"What is the ruling on…?” or "What's the strongest opinion…?”
Often, when lay people ask this question they assume there's simply one objective answer. For those that do, here are some considerations:
This question usually concerns fiqh issues, the vast majority of which are open to sound interpretations (i.e. within certain parameters). On the majority of issues any response will not be definitive as there will be a number of valid opinions (i.e. ways of looking at it). So when you ask "what is the ruling on x?" what you're actually getting at is: "what is your opinion on what God might have said on x?" So generally, when someone is asking about a ruling on an issue they're seeking the scholar's insight and view on what God might be saying about a specific scenario. One of the reasons fiqh has become so polarising (whilst it wasn't so in earlier times) is because of fundamental mistakes people make in understanding the nature of fiqh and what jurists actually do.
Hijab, male scholars and society
When a male scholar speaks of the hijab, there can often be the retort that men shouldn’t be telling women how to dress. Yet there is both truth and mistruth to such sentiments (as with many other things in Islam these days). Normatively, scholars do not tell women how to dress, or what to wear, but what God would have them cover (i.e. awrah). Some pretenders might use a platform to obsess over women’s clothing or pursue some form of cultural hegemony, but that must not negate that it is the job of Islamic jurists, both men and women, to study the will of God on a range of issues, including the shar’i dictates around bodily exposure. There are shar’i guidelines pertaining to the amount both men and women ought to cover, and the nature of that covering - but that doesn’t dictate that colour, cultural representation, or design of such covering. Let us remember that in the same way as male scholars, female scholars might also point out what men ought to be covering.
Whilst feminists might focus concertedly on deconstructing gender, seeing it as the product of illegitimate patriarchal structures, clearly God marked out differences such as what is considered the awrah for men and women. On this there is also the issue of terminology which I believe to be useful:
- The head covering is generally referred to as a khimar.
- The entire face covering (including the eyes) is a burqa’. That which covers the mouth and nose is a niqab.
- The body covering is a jilbab which is legitimately understood or interpreted in various ways. An abaya is not a synonym for jilbab nor a divinely stipulated representation, it is a cloak worn in the Arabian peninsula and refers to both the cloaks Arab men and women wear. Thus for the Arab women of the Arabian peninsula - it is a particular cultural expression of the jilbab.
So what is the hijab? It is a state of covering appropriate to shar’i standards. That means that it is not limited to merely covering the head but describes the entire way a women covers. For example, if a Muslim woman dons a khimar along with a miniskirt, we cannot justifiably male the shar'i claim that she is in hijab. For a woman to be in hijab means for her to withhold her entire awrah from those who may not be permitted to see it.
In the Qur'an, God says concerning the Prophet, “When you ask his wives for something, do so from behind a hijab” (33:53) Clearly, it does not mean from behind a 'head covering' (as it wouldn’t logically be possible, nor make much linguistic sense). A hadith that comes to mind that contextualises this is found in the sahihain where Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas and Abd b. Zum’ah disputed over whom a young man belonged to (as a family member). In the context of the hadith, and at the end the event, the Prophet told his wife in regards to the boy, "واحتجبي منه يا سودة" meaning: “Hijab from him, Sauda.” The statement of the prophet shows that it wasn’t merely a statement to don a khimar but her general outward covering would subsequently treat the young man as a non-mahram.
A side point, and one the majority of western Muslims I’m sure are fully cognisant of, is that it's juvenile to assert that non-Muslim women who do not wear a khimar or jilbab, or those in jeans and a t-shirt etc to be ‘naked’, not only is it an extreme exaggeration that absolutely fails to reflect reality but also a considerably lame attempt to assert moral superiority in a very misplaced way. The way most non-Muslim women dress in public is the way Muslim women dress away from non-mahrams; can it be said that they’re all naked amongst one another! Yes, there are general understandings of indecent exposure, and by societal norms there are variant degrees to covering: extensive to minimal, conservative, (in)appropriate (for certain contexts), provocative, indecent, and so on. Whilst not everyone will agree precisely where the line is to be drawn between all of these (as will tend to be the case with most norms in all societies), cultural capital in wider society tends to inform us of the generalities. Only ignorant, insular, and insecure people tend to resort to such hyperbole. Believers are far more intelligent and civil.
On occasion, I'm particularly forthcoming in challenging the “hijab (or niqab) is my Muslim identity” narrative - we find such expressions nowhere in the Qur'an nor in the sunnah. But that is not to undermine that God the Most High has ordained the hijab. It is to counterbalance fickle narratives on Islam and Muslim identity, as well the overarching obsession found in the statements and books of clerics that erroneously and absolutely reduce a woman’s piety and contribution to communal faith down to covering. Often this has an adverse effect to the one intended where Muslim women are perversely sexualised, since they are primarily seen through the lens of sexual provocation rather than free intelligent believers.
