Ibn Majah

1؎: Multiple ahadith have been narrated from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) regarding the practice of cauterizing body parts for treatment, which apparently seem to be contradictory, resulting in differences among the scholars on this issue. 1. Some ahadith establish the permissibility of cauterizing body parts, such as the incident of cauterizing the wound of Sa’d ibn Mu’adh (radi Allahu anhu). 2. In some, there is mention of the Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) dislike for this practice. 3. In some, praise is given for abandoning it. 4. In some ahadith, there is prohibition of it. It should be clear that the ahadith in which treatment and healing through cauterization are mentioned, these indicate its permissibility and legitimacy. The Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) dislike for it does not mean that it is prohibited; rather, its case is like the dislike of «ضب», which the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not eat, but it was eaten at his table, and he remained silent about it and affirmed its permissibility. His (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) not eating it was due to his personal dislike, which has no connection to the prohibition of «ضب». The praise for abandoning it indicates that not treating with cauterization is better. The ahadith of prohibition are of the category of dislike (karahah), or the prohibition is in cases where there is no need or necessity, but rather out of fear of falling ill. From this detail, it is clear that treatment by cauterizing body parts is permissible without dislike under two conditions: first, that there is no other form of treatment available, but rather it has been specifically determined that only this treatment is effective; second, that cauterization is not an independent cause of healing and treatment, but the real cause is Allah Ta’ala, Who is the Healer. When other forms of treatment are available, then treatment by cauterization with fire is disliked (makruh). In summary, the scholars of religion have stated the permissibility of treating by cauterizing body parts, considering it an experienced method of treatment. Some scholars have prohibited cauterizing a healthy person with the belief that he will not fall ill afterwards; in such a case, it is haram and prohibited. Other forms of treatment, such as treating the corruption of a wound or treating after the amputation of a body part, are permissible. It should be noted that in the time of Jahiliyyah (and even today among some people), there was a belief that a healthy person should be cauterized so that he would not fall ill afterwards. If this is the case, then the ahadith of prohibition indicate the prohibition of such a belief. Islam has declared this belief to be false and has emphasized that Allah Ta’ala alone is the Healer and Sufficient. «إذا مرضت فهو يشفين» The summary of the above explanation is that the method of treatment by cauterizing body parts has different rulings in different situations: neither is its abandonment always correct, nor is always adopting this treatment correct. Sometimes it is permissible with dislike (karahah), sometimes this treatment is makruh, and sometimes it falls within the scope of prohibition (haram). Its permissibility is in view of necessity, such that no other form of treatment remains, but rather it is specifically determined that only this treatment is effective for a particular illness, such as when blood is rapidly flowing from the body and there is no way to stop it except by cauterization, otherwise there is a fear of the patient dying. In this case, adopting this treatment is necessary. Thus, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) cauterized the body of Sa’d ibn Mu’adh (radi Allahu anhu) out of fear for his life when the blood would not stop flowing from his body. It should be clear that in this treatment, one must also believe that it is only a means of treatment; the real Healer is Allah Ta’ala. Among the cases of dislike (karahah) is when this treatment is used despite the presence of other treatments, because in this treatment the patient has to endure severe pain, sometimes even more than the original illness. Another case of dislike is when this method is adopted for the sake of health before the onset of illness, because this diminishes and weakens reliance and trust in Allah, and one has to endure the pain of cauterization even before the illness occurs, merely out of fear that it might happen in the future. The punishment of fire is the right of Allah Ta’ala, so in this case, prohibition (haram) may also apply. In seeking healing through cauterization, if there is excessiveness and exaggeration, a person forgets the true Cause of causes, i.e., Allah Ta’ala, and turns towards worldly means, and it is known that turning attention to means is shirk in tawhid. Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullah) states that in authentic ahadith, there is the command to seek treatment, which is not contrary to reliance (tawakkul), just as hunger, thirst, cold, and heat are removed by their opposites. In fact, the reality of tawhid is only completed when a person uses the means provided by Allah Ta’ala in His Shari’ah and in the universal laws (sunan kawniyyah) to achieve results, and suspending these legal and universal means is actually a flaw in tawakkul itself. Similarly, it is a flaw and weakness in the command of Allah and His divine wisdom, because the one who suspends these means thinks that abandoning them is stronger and more perfect in the matter of tawakkul. Thus, abandoning these means is incapacity, which is contrary to the tawakkul whose reality is that the servant’s heart relies upon Allah Ta’ala for attaining religious and worldly benefits and for being protected from religious and worldly harms. Along with this reliance and trust, it is also necessary to adopt the means; otherwise, a person will be suspending the divine wisdom and the commands of the Shari’ah. Therefore, a person should not make his incapacity into tawakkul, nor should he label tawakkul as incapacity. (Zad al-Ma’ad: 4/15) (Harrahu al-Fariwai)