What is the ruling on hanging amulets containing Qur'anic verses on a sick person in order to seek healing, and what is the explanation of some of the narrations regarding this?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Peace be upon you:
Shaykh, I read in the book of Tawhid, in the chapter: "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 what is prohibited. Among them were: Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), and Ibrahim said: "They disliked all amulets, whether from the Qur'an or not from the Qur'an". But this is the statement of Ibrahim and the statement of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), and it is with a weak or authentic chain.
My question: In which book did you find the statements of the Salaf who did not permit it?
And secondly: What is their ruling on it? Is it shirk (associating partners with Allah), or 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 prohibit it"?
And thirdly: What is the cause of the prohibition? Is it that they enter the toilet with them, or do you have another cause, as Ibn Mas'ud and Ibrahim said in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah?
The Shaykh : Amulets are: what is hung on a sick person so that he is healed from the illness, or hung on a healthy person to protect against the evil eye. Either a sick person hangs it so that he is healed and the illness is removed, or a healthy person who is not sick hangs it so that the evil eye of envy does not afflict him. These amulets do not escape three conditions:
The first condition: That shirk (associating partners with Allah) and talismans are written in them. This is haram (forbidden) by consensus, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sunan Abi Dawud 3886Sahih (Al-Albani) So what about amulets? Amulets are more severe.
The second condition: That we do not know what is written in them. This is also haram (forbidden), because something of shirk (associating partners with Allah) may be written in them, such as calling upon the jinn or Shaytan or others, so it becomes haram (forbidden).
The third condition: That we know that what is written in them is from the Qur'an or from the Prophetic supplications. In this, there is disagreement between the Salaf and the Khalaf. Some of them permitted it, citing the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Isra 17:82] So what is the healing?
It is absolute for the one who is made clear, so anything from the Qur'an by which a person seeks healing and is healed is truth, and they permitted that.
And some of them prohibited it and said: It is makruh (disliked) either with the dislike of prohibition or the dislike of deprecation, due to the generality of the prohibition of amulets:Sunan Abi Dawud 3883Sahih (Al-Albani) So it becomes prohibited.
So some of them said: It is the dislike of deprecation, and some of them said: It is the dislike of prohibition. And there is no doubt that if we make it a category of shirk (associating partners with Allah), then it becomes haram (forbidden), because shirk (associating partners with Allah) is haram (forbidden), whether small or large. The aspect of this is: that when a person hangs it, his heart becomes attached to it, his heart becomes attached to it and he forgets the prescribed recitation and the prescribed seeking of refuge. Rather, perhaps his heart becomes completely attached to it and he forgets the Creator because of it. For this reason, the prohibition came regarding them.
As for the dislike in the statement of al-Nakha'i: "They disliked", the dislike in the previous custom of the Salaf of this Ummah was for prohibition, unless they explicitly stated that it was the dislike of deprecation.
As for the dislike among the later scholars, after they wrote in the principles of jurisprudence and composed and branched out and increased, the dislike among them is for deprecation and 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 the statements, the statements of the Salaf who did not permit it, in which book?
The Shaykh : Who did not permit that?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : This is the athar (report) of Ibn Mas'ud.
The questioner : But is it with a weak chain?
The Shaykh : No, its chain is weak, but its text is strong in terms of the generality of:Sunan Abi Dawud 3883Sahih (Al-Albani).
The questioner : Meaning it is only an apparent origin?
The Shaykh : The origin means the text, this is strengthened by the hadiths. And you must know that the chain may be authentic and the text weak, and the text may be strong and the chain authentic. Therefore, the scholars - the scholars of hadith terminology - stipulated: that the hadith not be defective (mu'alla) and not be anomalous (shadh). If it is defective with a decisive defect or anomalous, then it is rejected even if its chain is authentic. And they considered corroborating narrations (shawahid) in the case where the chain is weak or the text, and that if corroborating narrations come that support this thing, then 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 someone else. 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 he said "some of them," that we must search and look in 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 I did not find anything other than the statement of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) only, and in its explanation Sa'id ibn Jubayr and Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, all of them.