Reforming the sharia? A misplaced idea
The reason any discussion of reforming the shariah is misplaced is because the statement assumes the shariah to be an entirely static construct. We do not need reform, but where we might be struggling is with a real-time application considerate of all variables. The issue is that for all of the talk of implementing of shariah, we hypothesise what the shariah might look like, and even when many western Muslims speak of contemporary application they merely resolve to focus on the Middle East.
But what is being overlooked is the manifestation of the shariah that is principled on what God wants, and moral directives in the context of being western Muslims. It's not just about the shariah but how its values inform our discussions and offers meaningful ways to react, suggest and progress.
Jinn possession and scholarly opinions. Part 5
In short, what I’ve presented in this very brief series summarises the nucleus of the debate, and other things said about the issue tend to be complimentary or tangential. Along with scriptural sources and people’s experiences, a major topic that crops up is what scholars have had to say. What I’d like to put forward here about the view of scholars of the past is that many of them are not actually saying much of what’s claimed.
For example, some cite al-Qurtubi’s views on 2:275 which I covered in the post on the Qur’an, but as I highlighted (in the post on hadith), drawing on the sources holistically scholars concluded that jinn could penetrate the body to add potency to their whispers, not that the devil would penetrate the body to take it over and appropriate human autonomy. This is what Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement that “the leaders of Ahlussunnah agree that the jinns’ penetration of the human body is valid” was referring to in Majmu’ al-Fataawa, or Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari’s explanation (if we can soundly ascribe the Maqalaat to him) that “Ahlussunnah say that the jinn may penetrate the body of the afflicted.”
As for whether jinns take over a person’s limbs or intellect, then yes, Ibn Taymiyyah might have personally sympathised with this view but it’s one he noticeably doesn’t go on to ascribe to the leaders of Ahlussunnah instead reasoning it as an empirical fact (which I’ve asserted is incorrect in the ‘experiences’ post), saying: “it is something witnessed and felt for those who contemplate it.” The fact is, the view doesn’t seem to have been greatly held nor explicitly addressed in the way we do today. Yes, al-Qurtubi saw it as causing epilepsy, but think about it, even from al-Qurtubi’s point of view: causation is clearly not the same as taking over the body to pretend it has epilepsy! Many scholars of Ahlussunnah, past and present, have explicitly discussed the capabilities of devils, affirming from one perspective that their physical constitution allows them to be able to pass through a human body (and other things) but that their power (sultan) over humans is limited to waswasah (whispers). For clarity, there are two separate/distinct theological issues here:
1) that the faint physical constitution of jinns (like air) allows them to move through small crevices, including those within the human body;
2) that the power (sultan) jinns have is limited to waswasah/whispers, i.e. the power of suggestion (and not possession).
What has always surprised me, beyond how such matters have been conflated, is how people get away with an appeal to scholars that tends to rest on just a couple of names perceived to be in favour of possession. Although there are many scholars we're at liberty to cite, from whom we might infer a dismissal of the view, I’ll provide just a few here for some balance. I’ve chosen these luminaries because I believe that collectively they speak to the majority of British Sunni Muslims:
1. Ibn Hazm not only dismissed the idea of jinn possession explicitly, referring to it as a superstition (kharafaat), but held that “such things are not possible (i.e they don’t fall for it) except to the weak minds of the elderly…that he (the devil) can speak using someone’s tongue is senility and clear insanity; we seek protection in God from deception and affirming superstitions.”
2. Al-Tahawi’s commentary on previously cited hadiths in Mushkil al-Athaar resolutely puts it that the influence of the jinn on humans is limited to the power of suggestion through waswasah (whispers) saying, “The only thing people were commanded to do is seek protection from the devil against the power (sultan) he has over them which is waswasah (whispers) that incite an adoration for evil and a dislike of good…” Ibn al-Qayyim provides a similar commentary for the same hadith on cursing the devil in Zaad al-Ma’ad.
3. Al-Razi, the imam of kalam/Ash’arism/tafsir/fiqh/usul pretty much seems to suggest the same as al-Tahawi in his al-Tafsir al-Kabir, affirming that the physical constitution of jinns allows them to be able to pass through a human body (and other things) but that their power (sultan) over humans is whisperings. The latter point is seemingly further advocated where he explores two opinions that people hold on the devil’s touch suffered by the Prophet Job, with an emphasised exploration of the view that “the devil has absolutely no ability to confer diseases or painful afflictions.”
