Hanging Amulets: Shirk in Light of Authentic Hadith
The people of falsehood attempt to mislead the masses in various ways. Among these issues is the practice of hanging amulets (taʿwīdh), which even today many people consider a permissible and blessed act. Some innovators propagate on social media that:
“Ahl al-Hadith (Ghair Muqallidīn) declare every type of amulet to be shirk, whereas Qur’anic amulets are permissible.”
In this article, we shall demonstrate in detail that:
① Authentic and explicit Hadith prohibit every type of amulet.
② The righteous predecessors (Salaf al-Ṣāliḥīn) and the majority of Hadith scholars declared amulets to be shirk.
③ There is no evidence from the Qur’an, Sunnah, or the practice of the Companions for hanging amulets around the neck.
④ Innovators have attempted to prove permissibility based on weak and fabricated narrations, which hold no scholarly weight.
Therefore, this article clarifies that hanging an amulet—whether Qur’anic or non-Qur’anic—is impermissible in light of explicit Hadith and opens the door to shirk.
① Objection of the People of Innovation
They say: Ahl al-Hadith declare all types of amulets—whether Qur’anic or otherwise—to be shirk. Their primary proof is the Hadith:
قال رسول الله ﷺ: «مَنْ عَلَّقَ تَمِيمَةً فَقَدْ أَشْرَكَ»
Reference: Musnad Ahmad: 16781Reference: Al-Silsilah al-Ṣaḥīḥah lil-Albānī: 2961
Translation: “Whoever hangs an amulet (tamīmah) has committed shirk.”
✦ Response: Fatwa of Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Bāz رحمه الله
Ahl al-Hadith scholars have clarified this issue with explicit proofs. Among them is Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Bāz رحمه الله, the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia. He divided amulets into two types:
◈ First Type: Non-Qur’anic and Polytheistic Amulets
“وهي نوعان: أحدهما: ما يكون من أسماء الشياطين أو العظام أو الخرز أو المسامير أو الطلاسم وهي الحروف المقطعة أو أشباه ذلك، وهذا النوع محرم بلا شك لكثرة الأدلة الدالة على تحريمه، وهو من أنواع الشرك الأصغر لهذه الأحاديث وما جاء في معناها، وقد يكون شركا أكبر إذا اعتقد معلق التميمة أنها تحفظه أو تكشف عنه المرض أو تدفع عنه الضر من دون إذن الله ومشيئته.“
(Majmūʿ Fatāwā Ibn Bāz)
Translation:
This type consists of names of devils, bones, beads, nails, talismans, and similar items. This type is unquestionably ḥarām due to abundant proofs indicating its prohibition. It constitutes minor shirk, and if one believes it independently protects or removes harm without Allah’s permission, it becomes major shirk.
◈ Second Type: Amulets Containing Qur’anic Verses or Supplications
“والنوع الثاني: ما يعلق من الآيات القرآنية والأدعية النبوية أو أشباه ذلك من الدعوات الطيبة، فهذا النوع اختلف فيه العلماء، فبعضهم أجازه وقال: إنه من جنس الرقية الجائزة، وبعض أهل العلم منع ذلك وقال: إنه محرم، واحتج على ذلك بعموم الأحاديث في النهي عن التمائم والزجر عنها والحكم عليها بأنها شرك، فلا يجوز أن يخص شيء من التمائم بالجواز إلا بدليل شرعي يدل على ذلك، وليس هناك ما يدل على التخصيص.“
(Majmūʿ Fatāwā Ibn Bāz)
Translation:
This type includes Qur’anic verses or prophetic supplications. The scholars differed regarding it:
✔ Some permitted it, considering it similar to permissible ruqyah.
✖ Others prohibited it, arguing that the Hadith prohibiting amulets are general, and there is no specific evidence exempting Qur’anic amulets.
Conclusion:
- Non-Qur’anic amulets = Minor shirk (and major shirk if corrupt belief is involved).
- Qur’anic amulets = Some permitted, but the evidence for prohibition is stronger.
- The general wording of Hadith includes all types of amulets.
② Objection: Difference Between Tamā’im and Taʿwīdh
They say: There is a difference between tamā’im and taʿwīdh.
They say that if a person hangs bones, beads, cat bones or talismans around his neck, these are “tamā’im”, which are shirk.
But if someone hangs an amulet of Qur’anic verses, it is not “tamā’im”; rather, it is permissible.
Response
This is pure deception.
✔ Shirk is not based on bone or paper but on belief and intention.
If someone hangs a cat’s bone believing it protects → this is shirk.
If someone hangs the Qur’an believing it independently protects → this is also shirk.
