Dr. Mutaz al-Khatib is currently Assistant Professor of Methodology and Ethics at the Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics, as well as the first-of-its-kind MA program in Applied Islamic Ethics at the College of Islamic Studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University. He holds a BA in Islamic Studies from Damascus (1997) and in Arabic Literature from Al-Azhar University. He is a reviewer for a number of journals and has authored and edited several books and over 30 academic articles on Ḥadīth criticism, Islamic Ethics, Islamic intellectual history, Maqāṣid (the higher objectives of Sharia) and Islamic Law.
The following is a translation of an article by Dr. Mutaz al-Khatīb, originally published in Arabic at IslamOnline. It tackles the subject of Prophetic Medicine, analyzing its origins and tracing its historical development in Islamic civilization. The collective trauma Muslims have endured with colonization, collapse of the caliphate, and fundamental changes made in our education systems where an artificial division between Islamic and “secular” studies has resulted in postmodernist and ideologically-motivated attempts to create a sense of Muslim independence and identity that often times are not consistent with the Islamic tradition. One of the most glaring demonstration of this is in the area of alternative medicine, where some Muslims have adopted an approach to medical practice that is hostile to empirical verification and adopts pantheistic metaphysical concepts. This includes the promotion of homeopathy, vitalism, and attributing to nature divine attributes of healing. Indeed, as Dr Al-Khatib concludes in this article, the very idea of medicine being categorized into “Islamic”, “Prophetic”, and “Western” is indicative of the Islamic situation not being well.
__ __ __ __ __
“The Prophetic Medicine” .. a common expression with an increasing number of people spreading it in this age. In its original deployment among the latter scholars of Hadith especially, it was referring to those reports coming from the Prophet ﷺ in matters relating to medicine in terms of treatment, cure, protection, incantation (ruqya), and the like.
However, this term, “The Prophetic Medicine”, is an innovated term – based on what I’ve read – around the Fourth Century A.H. where Abū Bakr ibn as-Sunni (364 A.H.) wrote “Medicine in the Ḥadith”, Abū ‘Ubayd ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ḥarrānī (369 A.H.) wrote “The Prophetic Medicine”, and subsequent books with this title came thereafter by Abū Nu’aym al-Iṣfahānī (430 A.H.), Abū ‘Abbās al-Mustaghfirī (432 A.H.), Abūl Qāsim an-Naysābūrī (406 A.H.), and others reaching to the Eighth and Ninth Centuries A.H. where we find books for ath-Thahabī (748 A.H.), ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (751 A.H.), then as-Sakhāwī (902 A.H.), as-Suyūtī (911 A.H.), and others.
MEDICINE IN THE ORIGINAL HADITH BOOKS
What turned my attention while following through and researching was that Imam Mālik (179 A.H.), the author of al-Muwatta’, which is the first book on authentic reports, didn’t use the term “medicine” at all and didn’t single out a chapter for it in his Muwatta despite having titled a chapter “The [Evil] Eye” where he mentioned in it the Ḥadiths on treatment of the [evil] eye, bathing with water from fever, and [rejection of belief in] omens. He listed Ḥadiths about the plague in the chapter “The Collective”. All these were among the isolated terms for what later was termed “The Prophetic Medicine”.
Likewise, the Imams al-Bukhārī, Abū Dawūd, and ibn Majah dedicated a chapter [in their respective collections] they titled “The Chapter on Medicine”, where they mentioned Ḥadiths related to protection, cure, and some treatments. Meanwhile, Imam Muslim (261 A.H.) collected all the items of what was called The Prophetic Medicine under the chapter “Wholeness”, within which he included a section he titled “Medicine, Illness, and Spiritual Treatments“, and alongside it other sections on poison, magic, spiritual treatment, omens, and others. As for Imam at-Tirmithī (279 A.H.), he titled the chapter “Medicine of the Messenger of Allah“.
The question now: is there meaning to this?
Among what is established is that scholars of Ḥadith were specific in titling their chapters and sections, and the juristic understanding of many of them can be deduced from their methodology in classification and compilation. From what has preceded it’s possible to record the following observations:
- There were reported Prophetic Ḥadiths in the matters of cure and medical treatment and the like that Ḥadith scholars put under a collective title, as the case was with other Ḥadiths when it was common to compile in terms of chapters [dealing with] “Subjects”. Hence, the titling of the chapter “Medicine” appeared as a collective term for the totality of those Ḥadiths;
- The lack of consistency in the use of a single term in these books, which are primary resources for Ḥadith, means that this was a matter of studious judgement (mas’alatun ijtihadiyya) subject to “technical” considerations related to the ordering of Ḥadiths and nothing else. Only from this came the titling “Medicine”;
- The affair of this collection of Ḥadiths related to matters collected under the title “Medicine” is the same as the affair of other Ḥadiths with regards to having it establish the condition of authenticity the author of the book who collected them has stipulated: if he stipulated its authenticity, then its authentic for him [i.e. in his judgement], or if he adhered to gathering what was “acceptable” of the Sunnah of the Chosen One ﷺ and his statements and actions, of which were these statements related to the matter of medicine.