4. In more modern times, Ibn Ashur also holds to the Quranic narrative that limits the influence of the jinn to waswasah in Tahrir wa Tanwir, and in his explanation interprets the oft-cited hadiths consistently in that context.
In the same vein, there’s a final point that stoutly needs to be corrected about the Mu’tazilah, which also exposes the ignorance of those who engage in bad faith. As I wrote, those today who charge interlocutors with Mu'tazilism (in nearly every matter) know absolutely nothing about the scholarly tradition of the Mu'tazilah. On this matter, Qadi Abdul Jabbar, an imam of the Mu’tazilah, sympathised with Ahlussunnah’s view that jinns might be able to traverse a human body, stating that “if what we have argued about the faint constitution of the jinn and that their constitution is like air is correct, then it is not inconceivable that they may enter our bodies just as air or repeated breaths do.” Other Mu’tazilis didn’t even get to the point of dismissing possession per se since they erroneously believed that scriptural references to jinns were metaphorical and that jinns don’t exist in reality. What I’m highlighting here is that essentialising Mu’tazili opinion to deploy the fallacy of association (“this is just Mu’tazili!”) is plain ignorant. To add to this is the obvious point that not all of what the Mu’tazilis held was wrong - as if they got nothing right!
Whilst the aversion of early scholars towards the Mu’tazilah began as theological, the aversion quickly included legitimate political grievances towards them. This grievance was carried by later generations into a wider theological setting where misconceptualisations of many Mu’tazili views became essentialised and entrenched, with the group conveniently employed as theological bogeymen. Where some later medieval scholars would disparage the alleged views of the Mu’tazilah, it wasn’t always the case that the Mu’tazilah homogeneously held those views, if at all. In case someone misses the point here, I’m not launching a defence of the Mu’tazilah but highlighting how scholarship requires diligence when unpacking claims/assertions, let alone resorting to juvenile tactics.
Having said all this, I hope what I have presented in this series is clear and coherent. There are many British Muslims who do not really believe in possession (and other superstitions), but due to the militant way in which many advocates behave, most are intimidated into outward submission. If people want to believe in possessions then that's their (unhealthy) prerogative, but we'll not leave believers to be intimidated into accepting superstitions that are impediments to good health and faith, and opportunistically abused by pretenders.
May God guide us all to what is upright and beneficial for both abodes.
What to make of 'Jinn possession' claims. Part 4
When it comes to talking about whether jinn possession is real and a valid belief, often people will cite their experiences.
Here are some points to consider:
1. The purpose of theologians is to establish what God has told us. The theological validity of something is not established by what people feel or any other emotions. Claiming you've experienced something is of course your perogative, but we must recognise that it's not a theological argument, and has no evidentiary authority for claims about the unseen.
2. Experiences are a matter of perception, which is subjective. I'm not saying that people haven't experienced something but what they make of it is a matter of interpretation. It's logical that where a person has never been introduced to the notion of jinn possession, it's not an explanation s/he'd fall on - and as I've very briefly covered, the Islamic sources (nusus shar'iyyah) cannot be credibly taken that way. Many people claim things: some Hindus will claim they're touched by one (or more) of their gods, some Christians claim Jesus has spoken to them or that they've received the holy spirit. Some Muslims will visit shrines and claim to be literally "visited" by the dead saint buried there. And yes, tens of thousands (if not millions!) from each faith and tradition have made such claims, so based on claim and/or numbers, does that validate their interpretation of what they experienced? Of course not, and inherently their interpretation of an experience is shaped by their pre-conceived beliefs and ideas. A study (with limitations) offers some insight here. Now this is not to say that devils do absolutely nothing - as I've already stated (as so too have many other scholars past and present) the Qur'an explicitly refers to "touch" /المس - in the form of whispers (which everyone agrees on), but these whispers of a metaphysical nature do not in any way strip an individual of their autonomy. It's simply not in the remit of the devil (see 14:22).
3. It's an irresistible fact that only the people who believe in possession seem to experience it and interpret events in that way, just like only Hindus feel Shiva or Christians feel Jesus/holy spirit (and to argue that those who dismiss the idea also do but they don't know it is an incredibly weak assertion). One of the things the Hasanat saga reveals is that sincere souls were duped into believing that Hasanat was relieving them of the jinn that had supposedly possessed them. Think about it, as the result of Hasanat's so-called ruqyah, an agnostic non-Muslim who didn't even believe in what he was doing and really just putting on a show, many of his patients felt the jinn possessing them had been exorcised. Either we accept that it was all a scam that relied on a mistaken belief in possession, or we accept that non-Muslim exorcism (and/or ruqyah by a non-Muslim as a form of ibadah) is valid and works. If you assert that maybe they were mistaken in their belief that they were possessed, then how do we ascertain when a person is actually possessed as oppose to a misdiagnosis? If you assert that maybe the jinn didn't leave but pretended to, then what you're suggesting is that we should accept their claims that they were possessed, but we shouldn't accept their claims that they were relieved of that possession by a non-Muslim. You cannot have it both ways, and if you try to, then it's clear confirmation bias.