The Prophet ﷺ said:
«مَنْ عَلَّقَ تَمِيمَةً فَقَدْ أَشْرَكَ»
Reference: Musnad Ahmad: 16781Reference: Al-Silsilah al-Ṣaḥīḥah lil-Albānī: 2961
Translation: “Whoever hangs any amulet has committed shirk.”
Example:
Just as giving alcohol different names (wine, whiskey, brandy, etc.) does not change its reality—it remains alcohol in any case—likewise, whether it is called “tamā’im” or “Qur’anic amulet”, the reality is that hanging it around the neck is itself shirk.
Conclusion
Separating tamā’im and taʿwīdh is an innovative confusion.
Intention and belief are the real basis, not merely the name.
The generality of the Hadith makes clear that every type of amulet is shirk.
③ Objection: Ruqyah Was Also Called Shirk
They argue: “The Prophet ﷺ called amulets (tamā’im) and tiwalah shirk, but ruqyah (incantation) is also mentioned in the same Hadith.” Then they say: since ruqyah is permissible in some forms (as in the Hadith of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: «لا بأس بالرقى ما لم يكن فيه شرك»), amulets are likewise permissible.
Response
This is the greatest deception.
First point: The Prophet ﷺ said:
«إِنَّ الرُّقَى وَالتَّمَائِمَ وَالتِّوَلَةَ شِرْكٌ»
Reference: Sunan Abī Dāwūd: 3883Reference: Musnad Ahmad: 3615Reference: Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān: 6090
Translation: “Indeed ruqyah, amulets, and tiwalah are shirk.”
Second point: Later, the Prophet ﷺ made a specific exemption (takhṣīṣ) for ruqyah:
«اعْرِضُوا عَلَيَّ رُقَاكُمْ، لَا بَأْسَ بِالرُّقَى مَا لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهِ شِرْكٌ»
Reference: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: 5732
Translation: “Present your ruqyah to me; there is no harm in ruqyah so long as it contains no shirk.”
✔ Meaning:
That is, “ruqyah” was at first included in shirk, but the Prophet ﷺ clarified that if a ruqyah contains no polytheistic words, it is permissible.
But what about amulets?
❌ There is no exemption in the Hadith declaring amulets to be shirk.
Therefore, the exception of ruqyah is established,
but the exception of amulets is not established at all.
Statements of the Imams
① Imām Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī (d. 476 AH):
“تخصيص السنة بالسنة جائز عند الأكثرين.”
Reference: Al-Lumaʿ fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh
Translation: According to most scholars, it is permissible to specify (restrict) the Sunnah by the Sunnah.
② Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463 AH):
“ويجوز تخصيص السنة بالسنة من لفظ النبي ﷺ وفعله.”
Reference: Al-Faqīh wa al-Mutafaqqih
Translation: It is permissible to specify the Sunnah by the Sunnah, through the words or actions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
③ Abū al-Ḥasan al-Āmidī (d. 631 AH):
“ويجوز تخصيص السنة بالسنة.”
Reference: Al-Iḥkām fī Uṣūl al-Aḥkām
Translation: It is permissible to specify the Sunnah by the Sunnah.
Conclusion
- Ruqyah and amulets are not the same.
- The Prophet ﷺ himself declared ruqyah permissible, on condition that it contains no shirk.
- There is no exemption regarding amulets, so they remain shirk.
Weak Narrations Used by Innovators
First Argument of the Innovators
An innovator presented the narration from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr رضي الله عنهما that he used to teach his children certain words, and hang them around the necks of those who were not yet of understanding.
Response
The chain of this narration contains Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār:
- Imām Mālik said: “A dajjāl among the dajjāls” (i.e., one of the great liars).
- Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: a mudallis and weak.
- Abū Dāwūd: he would take hadiths from people’s books and insert them into his own book.
- Al-Nasāʾī: laysa bil-qawī (not strong).
🔴 Therefore, this narration is severely weak.
Second Argument of the Innovators
They quoted from Nūḥ ibn Abī Maryam that Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib رحمه الله said: There is no harm in an amulet if it is in leather.
Response
The criticisms of the Imams regarding Nūḥ ibn Abī Maryam:
- Imām al-Bukhārī: munkar al-ḥadīth.
- Abū Ḥātim: matrūk al-ḥadīth (abandoned).
- Abū Zurʿah: ḍaʿīf al-ḥadīth (weak).
- Al-Dāraquṭnī: matrūk (abandoned).
- Ibn Ḥajar: kadhdhāb (a liar).
🔴 Therefore, this report is false (bāṭil).
Third Argument of the Innovators
A narration from Ibn Jurayj that ʿAṭāʾ said: If the amulet is in leather, the woman should remove it; and if it is in a silver casing, she may remove it or not, as she wishes.
