Taweez containing magic

Discussion in 'Tasawwuf / Adab / Akhlaq' started by Aqdas, May 1, 2017.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    Thats not what I said I disagreed with, what I disagreed with is the "acceptability of the unknown words by pious people" (and my interest is purely interest out of the different ways of seeing reason, priorities, risk and such, its not to even claim my preference is certainly right and the other one certainly wrong)


    You already clarified that you didnt intend that, and thats perfectly fine. Im not interested in twisting your opinion i asked you if the ijma citation was on this issue and you said no and it became clear you meant that a "talisman (tamimah, ruqyah) with qur'anic verses and Divine Names are permissible"
     
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    cancel my apology.

    imam nawawi has indeed mentioned ijmaa and i have myself cited alahazrat below (thanks to unbeknown for pointing that out); but when i checked (after TO questioned) i missed the word 'ijmaa' and hastily assumed that it was my own rephrasing.

    and hence my [unwarranted] retraction.

    minhajnawawi, v14p169.png
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2021
    Noori likes this.
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    you disagree iwth the ruling that: "all ta'wiz/riqaa/ruqaa that contain qur'an verses or Divine names are permissible; unknown names and words are prohibitively disliked"?

    because this was the point that was marked as ijmaa'.

    please do not try to twist my words. you are forcibly trying to make out as if i said the above (i.e. ijmaa) about specific words (aliqa maliqa..etc) under discussion.
    ----
    we have no proof so far, that HE included it in the shajarah.

    again, signing on one page does not mean that he had reviewed the rest of the book. it is natural to assume that he might have reviewed and approved, the possibility is also there that it was included by others and might have gone unnoticed. Allah knows best.

    if at all mufti a'azam e hind INCLUDED this (and it is proven without a shadow of doubt) another possibility is that mufti azam e hind might have come across some reliable source that alahazrat might not have seen and hence included it (provided it is established he did).
     
    Noori likes this.
  4. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    JazakAllaahu khair for the clarification. (I am just glad its not ijma that I disagree with)

    So my thought is the approval of bareilly is possible for something like this, and so is its removal from books because many mureeds/editors may have trouble with it due to its normal prohibition, not considering it authentically narrated, not holding the approving Shaykhs/writers in high enough esteem etc:
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2021
  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    my mistake.

    please change that one to "ittifaq of fuqaha" "jurists commonly agree on its permissibility"

    i meant to say that fuqaha are agreed* upon the ruling that a talisman (tamimah, ruqyah) with qur'anic verses and Divine Names are permissible. if i remember well, imam nawawi has cited from bayhaqi (apart from his comment in his sharh muslim quoted by alahazrat) on the permissibility. in sha'Allah, will look for that reference.

    update: [so, yes. i have not come across a statement that explicitly says: "ijma'a of fuqaha"] - but it is a permitted practice by fuqaha. none but the wahabis make excuses for denying the hadith and aathar.

    update: not needed: [my mentioning "ijmaa" is an inadvertent mistake and i stand corrected.]

    wAllahu a'alam.
    ---
    * alahazrat cited from sharh e mishkat: "ruqyah by qur'an verses and Divine Names of Allah is permitted by agreement (of scholars)" see the fatawa afriqah snippet below.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2021
    Noori likes this.
  6. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    I wasnt throwing dirt but I spoke casually about bareilly whilst asking you for comment by quoting you (which would be the defence of Alahazrat and bareilly with proofs and weight!)


    Ijma of fuqaha on this?
     
  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    whatever the reasons - alahazrat's fatwa is based on sound reasoning and ijmaa' of fuqaha.

    any name/word whose meaning is not known is not permissible.
    except when handed to us by pious and knowledgeable scholars (exception is relying on the judgement of those scholars)

    and alahazrat specifically mentioned these words - so i follow alahazrat.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.

    ====
    cute.
    but your attempt to throw dirt on alahazrat will not cut.

    ----
    in the same fatwa, alahazrat cites shah abdu'l Haqq muhaddith dihlawi from his madarij:

    ftwafrq p152b.png


    so this is not just the opinion of scholars from bareilly; but an accepted opinion of previous imams.

    ----
     
  8. FaqirHaider

    FaqirHaider اللَه المقدر والعالم شؤون لا تكثر لهمك ما قدر يكون

    A good resource that would be useful if translated is the work of the Sufi Master Al Waiz Kamaludin Husayn Ibn Ali Al Kashifi (Qadassalu Sirrahu) namely "Asrar Al Qasmi." He wrote it at the bequest of an Amir to give access and educate the elite (scholars and rulers) of the esoteric sciences and decrypting its social enigma.

