In this episode number ②, we present a scholarly refutation of the false claim by Nauman Media that amulets are proven by the Quran, Sunnah, and the pious predecessors. The reality is that the marfu’ hadiths, the practices of the Companions and the explicit narrations of the Tabi‘in indicate that amulets are unlawful and constitute shirk. Furthermore, the Imams of the religion (Imam Malik, Imam Tahawi, Mulla Ali Qari, etc.) have declared such amulets as shirk and contrary to the dignity of the Awliya Allah.
◈ 01 – Marfu’ Hadith:
‘Uqbah bin ‘Amir Al-Juhani رضي الله عنه reports:
17422 – حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الصَّمَدِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْوَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ أَبِي مَنْصُورٍ، عَنْ دُخَيْنٍ الْحَجْرِيِّ، عَنْ عُقْبَةَ بْنِ عَامِرٍ الْجُهَنِيِّ،
أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَقْبَلَ إِلَيْهِ رَهْطٌ، فَبَايَعَ تِسْعَةً وَأَمْسَكَ عَنْ وَاحِدٍ، فَقَالُوا: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، بَايَعْتَ تِسْعَةً وَتَرَكْتَ هَذَا؟ قَالَ: إِنَّ عَلَيْهِ تَمِيمَةً، فَأَدْخَلَ يَدَهُ فَقَطَعَهَا، فَبَايَعَهُ، وَقَالَ:
مَنْ عَلَّقَ تَمِيمَةً فَقَدْ أَشْرَكَ.
Translation: A delegation of ten men came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, he accepted the pledge of nine and left one out. When the Companions رضي الله عنهم asked, he said: “He has tied an amulet.” Then he cut off his amulet and said: Whoever ties an amulet has committed shirk.
📌 Ruling: The chain is authentic, all narrators are trustworthy.
◈ 02 – Second Marfu’ Hadith:
‘Uqbah bin ‘Amir Al-Juhani رضي الله عنه also says:
7501 – سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ يَقُولُ:
مَنْ عَلَّقَ تَمِيمَةً فَلَا أَتَمَّ اللَّهُ لَهُ، وَمَنْ عَلَّقَ وَدَعَةً فَلَا وَدَعَ اللَّهُ لَهُ.
And similarly:
Translation: “Whoever wears an amulet, may Allah not fulfill his affairs, and whoever ties a thread, may Allah not grant him peace.”
📌 Ruling: Authentic chain, multiple hadith scholars (Hakim, Dhahabi, Haithami, Mundhiri) have declared it authentic or good.
◈ 03 – The action of Abdullah bin Mas’ud رضي الله عنه:
6090 – يَحْيَى بْنُ الْجَزَّارِ قَالَ: دَخَلَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ (ابن مسعود) عَلَى امْرَأَةٍ وَفِي عُنُقِهَا شَيْءٌ مَعْقُودٌ، فَجَذَبَهُ فَقَطَعَهُ، ثُمَّ قَالَ:لَقَدْ أَصْبَحَ آلُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ أَغْنِيَاءَ عَنْ أَنْ يُشْرِكُوا بِاللَّهِ.
Translation: Abdullah bin Mas’ud رضي الله عنه went to his wife and saw an amulet around her neck, so he immediately cut it off and said: “The family of Abdullah is free from shirk (polytheism).” Then he mentioned the saying of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ : الرُّقَى وَالتَّمَائِمَ وَالتِّوَلَةَ شِرْكٌ (exorcism, amulets, and charms are all shirk).
📌 Ruling: Chain is authentic, all narrators are trustworthy.
◈ 04 – The narration of Abu Basheer Ansari رضي الله عنه:
3005 – أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ فِي بَعْضِ أَسْفَارِهِ أَرْسَلَ رَسُولًا:
لَا تَبْقَيَنَّ فِي رَقَبَةِ بَعِيرٍ قِلَادَةٌ مِنْ وَتَرٍ أَوْ قِلَادَةٌ إِلَّا قُطِعَتْ.
Translation: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ made an announcement during travel: “No thread or hanging amulet should remain on the neck of any camel except that it should be cut off.”