Response
Ibn Jurayj is a mudallis, and in this narration he narrates with “ʿan” (a defective ʿanʿanah).
- Imām al-Nasāʾī: an ugly mudallis (mudallis qabīḥ).
- Ibn Maʿīn: weak.
- Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: khabīth al-raʾy (of evil opinion).
- Deobandi and Barelvi researchers have also acknowledged that his ʿanʿanah is weak.
🔴 Therefore, this narration is also not a valid proof.
Fourth Argument of the Innovators
They quoted from Thuwayr ibn Abī Fākhitah that Mujāhid used to write amulets for people.
Response
Regarding Thuwayr ibn Abī Fākhitah:
- Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: weak.
- Abū Ḥātim: weak.
- Al-Dāraquṭnī: matrūk (abandoned).
- Ibn Ḥajar: weak, accused of Rafḍ (Shiʿism).
🔴 Therefore, this too is a weak narration.
Fifth Argument of the Innovators
They quoted from Yūnus ibn Khabbāb that Abū Jaʿfar permitted hanging amulets on children.
Response
Yūnus ibn Khabbāb:
- Imām al-Jawzajānī: kadhdhāb muftarī (a lying fabricator).
- Imām Aḥmad: khabīth al-raʾy (of evil opinion).
- Abū Ḥātim: muḍṭarib al-ḥadīth.
- Al-Dāraquṭnī: rajul sawʾ (an evil man).
🔴 Therefore, this narration is also rejected.
Summary
- All the proofs of the innovators are either weak, fabricated, or transmitted from Rāfiḍī and lying narrators.
- No authentic hadith or authentic report (athar) proves the permissibility of hanging amulets.
- On the contrary, authentic hadiths explicitly call amulets “shirk”.
Statements of Major Scholars
① Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (728 AH):
“وأما تعلیق الحروز والتمائم فقد نهى عنه النبی ﷺ، وقال: «من تعلق تميمة فقد أشرك».“
Reference: Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā 19/64
Translation: The Prophet ﷺ prohibited hanging charms and amulets and said: “Whoever hangs an amulet has committed shirk.”
② Imām Ibn al-Qayyim (751 AH):
“التمائم شیء یعلقونه علی الأولاد عن العین، وإنما هی من الشرك؛ لأنهم أرادوا دفع المقدور بزعمهم.“
Reference: Zād al-Maʿād 4/174
Translation: Amulets are things hung on children to repel the evil eye, but they are from shirk because they attempt to repel what Allah has decreed.
③ Imām al-Nawawī (676 AH):
“واتفق العلماء على النهی عن جمیع التمائم سواء کانت من القرآن أو من غیره.“
Reference: Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 14/170
Translation: The scholars agreed upon the prohibition of all amulets, whether from the Qur’an or otherwise.
④ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (852 AH):
“وقد أطلق جماعة كراهة التمائم ولو كانت من القرآن.”
Reference: Fatḥ al-Bārī 10/195
Translation: Many scholars declared amulets disliked, even if from the Qur’an.
⑤ Shaykh Ibn Bāz (1420 AH):
“تعلیق الآیات القرآنیة على العنق لا أصل له، ولم یفعله الصحابة، فترکها أولى بل هو واجب؛ سدًا للذریعة.“
Reference: Majmūʿ Fatāwā Ibn Bāz 1/204
Translation: Hanging Qur’anic verses around the neck has no basis; the Companions did not do it. Leaving it is obligatory to block the means to shirk.
⑥ Shaykh al-Albānī (1420 AH):
“کل ما یعلق على الأطفال من التمائم فهو باطل، سواء کان من القرآن أو غیره.“
Reference: Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Ṣaḥīḥah 1/445
Translation: Every amulet hung on children is false, whether from the Qur’an or otherwise.
Position of Ahl al-Hadith
✔ All amulets—Qur’anic or non-Qur’anic—are shirk when hung.
✔ The Prophet ﷺ said generally:
«إِنَّ الرُّقَى وَالتَّمَائِمَ وَالتِّوَلَةَ شِرْكٌ»
Reference: Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān
✔ Ruqyah was exempted by evidence; amulets were not.
Therefore, the methodology of Ahl al-Hadith is that amulets are shirk in every case.
Final Conclusion
◈ Innovators have deceived people by differentiating between Qur’anic and non-Qur’anic amulets.
◈ Authentic Hadith clearly declare all amulets to be shirk.
◈ The statements of major Imams confirm their prohibition.
◈ The position of Ahl al-Hadith is in exact accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Hanging amulets is shirk—whether Qur’anic or otherwise.