4. "But I witnessed the jinn, my friend/family (etc) spoke a language they didn't even know / spoke in a voice I didn't recognise!" Such phenomena have been widely documented amongst all types of people (usually following some trauma) including non-Muslims who dismiss the idea that the jinn actually exist. Foreign accent syndrome and polyglot aphasia are specific conditions that come to mind, but the explanation you opt for will rely a lot on your preconceived ideas - and as I've covered, the Islamic sources cannot be compellingly read as offering an explanation that rests on jinn possession.
5. In my anecdotal experience and having spoken to literally hundreds of people about their 'possession' experiences over the years, the way in which they describe what's happened always discloses how their preconceived ideas shaped their perception of the actual event. When I've probed into exactly what's occurred, it's been clear to see that the event could be taken a number of ways. What one learns pretty quickly in the realm of religious ministry is that for most people, religion doesn't run on reason but on emotion. People follow their instincts and backfill arguments to fit them.
Is Jinn possession established in the Sunnah? Part 3
Again, nowhere near.
Here I'll briefly deal with the most significant hadith cited in favour of possession. The aim is to make clear how the interpretation of particular hadith to establish that jinns take control of humans where the soul loses cognitive and physical autonomy is either a misunderstanding of the hadith, exceedingly far-fetched and weak, and in some cases relies on ambiguous wording - all of which is an illegitimate way to establish what is meant to be a theological imperative. As I've stated, I'm not dealing with the entirety of the subject but the popular arguments made for possession.
Here are some of the most cited hadith used for jinn possession, with very brief comments:
1. Hadith of Ibn Abbas (al-Bukhari and Muslim) about a women suffering from seizures who came to the Prophet and said: "I suffer from seizures and I become exposed, so call on God for me." The Prophet replied: 'If you want, you can be patient and you'll have paradise, or if you want I can call on God to cure you." She responded: "I'll have patience...but call on God that I do not become exposed." The discussion on possession arises because in another narration she blames the devil for her exposure. Yet in that narration she does not ascribe the seizures to the devil and neither does the Prophet. Furthermore, we almost certainly know that the Prophet didn't view the seizures as the works of the devil for it is inconceivable that a believer would come to the Prophet complaining about the devil whom the Prophet could effortlessly ward off, yet would consciously allow the devil to persist and instead tell the believer to have patience with him, not even encouraging her to take refuge in God as per his advice to others (in keeping with 41:36). This is an important hadith as it explicitly relates how the Prophet saw a seizure, clearly he viewed it as a physiological problem which God poses to test human patience and godly resolve (indicated by his response in the story). Not only is it far-fetched to interpret this hadith as evidence of jinn possession, it's counter-productive as it establishes the opposite!
2. Hadith of Uthman b. Aas al-Thaqafi (Sahih Muslim) whom the Prophet told to lead his people in prayer. He responded "I find something within me." The Prophet placed his hand on his chest and back and then said: "Lead your people in prayer, and the one who does so should lighten it for amongst them are the old, the sick..." What he felt within him, as al-Nawawi points out in his commentary of Sahih Muslim, is the whisperings of the devil that sought to confuse him. This is made evident by the other narration in al-Bukhari and Muslim, where he says to the Prophet: "The devil comes between me and my recitation, confusing me." The Prophet responded: "That is the devil Khanzab. So if you feel him (trying to confuse you), seek refuge in God from him..." With what is consistent with waswasah, the Prophet instructed him to seek refuge in God, acting on the verse: "If Satan should prompt you to do something, seek refuge with God." (7:200, 41:36) It is extremely unsound to interpret the event as Uthman being possessed by the devil. (The narration in Ibn Majah is problematic as it contradicts narrations far more sound than it, and its various chains include weak narrators or those known for munkar narrations.)
3. Hadith of Safiyyah b. Huyay (al-Bukhari and Muslim), the noble wife of the Prophet, who visited the Prophet whilst he was in I'tikaf. The Prophet said to two Companions who noticed him walking her home later that night and feared that they may misunderstand the affair: "The devil runs in the veins of Adam, and I feared that he would plant something in your hearts." Some scholars took the statement concerning the devil running through the veins of Adam literally, others took it figuratively. I think the context strongly suggests that "the devil runs in the veins of Adam" was meant as a figuritive expression. However, the key point here is that the Prophet doesn't say that he fears the devil will possess them, but clearly refers to the devil's planting of ill-thoughts in their hearts - waswasah.