◈ Explanation of the Imams:
① Imam Malik رحمه الله said:
“كانوا يعلّقونها لدفع العين، فأمر النبي ﷺ بقطعها، ليعلمهم أن الأوتار لا ترد من أمر الله شيئاً.”
Meaning, the Arabs in ignorance used to tie a thread or amulet around the camel’s neck so that the evil eye would not affect it. The Prophet ﷺ ordered it to be cut so that it would be known that nothing can benefit or harm except by the command of Allah.
② Imam Al-Baghawi, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote:
“كانوا يعلّقون القلائد والتمائم يظنون أنها تعصمهم من الآفات، فنهاهم النبي ﷺ.”
Meaning, those people thought that collars and amulets protect them from calamities, but the Messenger of Allah ﷺ declared this false and forbade it.
◈ 05 – Hadith of Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه:
6472 – رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ قَالَ:
يَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ مِنْ أُمَّتِي سَبْعُونَ أَلْفًا بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ، هُمُ الَّذِينَ لَا يَسْتَرْقُونَ، وَلَا يَتَطَيَّرُونَ، وَعَلَى رَبِّهِمْ يَتَوَكَّلُونَ.
Translation: Seventy thousand people from my nation will enter Paradise without reckoning. They are those who do not practice ruqyah (incantations), do not take bad omens, and put complete trust in their Lord.
◈ Explanation:
Mulla Ali Qari Al-Hanafi (d. 1014 AH) writes:
“هذا من صفة الأولياء المعرضين عن الأسباب الدنيوية، وأما العوام فرخّص لهم في الرقى والعلاجات، لكن الأكمل تركها.”
Meaning, these are the qualities of the saints who are independent of worldly causes (such as amulets, etc.). For the common people, there is room for treatment and supplication, but the most perfect is to avoid such things.
◈ 06 – Statement of Hazrat Uqbah bin Amir رضي الله عنه:
23465 – عُقْبَةَ بْنِ عَامِرٍ قَالَ:
مَوْضِعُ التَّمِيمَةِ مِنَ الْإِنْسَانِ وَالطِّفْلِ شِرْكٌ.
Translation: Uqbah bin Amir رضي الله عنه says: “Hanging amulets on the bodies of children and adults is a form of shirk (polytheism).”
📌 Ruling: Authentic chain, trustworthy narrators.
◈ 07 – The action of Hazrat Hudhaifah رضي الله عنه:
12040 – دَخَلَ حُذَيْفَةُ عَلَى مَرِيضٍ، فَوَجَدَ فِي عَضُدِهِ سَيْرًا، فَقَطَعَهُ، ثُمَّ قَالَ:وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا وَهُمْ مُشْرِكُونَ.
Translation: Hazrat Hudhaifah رضي الله عنه went to a sick person, saw a thread on his arm, broke it, and recited this verse: “Most of them believe in Allah but they associate partners with Him.”
◈ 08 – The statement of Hazrat Ali رضي الله عنه:
23463 – رَأَى عَلَى رَجُلٍ خَيْطًا، فَقَالَ: «مَا هَذَا؟» قَالَ: رُقِيَ لِي فِيهِ، فَقَطَعَهُ ثُمَّ قَالَ:
لَوْ مِتَّ وَأَنْتَ عَلَيْهِ مَا صَلَّيْتُ عَلَيْكَ.
Translation: Hazrat Ali رضي الله عنه saw an amulet in a man’s hand, cut it off, and said: “If you had died in this condition, I would not have led your funeral prayer.”
◈ 09 – Hazrat Imran bin Husain رضي الله عنه:
1172 – رَأَى فِي يَدِ رَجُلٍ حَلْقَةً مِنْ صُفْرٍ، فَقَالَ: مَا هَذِهِ؟ قَالَ: مِنَ الْوَاهِنَةِ، فَقَالَ:
Translation: He saw a brass bracelet on a man’s hand and said: “This will increase the disease, and if you die thinking it is beneficial, you will not die upon the natural disposition (Islam).”