    It goes over 5 Sciences
    Kimiyya : Alchemy
    Simiyya :Theurgy : Ruhaniyya (entails Ilm al Jafr)
    Rimiyya :Something Akin Hypnosis or CBT (cognitive behavior therapy)/Charlatanism (in the sense that the techniques utilize is for mirth)
    Limiyya: Talsiman / Taweez
    Himiyya: Something Akin to Astrology


    asrar al qasmi.jpg
     
  9. غلام رسول

    غلام رسول New Member

    I agree that most people would assume the image is a charm based on how it looks, but it is in fact a Ta’weez used in the Haziraat of Jinnat, and as far as I can see it does not contain any words of Kufr, names of Shayateen, or words with unknown meanings. However, since such Ta’weezat are usually burned it would go against Ala Hazrat’s Fatwa regarding the respect of the Arabic letters.

    As for the Ta’weez in مجموعۂ اعمال رضا, the author was a Mufti and so would not have included the Ta’weez in the book if he believed it to contradict the Shari’at. He must have had some reasoning for doing so, although I can’t imagine what that would be.

    I never suggested that the permissibility of a practice is determined by its popularity, I agree that if a large number of people engage in a forbidden practice then it still remains forbidden, but they’re still doing so under the context of Rohani Ilaj, not as part of some spell, which is what the title of the thread implies.

    As for the Hisaar containing the words علیقا ملیقا تلیقا, I already stated in another message that the Hisaar was included in a Shajra printed in 1945, during حضور مفتی اعظم ہند lifetime. And since the Shajra was signed by حضور مفتی اعظم ہند, there is no arguing that they were aware of the fact that the Hisaar was present in the Shajra.
     
  10. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    that's good. we are on the same page then. Masha Allah.

    Noted.

    However:

    Just stop any Muslim on the street and ask them whether the following picture reminds them of an amulet as in "ta'weez" or as in an occultist "charm":

    [​IMG]

    ---

    and then that weird ritual of writing unholy names on bits of paper, stomping on them or hitting them with sandals 5 times, and even addressing them, "if you come again, I will give you 25 cuts".

    --

    Now, I have heard more than a few discourses of huzur taj al-shariah and have read his fatawa - and I can tell you that one of his most notable principles was that he did not diverge from Alahazrat even a hair's breadth.

    And so, it's easier for me to dismiss any number of alleged "endorsements" of practices that fly in the face of Alahazrat's fataawa, than entertain the possibility that sayyidi taaj al-shari'ah could really have known about it and/or approved it - or: how come so many "amils" be wrong?!

    And just consider how silly it would make us look.
     
    Noori likes this.
  11. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Probably time to boot out Tariq Owaisi. Anyone else wants to get rid of this nuisance?
     
    Noori likes this.
  12. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    It seems Alahazrat did leave room for these unclear words to be accepted??
    This could be understood to mean bareilly allows unclear words in taweez as long as backed by a suitable personality
     
  13. غلام رسول

    غلام رسول New Member

    As I stated before, I hold Ala Hazrat’s Fatwa to be correct regarding the use of such Ta’weezat. The reason I initially posted a meesage on this thread is because the title is ‘Taweez containing magic’. That title implies that these Ta’weezat were written by سفلی جادوگر, when in fact they were written by Amileen for use in Rohani Ilaj. I gave the example of the Ta’weez in مجموعۂ اعمال رضا to show that this is a method used by many Amileen as a part of Rohani Ilaj, and not the work of a misguided few. That doesn’t mean that I am endorsing the practice, I only wanted to point out that the people who wrote the Ta’weezat in those images were not magicians, but Amils, and so those Ta’weezat are not as sinister as implied.

    As for the Hisaar, the image from the Shajra I posted was printed in 1945, during حضور مفتی اعظم ہند lifetime, and they were certainly aware of the fact that this Hisaar was present in the Shajra, evidenced by the fact that they signed this copy with their own hand:
    [​IMG]
    I also have copies of the Shajra of حضور اشرف الفقهاء and شاہ تراب الحق قادری, both of which contain the Hisaar. So the matter of using such words isn’t as black-and-white as is first apparent, and if it is, then why did
    حضور مفتی اعظم ہند include the Hisaar in the Shajra.
     
  14. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    my copy of the shajrah (published by jama'at raza-e-mustafa) also does not have this hisaar.

    besides, the fact that Alahazrat's fataawa are legal rulings in the light of adilla al shar'iyyah - they cannot be gainsaid by a compilation of awraad/azkaaar - no matter whom it is attributed to.