A very important point to note is that it was mainly this hadith led scholars to conclude that the devil can enter the body - NOT to possess the human but simply to get closer to the heart/brain where the devil's whispers would be even more potent. This was the position of scholars who advocated that the devil could penetrate the body (i.e. to have more potency), not that the devil would penetrate the body to take over and appropriate human autonomy. Those who advocate possession and draw on classical scholars completely misunderstand what the vast majority of those scholars were actually saying!
4. Hadith of Ya'la b. Murrah (Musnad Ahmad and others) about a young boy who had seemingly been afflicted with insanity. The Prophet said to him: "Get out enemy of God, I am the Prophet of God!" The particular narration often cited in Musnad Ahmad is weak having a broken chain (munqati') although there are numerous corroborating narrations, the acceptability of which have been debated by muhaddithin, some of whom have deemed them reliable. Even if we were to accept the narration, it does not tell us that the boy was possessed, nor does it clarify what the Prophet was referring to. He may have been speaking to the affliction itself, or conceivably, speaking to a devil hiding within the boy to get closer to the heart/brain where the devil's whispers would be even more potent (as explained in point 3). Also note that the Prophet didn't perform ruqyah for possession as has become the habit today, but commanded departure - and of exactly what he intended, we cannot be certain. (In a hadith of Ibn Abbas, agreed to be a fiction by all muhaddithin, a mouse jumped out of the boy's mouth!) Asserting this inconclusive narration as the basis for substantiating a theological imperative is simply absurd by any standard of religious reasoning and theology construction, especially when the interpretation contradicts the Quranic narrative.
The next post addresses what we're to make of people's experiences.
Is Jinn possession established in the Qur'an? Part 2
Nowhere near.
Here I'll briefly deal with the most significant verse cited in favour of possession (2:275). The aim is to make clear how the interpretation of verses that try to establish that jinns take control of humans where the soul loses cognitive and physical autonomy is exceedingly far-fetched and weak, and misunderstands what's been said by scholars of the past. I'm not dealing with the entirety of the subject but the popular arguments made for possession.
The MOST cited Quranic evidence for jinn possession, and the strongest according to its advocates, is the following verse:
But those who consume usury will rise up like someone tormented/driven insane by the devil’s touch.
Qur'an 2:275
This verse refers to the resurrection of those who practice usury, who shall come back to life behaving like someone who is insane. al-Qurtubi explains this behaviour as caused by the usury weighing heavily down on their stomachs (from its consumption) which causes the usurer to continously lose balance and fall over thus resembling someone crazy. The verse led scholars to explore the nature of the statement that God made in 2:275: was it literal or figuritive? If it's literal, can a devil merely touch someone to cause epilepsy? Given that the verse is related to the afterlife, and if it's taken literally, does it only refer to interactions between humans and devils in the afterlife? On all of these al-Qurtubi records the variant views. But what the scholars were NOT discussing was whether jinns take control of humans personally.
Explaining the devil's "touch"
1. The verse clearly refers to touch, NOT autonomy-losing possession. In a desperate bid to make the verse about possession, some draw on al-Qurtubi's 11-12th points of commentary (on 2:275) where he discusses how the touch of the devil can afflict a person. To be clear: al-Qurtubi is often misrepresented here - he doesn't say jinns take control of humans where the soul loses cognitive and physical autonomy. He claims that the touch causes a seizure, going on to define "touch" as the cause of insanity (junun) and NOT a jinn inside of a human pretending to be insane. al-Qurtubi then goes on to express two contentions:
a) with those who dismiss epilesy as being caused by the jinn, claiming that epilepsy is a physiological phenomenon (and not a supernatural one), and;
b) with those that claim the devil cannot traverse the human body, and that no such "touch" ever occurs.
Now the idea that epilepsy is simply a supernatural phenomenon is one nobody legitimately accepts today. However I sympathise with his second contention (which I'll explain in a later post).
2. Some draw on Ibn Taymiyyah's claim to consensus, somthing I'll deal with later on. However, according to Ibn Taymiyyah's (et al) interpretational principles, the strongest form of tafsir is to understand the Qur'an by means of the Qur'an itself (تفسير القران بالقران), i.e. an inter-textual analysis. So in this vein, if we look at God's use of the "devil's touch" elsewhere in the Qur'an, what might we strongly conclude? That "touch" refers to the whispers (waswasah) of the devil. Being touched by devils is to be subjected to their whispers (i.e figuratively touched by them) which either incite you to disobedience or misguidance, or draw on vulnerable emotions to push you over the edge.
