack of need for detailed verification, or is the default to clear oneself from any doubt and exhaust effort in obtaining certainty about such doubt?
Secondly, it is known that there are three levels of knowledge:
- Reported knowledge, obtained through someone we assume to be truthful.
- Eye-witnessed knowledge, acquired through personal observation without direct participation.
- Clear-cut knowledge, the highest level of knowledge, obtained only by being a part of the information or event.
Most Islamic obligations fall into the first category, and the second or third categories are not sought for them.
For example, proving the sighting of the crescent moon of the new Hijriy month by an individual, starting the prayer time with the call to prayer, knowing the direction of the Qiblah by a guide, and others.
Thirdly, among the important sources of Islamic legislation that we rely on in the subsidiary issues is the principle of presumption of continuity (Al-Istiṣḥāb) and its derived maxims such as the following: (The original status of deeds is permissibility, the original status of accusations is innocence, the original status of speech is truthfulness, and the original status of temporary attributes is non-existence).
The importance of these maxims lies in helping to stabilize legal rulings and means of arbitration, combating skepticism, sophistry, demagoguery, and extremism.
Correct judgment in this arbitration is to refer to the foundational principles and maxims, for example:
- Presuming the continuity of the original status of the country and its inhabitants regarding the food. We do not have to question the permissibility of consumables in a Muslim country, as we assume the country is Muslim and its consumables are ḥalāl until the otherwise is proven.
- Presuming the continuity of the original status of truthfulness for a Muslim speaker/reporter until the otherwise is proven. This is because Islam is the original status of such speaker/reporter, but untrustworthiness is situational.
- Presuming the continuity of the original status of truthfulness of a non-Muslim speaker/reporter if bound by laws and regulatory bodies to be truthful. This is because the original status is subjection to law, but the violation is situational.
Accordingly, my opinion regarding the question comes as follows:
If this nail polish is produced in an Islamic country officially and is labeled as not preventing water from reaching the nails, it is to be treated similarly to henna and hair dye. In this case, it is permissible to use it, depending on the presumed truthfulness of the information provider.
If it is produced in a non-Islamic country and has obtained approval stating that it does not prevent water from reaching the nails (i.e., it is not waterproof), then it is also permissible to use it, relying on the truthfulness of the approving authority.
However, if neither of these conditions is met, the principle revolves around the ḥadīth regarding the performing Wuḍū᾽ properly. The responsibility for reaching water to the nails is factual not presumed in case of unavailable evidence for the original status.
“The responsibility for reaching water to the nails is factual” means that certainty here is established through action, not presumption, in accordance with the ḥadīth “performing Wuḍū᾽ properly.” Thus, the one performing Wuḍū᾽ must ensure that water reaches the washed area, and mere presumption is not sufficient.
When we say “in case of unavailable evidence for the original status,” we refer to the presumed continuous original status, which is the penetration of water to the washed part. For example, in the case of someone working in dyeing, the original status is that dyes do not inherently prevent water from reaching the skin.
What we mean by “if neither of these conditions is met,” in the absence of a specific textual evidence, is that the principle is for those using these substances (e.g. nail polish) to ensure the penetration of water to the washed part practically, not solely relying on labels provided on products.
Fatwa issued by Dr. Khālid Naṣr