◈ 10 – Statements of the Tabi‘in:
① Abu Mijlaz Lahiq bin Humaid (d. 106 AH):
“مَنْ تَعَلَّقَ عِلَاقَةً وُكِلَ إِلَيْهَا.”
Translation: Whoever hangs something (amulet), Allah will entrust him to it.
② Saeed bin Jubair (d. 95 AH):
Someone said: Should I give an amulet? He said: “لَا حَاجَةَ لِي بِالرُّقَى.”
③ Hasan Basri (d. 110 AH):
“أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَكْرَهُ ذَلِكَ.”
Translation: That is, he disliked all kinds of amulets.
④ Ibrahim Nakha’i (d. 96 AH):
“كَانُوا يَكْرَهُونَ التَّمَائِمَ كُلَّهَا، مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ وَغَيْرِ الْقُرْآنِ.”
Translation: That is, they disliked all kinds of amulets whether Quranic or non-Quranic.
Detailed Refutation of the Innovators’ Arguments
① The mu’an’an narration of Muhammad bin Ishaq (Abdullah bin Amr رضي الله عنه)
The narration: “كان يعلِّمُ أولادَهُ المميِّزين، ويعلِّق على الصغار” — محمد بن إسحاق عن …
Meaning: They used to teach wise children words and hang them around the necks of those who did not understand.
Refutation:
- Muhammad bin Ishaq is a mudallis (one who conceals the chain); his ‘an’ narration is not accepted by consensus unless there is explicit hearing (sama‘). The statements of the Imams: “المدلِّس لا يُحتج بعنعنته إلا أن يثبت سماعه” (نووی، عراقی، نسائی، وغیرہ).
- Al-Dhahabi: The narrations of Ibn Ishaq are generally hasan, “فيمـا شذّ فيه فإنه يُعدّ منكراً”
Reference: (Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala 7/…)
. Here, due to being contradictory to trustworthy narrators, it is considered munkar.
- Conclusion: Mu’an’an, without explicit confirmation of hearing, it is rejected; it is explicitly contrary to the marfu‘ texts “Whoever hangs an amulet has committed shirk.”
② Narrations attributed to Saeed bin Al-Musayyib permitting amulets
(a) Narration of Nuh ibn Abi Maryam (Abu ‘Ismah)Text: 23543 – شُعْبَة، عن أبی عصمة، قال: سألتُ سعیدَ بن المسیّب … قال: «لا بأس إذا كان في أديم» (مصنف ابن أبی شیبہ) Commentary: نوح بن أبی مریم = کذّاب۔ ابن حجر: “كذبوه في الحديث”; The majority have abandoned him. Attribution is false through a liar.
(b) Through the chain of Abdul Razzaq:Text: “أخبرنی معمـر… عن علقمة… سألتُ ابنَ المسیب… لا بأس به إذا كان في قصبة أو رقعة…” (المصنف) — but the complete chain is: “أبو یعلى → الدَّبری → عبدالرزاق …”
Commentary: Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Dabari is weak; Al-Dhahabi: “He narrated from Abdul Razzaq munkar hadiths…,” Ibn ‘Adi: “He reported from him a munkar hadith… he was young and gave the impression of hearing.” Therefore, weak and doubtful.
(c) “A man from Medina” (unknown)Text: شُعْبَة عن أبی عصمة و عیسى الأزرق: “سمعا رجلاً من المدينة… سألت سعید بن المسيب: لا بأس إذا كان في شيء يُواريه” (فضائل المستغفری) Commentary: Narrator unknown; اصولِ حدیث: المستور/المجهول لا يُحتج به (حسامی: “المستور كالفاسق لا يكون خبره حجة…”). Hence, reasoning from this is invalid.
Summary of Saeedi narrations: One involves a liar, the second involves al-Dabari (munkar narrations), the third is unknown; all weak/not authoritative and contrary to authentic elevated texts.