3. For an inter-textual analysis: the most significant and detailed verses on the devil's touch are:
Those who are aware of God think of Him when the touch of Satan prompts them to do something and immediately they can see [straight]; the followers of devils are led relentlessly into error by them and cannot stop.
Qur'an 7:202-204
The verses simply tell us that God-conscious people think of God and seek refuge in him when the touch of Satan prompts them to do something. Here God relates the devil's touch as being his misguidance - by remembering God and seeking refuge in Him, they overcome a touch that leads others (followers of devils, or literally "their brothers") who don't remember God into error (الغي). Interestingly, al-Qurtubi doesn't repeat his contentions here, and considering views variant to his own without disparagement, cites Abu Ja'far al-Nuhas who said that "touch" refers to the devil's whispers. Understanding the "devil's touch" in the Quranic context is really that simple.
4. But to briefly add to this, another notable reference to "devil's touch" concerns the Prophet Job who cried out to his Lord: "Satan has touched me with weariness and suffering.’" (38:41) This verse creates a double-edged dilemma for advocates of possession. If they use it literally it helps in the argument that the devil can cause physical suffering, but taking it literally also means that it's through touch and NOT possession. Even if they had found a way around this dilemma (which they haven't), would they have the temerity to suggest that the Prophet of God Job was possessed, and thus open to be inspired, by the devil?! If the devil had such power, especially over Prophets, it'd be the end of truth and monotheism!
So what did Job actually say?
The Arabic phrase can be taken in a number of ways depending on the 'ba' (preposition). Grammatically, we may take it as the devil's touch causing Job's suffering, OR it can be taken as the devil's waswasah which exploited Job's suffering and vulnerability in an attempt to misguide him. For many reasons, it seems that the most reasonable and consistent way (inter-textually) to take his statement is that the devil would whisper to him using his vulnerabilities to incite him against God. To provide a couple:
- The context of Job's story: the devil believed he could misguide Job and turn him away from God. Throughout the Qur'an the term "touch" can be consistently understood as waswasah, which the Quran tells us is through "whispers into the hearts of people" (114:4) with "no power over you except to call you." (14:22) Notably, it's related (in the Isra'iliyaat and by Muslim historians) that the devil appeared to Job as an old man suggesting that God was ignoring his supplications and prayers.
- With what is consistent with waswasah, Job's reaction (as 38:41 illustrates) was to seek refuge in God. Thus he acted as God expects: "If Satan should prompt you to do something, seek refuge with God." (7:200, 41:36)
[Note: some exegetes merely considered it godly etiquette that Job ascribed the harm to the devil since it is inappropriate to ascribe negative things to God.]
Now as I've said, this is a very short treatment of the most significant verse cited in favour of possession. This isn't even being 'scholarly' yet and I'm sure much of this is apparent for most laymen who actually engage the Qur'an. There's so much more that can be explained, and many more verses that we can draw on, but for the purposes of a short post I hope that this very short treatment suffices.
The next post looks at some of the most significant hadith cited in favour of possession.
Do Jinns possess humans?
This is a brief summary of what I believe to be the most compelling position on Jinn possession. I'd like to believe it has little to do with trying to appease any camp or cohort and simply the product of deliberating on various shar'i sources and scholarly reasonings, all for a significant period of time. All of the following points can be greatly expanded on, as well as many more being added, but for brevity I'll keep to what's here.
In further posts, I'll briefly breakdown some of the points I make here. There are things I believe the shaytan can do to humans (such as touch/المس) but I'll not go into them since I'm specifically concerned in these posts with possession and exorcism.
1. I strongly advocate that Jinns do NOT possess human beings. By possession I specifically mean a spirit entering a body to take control of it, where the soul loses cognitive and physical autonomy to an invading sentient being.
2. These are matters of the ghayb (unseen). So if we aren't informed about something then asserting it is highly questionable. The starting premise (asl) is that it's not the case unless we can evidence, via revelation, that it is.
