Taweez containing magic

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

 

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

 

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:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

in fatawa afriqah, alahazrat says:


Q: what is the ruling concerning the imam of masjid (pesh-imam) who makes amulets (ta'widh)?

A: There is no harm in amulets (ta'widh) that are permissible - such as those in which Quranic verses are written, or the Glorious Names of Allah, or other prayers and litanies [adhkar, da'waat].

In fact, it is desirable to do so, because RasulAllah sallAllahu alayi wa sallam has said in a similar situation: "Whoever can benefit his brother, then he should give him that benefit". Imam Ahmad and Muslim report from Jabir raDiyAllahu anhu.

As for names of Prophets and Awliya'a - may the blessings of Allah be upon them: it is permissible to make an amulet with their names with the intention of blessings [tabarruk] and intercession [tawassul] - as their names are manifestations of the blessings from the Glorious Names of Allah.

In Durr Mukhtar it is written:

"The ruling in Mujtaba is that amulets that are written in a language other than Arabic are disliked [makruhah]"​

In Radd al-Muhtar (commenting on the above):

There is no harm [laa ba'as] in amulets if the Quran is written in them, or the Divine Names of Allah. What is disliked when it is not in the Arabic tongue is when its meaning is not known. And mayhap, magic or disbelief (siHr or kufr) is present in those words. As for those (amulets) in which the Quranic verses are written or prayers, there is no harm in it at all.​

and he also cites Mujtaba thus:

In our age, it is deemed an practice and the ruling is that of permissibility; and reports [aathaar] have been mentioned in this regard".​

Imam Nawawi in his Sharh Muslim says:

Those amulets (ruqaa) in which the speech of disbelievers is written, and the amulets which are undecipherable (either in an unknown language or the words are not known) are deplorable because of the possibility (iHtimal) that it might be disbelief (kufr) or close to it; such amulets are disliked (makruh).​

As for the amulets which contain verses of the Quran or well-known adhkar (prayers), there is no prohibition in it anyhow.​

in the same work, it is mentioned:

There is an ijmaa (scholarly consensus) on the permissible of amulets containing verses of the Quran and adhkar invoking the Divine names of Allah.​

In Ashi'atul Lam'aat, the commentary on Mishkat:

Ruqiyah (amulets) using the verses of the Qur'an and the Divine Names of Allah are permissible, according to all scholars (ba-ittifaq). Apart from these, if the amulets contain words whose meaning is not known or if the meanings contradict the religion and shariat, then they are NOT permissible.​

[Alahazrat says:]

Of course, those amulets which are known to be irreligious and bad - for example, some amulets have the names of: shaytan, fir'awn, haaman, nimrod - or there are words whose meaning is unknown (maj'hul) such as the amulet written to ward off epidemics in which it is written:

bismillah - susa, haasusa, masusa​

and some other amulets to ward of hardships in whcih it is written:

aliqa maliqa taliqa anta ta'alam ma fi'l qulubi haqiqa​

THESE ARE IMPERMISSIBLE.

however, if there are some words whose meaning is not known, but are attributed to prominent awliya or reliable scholars - who are experts in both external and esoteric knowledge, and when such an attribution is authentic (handed down by reliable narrators) - in such case, those words will be accepted only by relying upon the aforementioned esteemed personalities (else they will not be accepted).

 

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم۔

But you would think that if the use of this Ta’weez in مجموعۂ اعمال رضا was forbidden then the grandson of Ala Hazrat, حضور تاج الشریعہ, would not have given Ijazat to Mureeds and Khulafa to read the book and write the Ta’weezat contained therein without first making it clear that it is forbidden to write this specific Ta’weez, but they never made such a clarification. I do not believe that حضور تاج الشریعہ would give Ijazat for a book and its Ta’weezat without first confirming that everything contained within it was correct and according to the Fatwa of Ala Hazrat.

Aside from that, another descendant of Ala Hazrat
مولانا توصیف رضا خان has also given ijazat to read the book مجموعۂ اعمال رضا، as in this video:



Note that as well as giving the ijazat for the book, in the video مولانا توصیف رضا خان also gives the ijazat for the Nuqoosh and Ta’weezat contained therein
(جملہ نقوش و تعویذات)، and again, I do not believe that the grandson of Ala Hazrat would give Ijazat for a book if it contained a Ta’weez that was contrary to the Fatwa of Ala Hazrat.

So how do you reconcile these two facts, on one hand Ala Hazrat’s Fatwa states that such Ta’weezat are forbidden, and on the other hand the descendants of Ala Hazrat give Ijazat for a book containing such a Ta’weez and including that Ta’weez in the ijazat by saying
جملہ نقوش و تعویذات (as in the video). It means that there is more to this مسئلہ than is at first apparent.

 

it goes against alahazrat's fatawa.

even though it is attributed to a well known aalim, there is no proof that these are alahazrat's approved amaliyat.
especially such things which alahazrat has explicitly refuted in his fataawa. there are such examples even in the book named "majmuah a'amal e raza".


the rule is clear: any ta'wiz that violates the shariah is impermissible. any ta'wiz with unrecognised names or the meaning of such names is not known is impermissible.

making tables and 'representing' qur'anic aayat in numbers is to preserve the sanctity of the arabic letters and the aayat, and so they are not written and scattered around.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم۔

The next page clarifies that issue:

Here it says that because the Ta’weez is to be hit with a slipper, the names should either be written in Hindi or their numerical values should be written. This is due to Ala Hazrat’s Fatwa regarding the respect for the Arabic letters.

As for the logic behind rubbing the Ta’weez over the body, the اثرات from the body are transferred to the Ta’weez, and are then destroyed when it is burned.

That is the purpose of three out of the four Ta’weezat posted in this thread by the member Aqdas. As for the the fourth with the picture of the Shaytan, if you look carefully it has the words حاضر شو written on it, that is because this Ta’weez is to be used in the حاضرات of Shayateen.

 

Thats problematic. Since when is it ok to put slippers on Arabic letters etc? Why would you rub names of kuffar on your body? Intentional disrespect?

 

بسم اللہ الرحمن الرحیم۔

First it should be noted that the Ta’weezat written by Amils containing the names of Shayateen are not meant to be worn, but rather rubbed all over the body and burned. This is used to cure سحر، آسیب، اثرات، and other illnesses.

As for whether or not this is correct, here is a page from the first volume of مجموعۂ اعمال رضا، containing a Ta’weez with the names of Shayateen and kuffaar:


In this case the Ta’weez is to be hit with a slipper.

Bear in mind that حضور تاج الشریعہ would give Ijazat to mureeds to read مجوعۂ اعمال رضا and write the Ta’weezat contained therein, and of course حضور تاج الشریعہ would not have done so without first confirming that everything contained within the book was correct and in accordance with the Shari’ah. Therefore, it is not as simple as declaring all such Ta’weezat to be forbidden.

 

due to the respect of alphabets and words of Quran, not because these devils deserve any respect. the paper should also be respected, and in one of the tawizaat the words "khuda" and "rasul" are mentioned, and urinating on such a ta'wiz while one knows that it contains names of Allah azza wa jalla, even if it is persian, and the prophet alaihi afDalus salaat wat tasleem then it is kufr.

one can dispose off these ta'wizaat in water, or wash them and then dispose in a place which is not a private property or a public place.

but why one should receive such ta'wizaat if he/she is aware that they are not ruqyah shar'iyah?

 

what should a patient do who has received such ta'wizaat?