5 Sharʿi Aspects Related to Amulets, Talismans, and Spiritual Healing
Derived from: Fatawa Shaykh al-Hadith Mubarakpuri, Vol. 1, Page 35
الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام علىٰ رسول الله، أما بعد!
The practices of amulets, talismans, filletah, and writing on plates or bowls have become common among Muslims, yet these actions are Islamically incorrect and blameworthy.
Efforts to eradicate such practices are commendable, and the treatise “Taʿweez Ganda Shirk Hai” is a step in this direction.
However, regrettably, this treatise is not free from debating tone and extremism in its approach.
Narration: Muhammad bin Ishaq from ʿAmr bin Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather
Sources:
Claim:
The narration was dismissed as unreliable, and it was claimed:
“This narration is not even Hasan. Imam Tirmidhi did not grade it Hasan but called it Gharib.”
Response:
This reasoning is invalid.
Statement in the Hadith:
“ʿAbdullah bin ʿAmr would teach it to those among his children who had reached puberty… and he would hang it around their necks.” (Abu Dawood: 3893)
Claim:
This is the inserted statement (mudraj) of the narrator and not a Marfuʿ Hadith.
Suggestion:
This is a personal action and ijtihad of ʿAbdullah bin ʿAmr رضي الله عنهما, used as evidence by those who permit Qur’anic or supplicatory amulets.
Claim:
ʿAbdullah bin ʿAmr himself narrated a Hadith against taʿweez, so how could he himself use them?
Response:
It is possible that in the narration condemning tamimah, the reference was to pre-Islamic (Jahili) amulets, and ʿAbdullah bin ʿAmr interpreted it in this context.
Criticism:
The narrators Muhammad bin Ishaq and ʿAmr bin Shuʿayb were criticized.
Response:
This criticism is irrelevant and baseless.
For further details, see:
Claim:
There is no evidence from any Companion of the use of taʿweez.
Response:
The mentioned Hadith includes the action of ʿAbdullah bin ʿAmr رضي الله عنهما.
However, caution demands avoiding amulets, because general public belief in them often contradicts reliance on Allah (tawakkul), sometimes even reaching the threshold of shirk.
Claim of the Author:
The author denies jinn possession, stating on page 10:
“The idea that jinns possess people is an outright lie…”
Response:
This claim is refuted by the Qur’an and Hadith.
Conclusion:
Denying the possibility of jinn possession is incorrect, though some diseases are mistakenly assumed to be due to jinn.
Claim:
The author deems blowing on water after recitation unlawful, citing the hadith prohibiting blowing into drinks.
Response:
The Hadith prohibits blowing into drinking vessels, not ruqyah.
Claim:
The author considers taking fees for ruqyah as unlawful.
Response:
Hadith of Abu Saʿid al-Khudri in Bukhari clearly allows compensation:
“Indeed, the most rightful earning is that received for reciting the Book of Allah.” [Bukhari]
Regarding the Narration of Kharijah bin al-Salt from his uncle:
✔ Taking compensation for permissible ruqyah is allowed.
✘ However, making it a profession or commercial enterprise is not appropriate.
والله أعلم بالصواب
Derived from: Fatawa Shaykh al-Hadith Mubarakpuri, Vol. 1, Page 35
الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام علىٰ رسول الله، أما بعد!
✦ Preliminary Clarification
The practices of amulets, talismans, filletah, and writing on plates or bowls have become common among Muslims, yet these actions are Islamically incorrect and blameworthy.
Efforts to eradicate such practices are commendable, and the treatise “Taʿweez Ganda Shirk Hai” is a step in this direction.
However, regrettably, this treatise is not free from debating tone and extremism in its approach.
❖ Detailed Critique on the Hadith Evidence and Objections
➊ First Objection
Narration: Muhammad bin Ishaq from ʿAmr bin Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather
Sources:
- Abu Dawood (Kitab al-Tibb, Bab Kayfa al-Ruqyah: 3897) 4/19
- Tirmidhi (Kitab al-Daʿawat, Bab 94: 3528) 5/341
Claim:
The narration was dismissed as unreliable, and it was claimed:
“This narration is not even Hasan. Imam Tirmidhi did not grade it Hasan but called it Gharib.”