3. There is nothing in the Qur'an that explicitly mentions possession whilst there are verses that explicitly suggest otherwise and lay it all out:
a) God tells us that "Satan will say, ‘God gave you a true promise. I too made promises but they were false ones: I had no power over you except to call you." (14:22) So the power of the devil is restricted to calling people to iniquity and misguidance.
b) This "call" occurs as whispers/الوسوسة and prompts/النزغ: "...the harm of the slinking whisperer who whispers into the hearts of people, whether they be jinn or people." (114:4-6) The power jinn have in this context is similar to those that humans have; it is whispers and the power of suggestion that God defines as the fitnah of shaytan (7:27), exemplified by the devil's whispers to Adam (20:120) and his wife (7:20).
c) The explicitly prescribed way to overcome this is through seeking refuge with God (الاستعاذة): "If Satan should prompt you to do something, seek refuge with God." (7:200, 41:36) "And say: Lord, I take refuge with You from the goadings of the evil ones." (23:97)
4. Everything else beyond these explicit verses is highly speculative and unconvincing since they seem inconsistent with what is explicit. Anything implicit ought to be understood in light of what is explicit, that's our interpretational framework. The few verses that have been drawn on by past scholars are subjected to far-fetched interpretations and weak reasoning, and the interpretive methods employed by some of them contradicted the principles of exegesis (usul al-tafsir) they advocated - all of which I'll explain later.
5. There is nothing decisively established from the Prophet on this (another reason why jinn possession is so speculative) - the ahadith that scholars draw on have very questionable asanid (chains of narrators) which they legitimise by citing other corroborating but questionable asanid (raising the ahadith to hasan li ghairihi - those scholars who see the problems surmountable in this way). As for the authentic hadith that scholars have cited, they have little to do with possession and mostly concern the 'touch' of the devil and its effects (which I affirm but will explain elsewhere). Just as with the Qur'anic verses, the authentic hadith are subjected to far-fetched interpretations and weak reasoning, especially in light of the decisive verses in the Qur'an.
6. During the prophetic era and closely after, jinn possession doesn't seem to have been a notable social phenomenon nor widely acknowledged or discussed, nor has exorcism for possession been explicitly recorded as either conducted by the Prophet or the companions in his midst. No sahabi is recorded as having been definitively taken over and possessed, nor were the Prophet and his companions recorded as having performed ruqyah for possession (I'll address the hadith of Uthman b. al-Aas later). It's simply absent from the general picture of early Islam and their engagement with the unseen, yet today you'd think we're under mass invasion!
7. People experience events/happenings. Their experiences are real and I don't deny them, but what they make of the event is a matter of perception and interpretation, which is subjective. Two variant witnesses might interpret the same event in very different ways. I believe ruqyah can work for the afflicted, mainly as a source of comfort and as a supplication to God to relieve the person's condition. But ruqyah to drive out an invading spirit that isn't actually there doesn't even make sense.
8. There are many issues with the position (which is why advocates tend to suspend reason on this topic, whilst inconsistently reasoning verses that seem problematic to their position). If reciting some verses (and a sprinkle of holy water/salt) ejects spirits, how is it that the many people purported to be possessed offer salah and attend Jumuah? If it's claimed that the sahabah were possessed, how so when the Prophet was consistently exhorting them with the Qur'an? If 'touch' is possession, was the Prophet Job possessed by the devil (see: 38:41)?! Even if we accept the interpretation of advocates, how is it that an alleged phenomenon so widespread and debilitating was never directly addressed by the Prophet, and no explicit guidance offered? Furthermore, in our context the main challenge to faith is atheism, so why would the devil and his minions possess people only to reveal the unseen to them and prove that religious claims are accurate - it doesn't seem like a solid strategy. And why is it that those who dismiss jinn possession (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) aren't ever possessed and seemingly immune, yet those who take it seriously are the ones under the constant threat of invasion?
9. In this context I believe most raqis are charlatans and fraudsters who've found a way to benefit from the vulnerabilities and desperation of others. I believe some are sincere but ignorant and believe in what they're doing, others acknowledge that they're simply offering comfort to the afflicted and a supplication. Over the years I've personally met all these types who've respectively confided in me.
10. I can't see any benefit to this belief (which is highly speculative to begin with). It does not increase godliness and instead causes people to obsess over supernatural spirits rather than focus on the Most High productively. It tends to promote a superstitious attitude and a preoccupation with the occult and supernatural, grant the jinn powers they don't have whilst confusing the servant as to the cause of his/her tests. Many have seen how it proves a distraction from, and a convenient onus for, a person's shortcomings. Overarchingly, it fosters a culture that demotes reason which then feeds into the general way we do faith. On the flipside, dismissing jinn possession means we seek constructive solutions rather than simply putting problems down to ghosts. It gives less succour to the devil, firstly by further undermining a culture of superstition, and secondly by rendering the devil irrelevant. In this vein the Prophet said: "Don't say: 'May Satan perish!' for if you do he swells up with pride until he is as big as a house and says: 'It is by my might!' Instead say: 'In the name of God' and if you say this he'll shrink until he is as small as a fly.” (Abu Dawud) Think about it, jinn possession offers the devil exactly what he loves, undue focus and attention, and for something the Qur'an tells us he can't even do! Dismissing this idea diminishes the devil as a distraction whilst also placing culpability back in our own laps. Most significantly, it removes a major distraction from our focus on God and subservience to Him where we develop ubudiyyah built on His supreme glory and majesty, and we attribute all power to Him alone in thankful worshipfulness - and not because we're just scared the spirits will get us. In this way, dismissing the idea that jinns possess humans is advantageous to glorifying God and engendering Abrahamic monotheism (hanifiyah) which is ultimately what God wants us to do.