③ Attribution from “Ata” (without specification) + narration of Laith ibn Abi Sulaym
(a) 23544 – Ibn Numayr, from Abdul Malik, from Ata:
“الحائض عليها التعويذ… إن كان في أديم فلتنزعه…” (مصنف ابن أبی شیبہ) Commentary: Here “Ata” is ambiguous (ابن أبی رباح؟ ابن السائب؟ …) — specification is necessary; otherwise, the attribution is unstable/defective. The burden of proof lies on the claimant. Without specification, it is not authoritative.
(b) Chain of Laith ibn Abi Sulaym دوسرا استدلال: “لا بأس بتعلیق القرآن” عن عطاء۔ Commentary: Laith ibn Abi Sulaym = mukhtalit (his memory became confused) / mudtarib al-hadith; Imams have abandoned or severely weakened him. Therefore, this is not acceptable for argument.
④ Permission from Mujahid (may Allah have mercy on him): through Thuwair ibn Abi Fakhtah
Text: 23545 – Waki’, from Isra’il, from Thuwair:
“كان مجاهد يكتب للناس التعويذ فيعلِّقُه عليهم”
Commentary: Thuwair ibn Abi Fakhtah = abandoned, weak, Rafidhi; Yahya ibn Ma’in: weak; Abu Hatim: weak; Abu Zur’ah: not that strong; Darqutni: abandoned; Zahabi: weak; Ibn Hajar: weak, accused of Rafdh. Conclusion: The subject is baseless for argument.
⑤ Permission from Abu Ja’far (Al-Baqir): The routes of Yunus ibn Khabbab and Al-Hasan ibn Salih
(a) 23551 – Aban ibn Tha’lab, from Yunus ibn Khabbab:
سألتُ أبا جعفر عن التعويذ للصبيان فرخّص فيه. Commentary: Yunus ibn Khabbab = liar, “a bad man, curses Uthman, an extreme Shi’i”
(b) In “Ibn Abi Shaybah 23893” from the route of “Hasan” (the investigator: Hasan ibn Salih ibn Hay) Commentary: Hasan ibn Salih criticized for Kharijism and Shi’ism (ذہبی: “كان فيه خارجية”؛ “فيه بدعة تشيّع قليل، وكان يترك الجمعة”). Generally, a narration from an innovator that aligns with his innovation is rejected (لا يُقبل إذا كان داعية أو مؤيِّداً لمذهبه).
⑥ From the route of Al-Dhahhak: Juwaybir ibn Sa’id Al-Balkhi
Text: 23552 – Ishaq Al-Azraq, from Juwaybir, from Al-Dhahhak… لا بأس أن يعلِّق الرجل من كتاب الله… (مصنف) Commentary: Juwaybir = abandoned narration; Nasai: abandoned; Darqutni: abandoned; Zahabi: abandoned him; Ibn Hajar: very weak. No proof.
⑦ Attributed to Ibn Sirin (may Allah have mercy on him): Isma’il ibn Muslim Al-Makki
Text: 23548 – Abdul Rahim ibn Sulayman, from Isma’il ibn Muslim, from Ibn Sirin… “لا بأس بالشيء من القرآن” (Musannaf) Commentary: Isma’il ibn Muslim Al-Makki = munkar al-hadith / matruk (abandoned);
- Ahmad: “Munkar al-Hadith… his hadith is strange”
- Nasa’i: Hadith is abandoned
- Jawzjani: Very weak
- Dar Qutni: “Abandoned” (Questions of Al-Barqani) therefore the attribution is not acceptable.
Summary and Conclusion
- In authentic marfu’ ahadith, ta’wiz (amulet) is explicitly called shirk (polytheism).
- Many companions (Ibn Mas’ud, Uqbah bin Amir, Hudhayfah, Ali, Imran bin Husain, etc.) broke and threw away ta’wiz and declared it shirk.
- Many Tabi’in (Sa’id bin Jubayr, Hasan Basri, Ibrahim Nakha’i, etc.) also disliked ta’wiz and considered it a cause of shirk.
- The innovators have no authentic chain of narration for the permissibility of ta’wiz; all arguments are weak, fabricated, or concocted by the innovators.
📌 Therefore, trusting in ta’wiz is shirk and innovation, and abandoning it is a characteristic of the friends of Allah.
Scans of Important References
