when fasting, because there is a passage from within the eye to the throat.

If their main reliance is on these analogies and others like them, a fast cannot be declared invalid on the strength of such analogies, for several reasons:

First, although analogy constitutes proof when its conditions of validity are met, we have explained in discussing legal theory that all religious rulings are also clarified by the scriptural texts, even where sound analogy indicates the same ruling that a text indicates only subtly. Thus, when we know that the Messenger neither prohibited something nor made it obligatory, we know that it is neither prohibited nor obligatory, and that any analogy establishing its obligation or prohibition is unsound. We know that nothing in the Quran or Sunnah indicates that these things mentioned by some jurists invalidate the fast; we therefore know that they do not invalidate it.

Second, the rulings that the Muslim community needs to know must necessarily have been explained publicly by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and the community must necessarily have transmitted them. Where this has not occurred, we know that the matter is not part of his religion. In the same way, we know that he did not make fasting any month other than Ramadan obligatory, nor pilgrimage to any House other than the Sacred House, nor any prescribed prayer other than the five. He did not require a ritual bath following physical intimacy with a woman without ejaculation, nor ablution because of intense fright—even though a bodily discharge might be expected in such circumstances—nor did he prescribe