Jinn possessions, exorcists, and all that jazz! Part 1
The Hasanat fiasco on social media has once again brought up, amongst other things, the topic of jinn possessions. I've been overwhelmed by those affected (either directly or indirectly) by this topic to provide some clarity - particularly those who (via my work) have positively changed their attitude towards the Qur'an and have begun to personally engage with God, thus heightening their godly intuitions and critical thinking.
Now an allegedly agnostic raqi has been charging people to perform exorcises he doesn't believe in, taking advantage of the beliefs (and vulnerabilities) of sincere Muslims. Of course, this phenomenon is widespread, but we tend to see it most commonly in matters related to the realm of the paranormal. What I'd like to do is open up these beliefs for critical contemplation. To be clear, I'm not into debating or discussing irrelevant issues or theological views that are of little consequence. (I leave my theoretical shar'i musings for people of shar'i learning, intellect and civility.) And before it's said that I'm merely trying to court controversy let's be real: it's only deemed controversial because some might not like it - not because it's true or false.
The topic of jinn possession is very important. For many ethno-religious communities in the UK, it's had massive social and religious ramifications, nearly all problematic. It's warped theology and focus, uncultivated God-centredness (theocentricity), and entrenched irrationality and superstitious attitudes, many of which often veer towards shirk, all of which lead to regression. I think that regardless of their position on the matter, most would be hard-pressed to argue otherwise. Even many raqis speak out against the prevalent culture and attitude.
Those around me have heard me discuss this topic for years, long before it became an internet 'controversy' - so I'd like to make clear that this is not reactionary. I've only not addressed this sooner because I didn't believe the context was appropriate. For a number of reasons, I believe it is now. This discussion fits into the greater project of godliness (rabbaniyyah), faith (imaan), Abrahamic monotheism (hanifiyyah), reason (aql) and revelation (wah'y). We all want to be proper worshippers of God and truly subservient. These posts are an exploration of how we might be so.
A few important points to note:
- The reality of jinn possession is a matter of ijhtihad. Believing that jinns possess human beings will neither get you into paradise nor keep you out of hell. Theologically, it's not that deep. And no, a position either way doesn't situate you in orthodoxy/heterodoxy. Inherently, it's not an inherent aspect of faith (imaan).
- The discussion is presented in posts, dealing with several key aspects to this topic. I keep it brief and somewhat reductive for social media. It's not a technical presentation (and shouldn't be). Furthermore they're posts and not responses to anyone specifically (lest someone thinks I'm responding to them as the posts progress). I've cut the discussion into pieces so that they're digestible. I'd like people not only to understand what I've written but also to take some time in contemplating the posts from various viewpoints, and I strongly believe that you'll all come to the same conclusions I have. BUT if not, I'm happy to live and let live.
- I'd like to keep things mature and intelligent, and engage in good faith (as always). The discussion here is with me - the arguments are mine. This discussion has been initiated by many people independently. Please leave those discussions with those advocates (whether it's for or against). What they've argued and how they've done so has little to do with me. As Moses said to God, "I have authority over no one except myself..." (Moses included his brother Aaron but that doesn't go for me!). Judge what I'm saying based on the merit of what I say, and to the extent it resonates with your intellect (as Imam al-Shafi'i put it).
- These posts are educational, not polemic. There's a time place for everything, and HERE the purpose will be to explain a position with some clarity so people can gain a clear picture, not debate it - that can be done elsewhere.If people want, they can access the arguments FOR jinn possession elsewhere - obviously there's another position. If you're staunchly against the position explained here, that's cool, do you. But no, you're not the last bastion of truth nor will subservience to God (islam) crumble because people dismiss possession by evil spirits.
May God aid us all to overcome the devil and become the best possible versions of ourselves.
The battle against folk religion and superstition.
Whenever I speak against superstitious beliefs that have crept into the Muslim imagination I’ve found that many are unable to distinguish between theism and superstition, assuming that believing in God and what He has revealed is similar to being superstitious. This is usually predicated on a number of things: