The Ruling on Hanging Amulets
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
I read in the book of Tawhid, in the chapter on what has come regarding ruqyah and amulets, that if what is hung is from the Qur'an, some of the Salaf permitted it, while some did not permit it and considered it among the prohibited things.Among them: Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him),And from Ibrahim, he said: [They disliked all amulets, whether from the Qur'an or otherwise] But this is the statement of Ibrahim and the statement of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), and it is on a weak or authentic chain.
My question: First: In which book did you find the statements of the Salaf who did not permit it?
Second: And what is their ruling on it: is it shirk (associating partners with Allah), bid'ah (religious innovation), or makruh (disliked), as in the Musnad of Abu al-Ja'd from Ibrahim, who said: [They sought the thing but did not forbid it].
Third: And what is the 'illah (operative cause) of the prohibition? Is it that they enter the toilet with them, or do you have another 'illah, as Ibn Mas'ud and Ibrahim said in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah?
Amulets are what is hung on a sick person so that he is cured of the illness, or hung on a healthy person to protect him from the evil eye. If he is sick, he hangs it so that he is cured and the illness goes away, or if he is healthy and not sick, he hangs it so that the evil eye (envy) does not afflict him.These amulets do not go beyond three cases: The first case: that shirk and talismans are written in it. This is haram (forbidden) by consensus;Because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: (There is no harm in ruqyah as long as it is not shirk) So what about amulets? Amulets are more severe.
The second state: That we do not know what is written in it. This is also haram; because it may contain something of shirk, such as calling upon the jinn or Shaytan or others, and thus it becomes haram.
The third state: That we know that what is written in it is from the Qur'an or from the Prophetic supplications. In this, there is disagreement between the Salaf and the Khalaf, some of whom permitted it, citing the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Al-Isra: 82] They say: (What is it that cures) absolutely for the one who is afflicted, so anything from the Qur'an by which a person seeks healing and is healed is true, and they permitted that.And some of them prohibited them and said: That it is makruh (disliked) with a prohibition-like dislike or a recommendation-like dislike; due to the generality of the prohibition of amulets (Indeed, ruqyah, amulets, and talismans are shirk) So it becomes prohibited.So some of them said: That it is a recommendation-like dislike,And some of them said: That it is a prohibition-like dislike. And there is no doubt that if we classify it as a type of shirk, then it is haram; because shirk is haram, whether minor or major.And the reason for this is: That when a person hangs it, his heart becomes attached to it and he forgets the prescribed recitation and the prescribed seeking of refuge. Rather, his heart may become completely attached to it, forgetting the Creator because of it. For this reason, the prohibition came regarding them.
And as for the dislike in the statement of al-Nakha'i: They disliked it. So, the dislike in the previous usage of the Salaf of this Ummah was for prohibition, unless they explicitly stated that it was a recommendation-like dislike.
As for the dislike among the later scholars, after they wrote on the principles of jurisprudence and composed and branched out and increased, the dislike with them is for recommendation, not for prohibition.
And what I see regarding amulets written from the Qur'an is that avoiding them is better, but they are not haram (forbidden).
The questioner: But I want to know: in which book are the statements of the Salaf who did not permit it?The Shaykh: Who did not permit that?The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: This is the athar (report) of Ibn Mas'ud.
The questioner: Is it on a weak chain?The Shaykh: Its chain is weak, but its text is strong in terms of the generality of (Indeed, ruqyah, amulets, and talismans are shirk).
The questioner: Meaning it is only an apparent origin?The Shaykh: The principle is that this text is strengthened by the hadiths. And you must know that the chain may be authentic and the text weak, or the text may be strong and the chain authentic. Therefore, the scholars of hadith terminology stipulated for the authenticity of a hadith that it not be 'illah (defective) or shadhdh (anomalous). If it is defective with a serious defect or anomalous, it is rejected even if its chain is authentic. And they considered corroborating narrations (shawahid) in cases where the chain or the text is weak, and if corroborating narrations come that support this matter, it becomes authentic even if its chain is weak.