Response:
This reasoning is invalid.
- The narration is without doubt Hasan.
- The term “Gharib” does not negate its Hasan status.
- The narrators are of Hasan level, making the narration Hasan in chain and Gharib due to uniqueness.
- Imam Abu Dawood remained silent, which among Hadith scholars indicates acceptance.
- Allama Ahmad Shakir (Sharh Musnad Ahmad 10/222) and Imam Hakim (al-Mustadrak 1/548) declared this Sahih al-Isnad.
➋ Second Objection
Statement in the Hadith:
“ʿAbdullah bin ʿAmr would teach it to those among his children who had reached puberty… and he would hang it around their necks.” (Abu Dawood: 3893)
Claim:
This is the inserted statement (mudraj) of the narrator and not a Marfuʿ Hadith.
Suggestion:
This is a personal action and ijtihad of ʿAbdullah bin ʿAmr رضي الله عنهما, used as evidence by those who permit Qur’anic or supplicatory amulets.
➌ Third Objection
Claim:
ʿAbdullah bin ʿAmr himself narrated a Hadith against taʿweez, so how could he himself use them?
Response:
It is possible that in the narration condemning tamimah, the reference was to pre-Islamic (Jahili) amulets, and ʿAbdullah bin ʿAmr interpreted it in this context.
➍ Fourth Objection
Criticism:
The narrators Muhammad bin Ishaq and ʿAmr bin Shuʿayb were criticized.
Response:
This criticism is irrelevant and baseless.
- Muhammad bin Ishaq is trustworthy (thiqqah).
- The chain ‘ʿAmr bin Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather’ is connected (muttasil) and Hasan.
For further details, see:
- Mirʿat: 1/189, 2/277, 38
- Tuhfat al-Akhwazi: 2/20, 21, 69, 70, 253
➎ Fifth Objection
Claim:
There is no evidence from any Companion of the use of taʿweez.
Response:
The mentioned Hadith includes the action of ʿAbdullah bin ʿAmr رضي الله عنهما.
However, caution demands avoiding amulets, because general public belief in them often contradicts reliance on Allah (tawakkul), sometimes even reaching the threshold of shirk.
✦ Jinn Possession, Ruqyah, and Healing
◈ Possession by Jinn
Claim of the Author:
The author denies jinn possession, stating on page 10:
“The idea that jinns possess people is an outright lie…”
Response:
This claim is refuted by the Qur’an and Hadith.
- Qur’anic Verse:
﴿الَّذينَ يَأكُلونَ الرِّبوٰا۟ لا يَقومونَ إِلّا كَما يَقومُ الَّذى يَتَخَبَّطُهُ الشَّيطـٰنُ مِنَ المَسِّ﴾ (Al-Baqarah: 275)
- Hadith of Ibn ʿAbbas in Bukhari:
“Shall I not show you a woman of Paradise… I suffer from seizures and my body becomes exposed…” (Kitab al-Mardha, Bab ʿIbadah al-Mughma ʿAlayh / Vol. 4)
Conclusion:
Denying the possibility of jinn possession is incorrect, though some diseases are mistakenly assumed to be due to jinn.
◈ Objection on Ruqyah and Blowing on Water
Claim:
The author deems blowing on water after recitation unlawful, citing the hadith prohibiting blowing into drinks.
Response:
The Hadith prohibits blowing into drinking vessels, not ruqyah.
- Blowing on water for healing purposes by reciting Qur’an or duas does not fall under this prohibition.
◈ Charging Fees for Ruqyah
Claim:
The author considers taking fees for ruqyah as unlawful.
Response:
Hadith of Abu Saʿid al-Khudri in Bukhari clearly allows compensation:
“Indeed, the most rightful earning is that received for reciting the Book of Allah.” [Bukhari]
- This is a Marfuʿ statement and forms the basis of permissibility.
- All Imams allow taking compensation for lawful ruqyah.
Regarding the Narration of Kharijah bin al-Salt from his uncle:
- The narrator is reliable (maqbul).
- Ibn Hibban included him in “Al-Thiqat”.
- No valid criticism exists against him.
Conclusion
✔ Taking compensation for permissible ruqyah is allowed.
✘ However, making it a profession or commercial enterprise is not appropriate.
والله أعلم بالصواب
