Taweez containing magic

[غلام رسول]

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.

 

[Tariq Owaisi]

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.

It seems Alahazrat did leave room for these unclear words to be accepted??

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).

This could be understood to mean bareilly allows unclear words in taweez as long as backed by a suitable personality

 

[sherkhan]

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

 

[Unbeknown]

As I stated before, I hold Ala Hazrat’s Fatwa to be correct regarding the use of such Ta’weezat.

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

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.

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":

---

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.

 

[غلام رسول]

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.

 

[FaqirHaider]

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

 

[abu Hasan]

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.

====

This could be understood to mean bareilly allows unclear words in taweez as long as backed by a suitable personality

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:

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

----

 

[Tariq Owaisi]

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

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!)

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

Ijma of fuqaha on this?

 

[abu Hasan]

Ijma of fuqaha on this?

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.

 

[Tariq Owaisi]

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

 

[abu Hasan]

(I am just glad its not ijma that I disagree with)

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.
----

and if it is, then why didحضور مفتی اعظم ہند include the Hisaar in the Shajra.

we have no proof so far, that HE included it in the shajarah.

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:

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).

 

[abu Hasan]

my mistake.

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.

 

[Tariq Owaisi]

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'.

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)

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.
----

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"

 

[Hanafi Sunni]

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

Mawlana @abu Hasan is this the same as
Aliqan maliqan taliqan anta ta'lamu ma fi'l quloobi wabi haqqi as stated in the Hisaar?
does the tanween possibly change the words as Sayyid Alazhazrat mentioned aliqa and the hisaar has Aliqan.

Jazak Allah

 

[Ashari Matuiridi]

"acceptability of the unknown words by pious people"

From what I have understood, the only reason the supposedly 'unknown words' are accepted by pious people is because they know the meaning of these words, they are not unknown and obscure to them.
I find this excerpt rather relevant:

The only thing that somewhat bugs me is, why do pious people not reveal the meanings of said words instead of treating them as 'unknown'. It is definitely safer to abstain unless a proper meaning is given.

 

[Sunni Jaag]

Can Shaykh @ abu Hasan check from 4:34 - 8:02 and guide us?

 

[ramiz.noorie]

Have you watched movie called harry potter or read novel harry potter
They use same type of chanting like this shaykh below in the video does which he calls kara..
How can i reach the shaykh

 

[AbdalQadir]

https://openn.library.upenn.edu/Data/0032/html/ms_or_421.html

I think saw one of the names used in tawiz's mentioned on this thread - in this Ottoman era manuscript. See the tawiz nuskha's towards the end, like this one...

I don't make any implicit or explicit endorsements or attestations.

I merely ran into this book when i was inspired by a post on this other thread - https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...still-relevant-in-our-times.15911/#post-83084

and was trying a hand at googling Islamic books written in Ottoman era in Ottoman Turkish.

 

[Aqdas]

https://openn.library.upenn.edu/Data/0032/html/ms_or_421.html

I think saw one of the names used in tawiz's mentioned on this thread - in this Ottoman era manuscript. See the tawiz nuskha's towards the end, like this one...

I don't make any implicit or explicit endorsements or attestations.

I merely ran into this book when i was inspired by a post on this other thread - https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...still-relevant-in-our-times.15911/#post-83084

and was trying a hand at googling Islamic books written in Ottoman era in Ottoman Turkish.

The names at the bottom are of ashab e kahf and their dog.

 

[AbdalQadir]

The names at the bottom are of ashab e kahf and their dog.

Jazak Allahu khayra... I thought they sounded familiar... I read them a few times before but forgot.

Also interestingly the tawizs seem to contain Turkish words also, like this one -

the bottom line just below the naqsh says 'akşam sabah vakti ____ ____ bi idhnillah defa olur' [evening, morning time ______ _____ will ward off bi idhnillah]

Can't surely match the all the words in the text to modern turkish words but still very fascinating.