The Jurisprudence of the Hadith: "There is no Ruqyah except in three cases."

The questioner : The matter of Ruqyah, I mean, the matter of Ruqyah itself, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) .

The Shaykh : "Those who do not perform Ruqyah and do not seek Ruqyah," do you say?

The questioner : And do not apply cupping.

The Shaykh : And they rely upon Allah.

The questioner : There is a report from Ibn Mas'ud that he prohibited Ruqyah except in specific matters, such as the sting of a snake or the like. So what do we say? Did he prohibit it? Some scholars preferred the statement.

The Shaykh : But you didn't say, "You lost me; you almost lost me." Why did you bring the first hadith and then end your speech with the second hadith? What is the connection between the first hadith and the second? Your question appears to be "There is no Ruqyah except in three cases," so why did you bring the hadith ?

The questioner : Does this mean that the Prophet prohibited Ruqyah in the first hadith?

The Shaykh : I didn't understand my question. First, I told you, "You almost lost me." Why? Because you started with one hadith and ended with a second hadith. Why did you bring the first hadith? Since your question is "There is no Ruqyah except in three cases," what is the connection between the first hadith and the other hadith, so that I don't get lost, I mean?

The questioner : May Allah not let you be lost, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh : No, his question is specific, but may Allah inspire you with good in your presentation of the first hadith. Even if it was not your intention, and your intention was the second hadith, and perhaps this was an introduction for you to the second hadith, there will be a benefit, if Allah wills. "There is no Ruqyah except in three cases." The scholars of knowledge said, meaning, "There is no Ruqyah on the scale of ," meaning, completely. That is, there is no complete and significant Ruqyah except in the three cases; otherwise, it does not negate. The "la" (not) here is not for negating the original genus, meaning, but rather for negating perfection, like the hadith I mentioned to you just now: . This does not mean "no faith" in the sense that it is disbelief, meaning, the one who does not have trustworthiness prays, fasts, and gives zakah, but he eats the trust. Has he apostatized from his religion? Has he become a disbeliever? The answer is no. But what does the hadith say? "No faith." - And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah - The scholars here emphasize the importance of knowledge. When they want to address an issue, they encompass all the evidence related to the issue. Therefore, we say that it is not befitting for a student of knowledge, as soon as he hears a hadith or hears a verse, to stop there and say, "Ah, the hadith indicates that it is not permissible to do such and such." There may be evidence there indicating permissibility, but with dislike, or the hadith or the Qur'anic text may be general, and there may be a hadith specifying it. So it is necessary to gather all the evidence around the issue and distill the conclusion from it. If we stopped at your hadith or my hadith, , it would mean what came to your mind. And so you directed the question that it is not permissible for one to perform Ruqyah in such a case. Why? Because it is not included in the three. My hadith: "No faith for one who has no trustworthiness, and no religion for one who has no covenant." If one makes a covenant with us and breaks the covenant, is this disbelief and apostasy from his religion? Why does the Messenger say, ? No, people, fear Allah. Do not rush to issue rulings merely because we hear a hadith from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). I give an example on such an occasion: a clear verse in the Qur'an. If a man who is not from the first category of the People of Remembrance were asked, "What is the ruling on eating carrion fish?" He would say, "It is forbidden." What is your evidence? Allah said in the Qur'an: . What evidence do you want clearer than this? The Noble Qur'an. But here, knowledge tells you that in the Qur'an there is general and specific, absolute and restricted, abrogating and abrogated, and so on. So this verse is general: "Carrion is absolutely forbidden." It includes every carrion. But the Sunnah came, meaning, the explanation that was mentioned just now in His saying, the Exalted: . Here, the verse gives an explanation that there is in the Shari'ah that which is explained and that which explains. The explained is the Qur'an, and the explainer is the Sunnah of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). . The Remembrance is explained. Who is the explainer? The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), meaning, his Sunnah. The Sunnah explained that this verse, "Carrion is forbidden to you," is not in its absolute sense, because it excepted fish and locusts from carrion. . So if we combine the hadith with the verse, we arrive at a conclusion that you do not understand from the verse alone: "Carrion is forbidden to you, and blood, except the carrion of fish and locusts, except the blood of the liver and spleen." This is how texts must be interpreted. Your text, "There is no Ruqyah," is not for negating the genus, like "No faith," which is not for negating faith, but rather for negating perfection. Why? Because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), in many, many hadiths, says, in the hadith of intercession, our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, by His grace and generosity, says: . So the one who broke the covenant or ate the trust, he prays, fasts, and testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. We cannot interpret the hadith such that we expel him from the religion entirely with such an example. It is necessary that we understand the Shari'ah texts, combined with one another. I pointed out just now that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to perform Ruqyah and would go to some of the sick and perform Ruqyah for them, and so on. And I think there is no one among you who is not remembering with me the hadith of al-Bukhari that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) . Is this Ruqyah? Is it one of the three? The answer is no. If you combine this with that, but this is not as important as that, because one who is stung by a scorpion or a viper may be exposed to death, so they are not equal. But all Ruqyah within the limits we mentioned just now is prescribed. And it came in the authentic hadith that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) feared that there might be in it something that is still today with some of the sheikhs who have not been guided by the guidance of the Sunnah. I inherited books of jurisprudence and hadith, and written on the first page of them is "Ya Kabej." Understand, if you understand in the Pharaonic language. This was asked about the secret of it. He said, "This is a Ruqyah against the termite." Even the termite that eats the paper of books; you see sometimes old books are carved out by a special worm in the paper. Yes, this is a Ruqyah against this small insect. This, this is not permissible by the Shari'ah because it is not in the Arabic language. It may be, "Ya" is a letter of calling, "Kabej," "Ya Shaytan," "Ya Rajim," and so on. So he seeks refuge in other than Allah and falls into shirk (associating partners with Allah) without knowing it. Therefore, it came in the hadith: .