The Shar`i Status And Ruling Regarding The Information Given By Witchcraft, Jadoo, Jinnaat, Soothsayers, etc.

The common ruling regarding all of them is that since a matter is proven in the Shariah via a certain avenue, then as long as that matter is not established through that medium, it will not be permissible to attribute it towards that. It has also been established that the Shariah has not placed any consideration on ilhaam, dreams and kashf or approved of them as a basis or proof for any ruling. Therefore, to label anyone as a thief or sinner based on any of these things, would be a grave sin and Haraam.

To give a ruling or verdict based on those factors which the Shariah has not granted any credence to, is a grave and aggravated sin. Like for example to indulge in useless, fictitious and senseless acts (like witchdoctors do by ‘throwing bones’, etc) to discover the name of thief, etc. are useless and worthless acts.

Worse than this is to engage in black-magic (sihr), visit a soothsayer, pundit (witchdoctor), etc. and to have faith in whatever they say. This is absolutely Haraam, nay, it is close to kufr. To suspect someone of a crime on the basis of such flimsy claims are totally impermissible. The true and real basis for any Muslims is ilm and amal. Now reflect that since the Shariah has not granted any credence to these things, why should we? [Islaah Inqilaab, pages 397 and 389]

The Ruling Regarding Tasarruf, Sihr, Amaliyaat And Taawizaat

The Shar`i ruling regarding tasarruf is that it is permissible, but it depends on the aim and objective (of practicing these things). If they are carried out for a good and laudable reason, then they will be regarded as such, like the tasarrufaat of the Mashaikh and Sufiya. If it is executed for an evil and malevolent reason, then the sin and gravity of its prohibition will be likened (i.e. in accordance) to the objective. [Bawaadir, page 683]

If any words of kufr, like seeking the aid of a jinn or stars, are used in sihr, then this is clear-cut kufr, regardless of whether this is done to harm or benefit someone.

If the words used are not decipherable or legible, then due to the possibility of it being linked to kufr, it is Waajib to abstain from them. This will be the ruling regarding all such amulets, taweez, etc. [Badaa`i, page 71]

There are two types of aml insofar as their effects are concerned, one is that type which renders a person’s mind in control and overpowers the mind. Such amals are not permissible for those things which are not Waajib in the Shariah, like making nikah with a particular man.

The second type is where the person upon whom the amal is done becomes attentive towards the desired objective and not overwhelmed or totally in control. These will be permissible for the desired objective. Ruqiya (taweez) are permissible to use, but are inadvisable. [Imdaadul Fataawa, page 88 and 99, vol. 4]

The Rulings Of Dreams And States Of Ecstasy

Dreams and states of ecstasy are not proofs in the Shariah. It neither confirms the unconfirmed, nor renders the preferred unpreferred nor vice versa. Every ruling remains in its place and unchanged by virtue of these (dreams and ecstasy). However, only that may be considered which conforms to the Shariah and precaution is adhered to. [Bawaadirun Nawaadir, page 771]

It is not permissible to base Masaa`il on dreams. [Anfaas `Aini, page 153, vol. 1]

What consideration can be given to dreams? Firstly it is not established that dreams can be used as proof, and then for its correct interpretation to be understood is also not necessary… Dreams are not illat for any condition. It is type of sign, and signs can sometimes be correct and sometimes incorrect. Therefore one has to look at and study that thing for which it is a sign. [Ifaadhaat, page 208 and 210, vol. 9]

The Ruling Of Kashf

Many things which are merely makshoof (established through kashf) and famous, whereupon their not being a proof is established by valid Shar`i substantiation – to have firm belief in their meaning and import, or to adhere firmly to their practice, or to regard them as being an object in itself, as we see in many matters nowadays, is excessiveness in Deen (Ghuloo fid Deen). If kashf is not conflicting with the Shariah, then it holds two possibilities, either correct or not, regardless of whether this is one’s own kashf or that of some Akaabir. [Bawaadirun Nawaadir, page 71]