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.
Shaykh, I read in the book of Tawhid, in the chapter: "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 what is prohibited. Among them were: Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), and Ibrahim said: "They disliked all amulets, whether from the Qur'an or not from the Qur'an". But this is the statement of Ibrahim and the statement of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), and it is with a weak or authentic chain.
My question: In which book did you find the statements of the Salaf who did not permit it?
And secondly: What is their ruling on it? Is it shirk (associating partners with Allah), or 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 prohibit it"?
And thirdly: What is the cause of the prohibition? Is it that they enter the toilet with them, or do you have another cause, as Ibn Mas'ud and Ibrahim said in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah?
The Shaykh : Amulets are: what is hung on a sick person so that he is healed from the illness, or hung on a healthy person to protect against the evil eye. Either a sick person hangs it so that he is healed and the illness is removed, or a healthy person who is not sick hangs it so that the evil eye of envy does not afflict him. These amulets do not escape three conditions:
The first condition: That shirk (associating partners with Allah) and talismans are written in them. This is haram (forbidden) by consensus, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
There is no harm in invocations so long as there is no polytheism in them.
لا بأس بالرقى ما لم تكن شركاًThe second condition: That we do not know what is written in them. This is also haram (forbidden), because something of shirk (associating partners with Allah) may be written in them, such as calling upon the jinn or Shaytan or others, so it becomes haram (forbidden).
The third condition: That we know that what is written in them is from the Qur'an or from the Prophetic supplications. In this, there is disagreement between the Salaf and the Khalaf. Some of them 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 لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَIt is absolute for the one who is made clear, so anything from the Qur'an by which a person seeks healing and is healed is truth, and they permitted that.
And some of them prohibited it and said: It is makruh (disliked) either with the dislike of prohibition or the dislike of deprecation, due to the generality of the prohibition of amulets:
spells, charms and love-potions are polytheism
إن الرقى والتمائم والتِوَلَة شركSo some of them said: It is the dislike of deprecation, and some of them said: It is the dislike of prohibition. And there is no doubt that if we make it a category of shirk (associating partners with Allah), then it becomes haram (forbidden), because shirk (associating partners with Allah) is haram (forbidden), whether small or large. The aspect of this is: that when a person hangs it, his heart becomes attached to it, his heart becomes attached to it and he forgets the prescribed recitation and the prescribed seeking of refuge. Rather, perhaps his heart becomes completely attached to it and he forgets the Creator because of it. For this reason, the prohibition came regarding them.
As for the dislike in the statement of al-Nakha'i: "They disliked", the dislike in the previous custom of the Salaf of this Ummah was for prohibition, unless they explicitly stated that it was the dislike of deprecation.
As for the dislike among the later scholars, after they wrote in the principles of jurisprudence and composed and branched out and increased, the dislike among them is for deprecation and 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 the statements, the statements of the Salaf who did not permit it, in which book?
The Shaykh : Who did not permit that?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : This is the athar (report) of Ibn Mas'ud.
The questioner : But is it with a weak chain?
The Shaykh : No, its chain is weak, but its text is strong in terms of the generality of:
spells, charms and love-potions are polytheism
إن الرقى والتمائم والتولة شركThe questioner : Meaning it is only an apparent origin?
The Shaykh : The origin means the text, this is strengthened by the hadiths. And you must know that the chain may be authentic and the text weak, and the text may be strong and the chain authentic. Therefore, the scholars - the scholars of hadith terminology - stipulated: that the hadith not be defective (mu'alla) and not be anomalous (shadh). If it is defective with a decisive defect or anomalous, then it is rejected even if its chain is authentic. And they considered corroborating narrations (shawahid) in the case where the chain is weak or the text, and that if corroborating narrations come that support this thing, then 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 someone else. 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 he said "some of them," that we must search and look in 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 I did not find anything other than the statement of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) only, and in its explanation Sa'id ibn Jubayr and Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, all of them.
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.