    Allah knows best.
     
    abu Hasan likes this.
  15. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    the discussion was about the tawaziat posted by brother aqads, are you saying that they are valid despite that we have very clear fatawa of sidi ala Hazrat alaihi rahmah?

    as for the words aliqan, maliqan, taliqan, these words and actually the entire hisar is not found in al wazifatul karimah. I have an old shajrah sharif signed by Molana Taqaddus Ali khan alaihi rahmah, and this hisar is not in it. So we need to find out how and when it was added in the shajrah sharif. the sajrah signed by huzur Tajush Shariah has this hisar with the aforementioned words.
     
    abu Hasan likes this.
  16. غلام رسول

    غلام رسول New Member

    I never suggested that مفتی عبد الرحیم بستوی had read the entirety of فتاوی رضویہ, I was referring specifically to the Fatawa related to such Ta’weezat. It’s fair to assume that as a Mufti, قاضی عبد الرحیم بستوی had sufficient knowledge regarding what was permitted and prohibited in the writing of Ta’weezat, and made himself aware of any rulings related to the subject before setting out to write an entire book. I have yet to come across a single Fatwa from بریلی شریف or from any Mufti regarding this Ta’weez, despite the fact that many ‘Ulama and Muftiyan e Ikram have received Ijazat for the book. Have none of these ‘Ulama come across this Ta’weez, and if they have then why have they not issued a Fatwa regarding its permissibility. You would think that since حضور تاج الشریعہ has endorsed the book, some clarification would be made regarding the Ta’weez to avoid any misconceptions.

    As pointed out earlier, in فتاوی افریقہ Ala Hazrat states that writing the following words is impermissible:
    علیقا ملیقا تلیقا انت تعلم ما فی القلوب حقیقا, but the same words appear in the Shajra of حضور مفتی اعظم ہند in a Hisaar that is to be read after every Namaz. Was حضور مفتی اعظم ہند unaware of the Fatwa of Ala Hazrat.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  17. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    the chanting of "ala hazrat, ala hazrat" in the background is very annoying, does it give some sort of authenticity to the video? while huzur Tajush Shariah alihi rahmah was totally against video recording, and I'm hundred 100% sure that if he were alive he would have disliked this chanting too.

    Molana Tausif did not say all of the tawizat of Amal-e-Raza, rather he said "Amal-e-Raza or Sham-e-Shabistan-e-Raza main JITNAY BHI MAIRAY KHANDAN KAY MAMOLAAT....", so it is not an endorsement of every single tawiz in those books, otherwise you or molana Tausif should provide an authentic sanad for every tawiz or amal in amal-e-raza and sham-e-shabistan that goes back to ala Hazrat alaihi ramhah wa riDwan.

    Molana Tausif also gave ijazah of sham-e-shabistan-e-raza which is clearly forbidden to use by huzur Tajush Sharia alaihi rahmah, so molana Tausif's ijazah has no credence for the permissiblity of tawaziat in the books he mentioned, especially when they are against sidi Ala Hazrat's alaihi rahma wa riDwan clear fatwa.
     
    Unbeknown and abu Hasan like this.
  18. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    what I have heard from other scholars and murideen close to Huzur Tajush Shariah alihi rahmah wa riDwan, that he said Amal e Raza is better than Sham e Shabistan e Raza. So he rahimahullah did not endorse every single page and every single tawiz in aaml e raza.

    It is quite possible that mufti Abdu'r Rahim Bastwai rahimahullah would have not read many or some of Ala Hazrat alaihi rahmah wa riDwan's fatawa, it is not farD to read the entire FR. You can test it yourself, ask the muftiyan-e-kiram you know if they have read all the volumes of FR, and every single line of it.

    Molana Tawsif is alive yet, you can present/send Ala Hazrat's alaihi rahma fatwa and the amulets in amaal-e-raza to him and ask him if he still endorses them, and for what reasons.
     
    abu Hasan likes this.
  19. غلام رسول

    غلام رسول New Member

    بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم۔

    I find it hard to believe that تاج الشریعہ would simply endorse a book based solely on the reputation of its author, and not first carry out the تصدیق of the book. And as you pointed out, the author was a Mufti and so was no doubt aware of the Fatwa of Ala Hazrat, yet he still included that Ta’weez in the book. Nevertheless, I still hold Ala Hazrat’s Fatwa to be correct.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2021
  20. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    alahazrat's position is the standard position of all ulama. and that is the standard. and it is in his fatawa in unambiguous terms.
    you have to reconcile the statements of those who came after to THAT standard.

    as for taj al-shariah's endorsement or approval - one could simply say that he might not have seen this. since mufti abdur rahim bastawi was a well known aalim, he might have endorsed it based on his name.

    even in tajush shariah's statement he lays out the golden rule: that anything that is contradictory to shariah is impermissible.


    ----
    but if you want to discard alahazrat's fatwa and hold on to a generic statement of his grandson, then you are free to do so. besides, there is no proof that taju'sh shariah was aware of some of the indicated ta'wiz that alahazrat has ruled impermissible.

    wa's salam.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2021
    Noori, Ghulam Ali and Unbeknown like this.

Share This Page