general with respect to the illness, as a category, and general with respect to the sick person afflicted by it. This is because it is a noun made definite by the definite article, and a noun made definite by the definite article conveys generality. Some grammarians, however, maintain that the definite article is a relative pronoun, since when an active participle or passive participle is accompanied by the definite article, it has the meaning of a relative pronoun according to them.

Thus, there are two generalities here:

First: the illness, because the definite article denotes the genus.

Second: the person afflicted by the illness.

As for illness, what is meant is an illness that keeps a person from going out among people. If it does not keep him from doing so, then there is no need to visit him, since he attends gatherings with people and they see him. The exception is where it is known that a person goes out to the market or the mosque only with great difficulty, and one did not encounter him when he went out, while afterward he remains at home. In that case, we say that visiting him is prescribed.

A cold is undoubtedly an illness. If it confines a person indoors, it falls under this ruling; but if it does not confine him, as is most often the case, then he does not need to be visited. Likewise, someone suffering from toothache should be visited if it keeps him at home; but if he goes out and is among people, he should not be visited. There is, however, nothing wrong with asking after his condition if we know that he is suffering from toothache. The same ruling applies to someone suffering from eye pain: if the illness has confined him indoors, he should be visited; but if he goes out among people, he should not be visited, though his condition should be inquired about.

As for the person afflicted by illness, if he is not a Muslim, he should not be visited, unless