The questioner: But when he said: that some of them did not permit it, where is the "some"? Is the "some" Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) or someone else?The Shaykh: Ibn Mas'ud or others. And the one who transmitted this—that some of them did not permit it—is Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him), and he is trustworthy.And it is upon us now, if some of them said: We must search and look into the books of athar (reports) such as the Musannaf of 'Abd al-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shaybah and others.
The questioner: I read in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah and did not find anything except the statement of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) only.
The Shaykh: But there are other Musannafs (compilations) other than the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah, and Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) is trustworthy.
My question: First: In which book did you find the statements of the Salaf who did not permit it?
Second: And what is their ruling on it: is it shirk (associating partners with Allah), bid'ah (religious innovation), or makruh (disliked), as in the Musnad of Abu al-Ja'd from Ibrahim, who said: [They sought the thing but did not forbid it].
Third: And what is the 'illah (operative cause) of the prohibition? Is it that they enter the toilet with them, or do you have another 'illah, as Ibn Mas'ud and Ibrahim said in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah?
Amulets are what is hung on a sick person so that he is cured of the illness, or hung on a healthy person to protect him from the evil eye. If he is sick, he hangs it so that he is cured and the illness goes away, or if he is healthy and not sick, he hangs it so that the evil eye (envy) does not afflict him.These amulets do not go beyond three cases: The first case: that shirk and talismans are written in it. This is haram (forbidden) by consensus;Because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: (There is no harm in ruqyah as long as it is not shirk) So what about amulets? Amulets are more severe.
The second state: That we do not know what is written in it. This is also haram; because it may contain something of shirk, such as calling upon the jinn or Shaytan or others, and thus it becomes haram.
The third state: That we know that what is written in it is from the Qur'an or from the Prophetic supplications. In this, there is disagreement between the Salaf and the Khalaf, some of whom permitted it, citing the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And We send down of the Qur'an that which is healing and mercy for the believers
وَنُنَزِّلُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ مَا هُوَ شِفَاءٌ وَرَحْمَةٌ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَAnd as for the dislike in the statement of al-Nakha'i: They disliked it. So, the dislike in the previous usage of the Salaf of this Ummah was for prohibition, unless they explicitly stated that it was a recommendation-like dislike.
As for the dislike among the later scholars, after they wrote on the principles of jurisprudence and composed and branched out and increased, the dislike with them is for recommendation, not for prohibition.
And what I see regarding amulets written from the Qur'an is that avoiding them is better, but they are not haram (forbidden).
The questioner: But I want to know: in which book are the statements of the Salaf who did not permit it?The Shaykh: Who did not permit that?The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: This is the athar (report) of Ibn Mas'ud.
The questioner: Is it on a weak chain?The Shaykh: Its chain is weak, but its text is strong in terms of the generality of (Indeed, ruqyah, amulets, and talismans are shirk).
The questioner: Meaning it is only an apparent origin?The Shaykh: The principle is that this text is strengthened by the hadiths. And you must know that the chain may be authentic and the text weak, or the text may be strong and the chain authentic. Therefore, the scholars of hadith terminology stipulated for the authenticity of a hadith that it not be 'illah (defective) or shadhdh (anomalous). If it is defective with a serious defect or anomalous, it is rejected even if its chain is authentic. And they considered corroborating narrations (shawahid) in cases where the chain or the text is weak, and if corroborating narrations come that support this matter, it becomes authentic even if its chain is weak.
The questioner: But when he said: that some of them did not permit it, where is the "some"? Is the "some" Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) or someone else?The Shaykh: Ibn Mas'ud or others. And the one who transmitted this—that some of them did not permit it—is Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him), and he is trustworthy.And it is upon us now, if some of them said: We must search and look into the books of athar (reports) such as the Musannaf of 'Abd al-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shaybah and others.
The questioner: I read in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah and did not find anything except the statement of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) only.
The Shaykh: But there are other Musannafs (compilations) other than the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah, and Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) is trustworthy.