Two Types Of Kashf-e-Quloob And The Ruling Of Masaa`il-e-Kashfiya

One trait of Masaa`il-e-kashfiya is that it does not conflict the nass. That is, there is no nass which contradicts or negates it. An effort will be made to endorse it with the Shariah. If there is a possibility that it can be accommodated into some nass, then it will remain in the level of being a possibility. If it is regarded as anything more or higher than this, then it will be ghuloo (excessive). If it bears no semblance or finds no endorsement in the nass and then to claim it to be endorsed, will be nothing other than tahreef (altering) the nass. However, if this claim is not done as a tafseer (interpretation) or ta`weel, but rather as a form of Ilm-e-I`tibaari, then if that ruling is endorsed by some other nass, then that i`tibaar will be considered and valid, but if it is not endorsed by another nass, then it will be takalluf (exaggerated). [Al-Bawaadir, page 784]

There are two types of kashf-e-quloob, One which is purposely directed towards another person to ascertain his faults. This is impermissible. It is a form spying, because spying is exactly that, when someone tries to hide his faults and wrongs and you try to divulge and unearth them. The second is when it occurs involuntarily. This is a karaamat (miracle). [Da`wat Abdiyat, page 136, vol. 19]

The Ruling Of Firaasat (Insight/Sagacity/Intuition)

The actual ruling and origin of (the concept of) firaasat lies in the Hadith, “Fear the firaasat of a believer.” This is a type of kashf, and just like kashf does not constitute a valid proof in the Shariah.

The Reality Of Ilm-e-Qiyaafah And Its Ruling

Once Moulana Muhammad Ya`qub Sahib gave the gist of Ilm-e-Qiyaafah that this is when Allaah Ta`ala makes apparent or divulges some condition or sign which reveals a hidden shortcoming or evil in someone, so that others may be privy and aware of him, thereby exercising caution. This, in a nutshell, is Ilm-e-Qiyaafah. However such signs and hints do not constitute Shar`i proof. [Al- Ifaadhaat, page 74, vol. 9]

The Ruling Of Ilhaam And Kashf

ssues of kashf are not in any level proof in the Shariah. The only upside of it is that if it does not conflict with the Shariah, then the person upon whom the kashf manifested itself, and his followers, may practice upon it. They cannot be dogged on its execution. Its non-observance may result in worldly harm and not harm in the hereafter. [Husn Azeez, page 520]

To oppose ilhaam may result in some worldly castigation, like illness or some other misfortune, but not so in the hereafter, because ilhaam is not a valid proof for the Shariah, hence its opposition is not a sin, which warrants punishment in the hereafter. However, opposition to wahi (divine revelation to a Nabi) is a punishable offence in the hereafter. [malhoozaat, page 181]

The Ruling Of A Weak Hadith

That which is classified as a weak Hadith according to the Ahle Ilm, cannot be a criterion or proof for a Shar`i ruling. [Imdaadul Fataawa, page 226, vol. 4]

The Ruling Of Idraak

Sheikh Abdul Haq (rahmatullah alayh) has written that there was such a person in their midst that by merely looking at someone’s face, he could tell that person’s name. Allaah Ta`ala has also bestowed me with this blessing that by engaging in a discourse with someone, I can tell his nature and disposition. However such idraak (perception) without valid Shar`i evidence is not a proof. [Badaa`i, page 251]

The Ruling Regarding The Shariahs Before Us

If anyone has a doubt that the Shariahs before us do not constitute a valid proof for us, then the answer to this is that if any Shariah of the people before is mentioned and no refutation is made of them, then this is a valid proof for us. [Al-Ifaadhaat, page 421, vol. 28]

There is one famous condition for this Usooli ruling that if it is mentioned then its negation is also not made. This much is necessary to know that it is not essential that the negation be done then and there on the same occasion. Any negation in any nass will prove sufficient. Otherwise the Sajdah of respect which was made by the angels for Hadhrat Aadam (alaihis salaam) and by the brothers of Yusuf (alaihis salaam) for him, would have been binding upon us, but these were negated in some other nass. [Bawaadirun Nawaadir, page 108]

[The Principles And Codes Of Law In Hanafi Fiqh, Moulana Ashraf Ali Thaanwi rahmatullaahi 'alaih]

» Posted by Seifeddine-M on 18th November 2011

0 Comments