However, two very important issues remain regarding the totality of Ḥadiths, in medicine and other than it, which are:
First: The methodology of inferring evidence from these Ḥadiths and the context of acting upon them, because not everything that was authentic is acted upon, as it’s established in Foundations of Jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh). For there are authenticated Ḥadiths the action is in opposition to them, and some have collected Ḥadiths the jurists did not make decrees with.
Second: The sorting of Ḥadiths in relation to the composition of the personality of the Prophet ﷺ and multiplicity of his established roles. Among them are what comes forth from the attribute of Prophethood, informing [the people of God’s Commands] and [issuing] religious decrees, where the source is Revelation and this is no doubt part of the Sacred Law. Also among them are what comes forth from the attributes of leadership/politics, judiciary, and what comes from his attribute as Muhammad the human being who gained his life experiences from his social milieu and cultural environment, and this is not related to Revelation in details, even though it remains contextualized with a [revered] general context, which is the personhood of Prophethood and its elevated status.
The titling of Imam at-Tirmidhī “Medicine of the Prophet of Allah” is a specific title that does not deviate from what I’ve mentioned in that this chapter gathers the Ḥadiths that came from the Messenger of Allah regarding the matter of medicine. However, what remains after that is the research into the two preceding issues. Meanwhile, the coined term “The Prophet’s Medicine” that was inaugurated later acted as if the status of these Ḥadiths was decided and that everything that comes from him ﷺ is a religious decrees, including Ḥadiths on medicine, but this opinion is rejected by investigative scholars.
AWARENESS OF MEDICINE AND ITS LIMITS
We should point out that we don’t find the expression “The Prophetic Medicine” – after research – widely used in the books of islamic law or in commentaries on Ḥadiths. The juristic awareness in its totality during the early times was restricted to the context of researching the permissibility of seeking treatment, and that it does not garner a religious sin as it also does not blemish the purity of reliance upon Allah and affirming His Oneness. We find these discussions in the commentaries of Ḥadiths and even in the books of prophetic medicine themselves such as in Imam at-Thahabī’s, for example. In this, the Imam Badr ad-Dīn al-‘Aaynī said, and he’s one of the commentators on Ṣahih al-Bukhārī: “In it is the permission to seek treatment and permissibility of medicine, which is a refutation of the Ṣufī’s in [their claim] that sainthood (wilāya) is not achieved completely unless one accepts everything that has befallen them in tribulation and it’s not permissible to seek treatment for it, and this is in opposition to the Sacred Law.” Indeed, al-Azraqī becomes severe in defending medicine and affirms its benefits in the introduction to his book Tas’hīl al-Manāfi’ (Facilitating Benefits).
We find argumentation on whether seeking treatment negates reliance [upon Allah] in the books of ibn al-Qayyim and ibn Ḥajar. Indeed, the jurists differed on the ruling of seeking treatment, where the Shafi’is said it was Sunnah but not obligated, stating that its benefit is not certain. Some jurists, one of whom was an-Nawawī (676 A.H.) said, “Leaving the seeking of treatment for the one strong in reliance [upon Allah] is better.”
We find in the Muwatta of Imam Mālik – May Allah have mercy upon him – that a man during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was wounded and the blood collected in it [i.e. a hematoma]. The man called upon two men from the tribe of Banī Anmār who looked at it and they claimed that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to them, “Which one of you is more skilled in medicine?” They replied, “Is there good in medicine O Messenger of Allah?” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “The One Who brought down the treatment is the One Who brought down the illnesses.” So, the two men found strange that there would be good in medicine, and the Prophet ﷺ is asking them: Which of them two is more skilled in the practice of medicine, which was a practice present in his time. Because of this ibn Khaldūn said in his Muqaddima, “And the medicine transmitted in the Sacred Law (i.e. prophetic medicine) is of this type (meaning customary practice), and it’s not from Revelation in any way. Rather, it was a customary matter for Arabs.”
As such, we find that [medical] awareness in that time was within the limits of permissibility of seeking treatment, and that medicine has benefits. It was at this level that argumentation revolved at the beginning. In the First Century A.H. to the middle of the Second Century A.H. medicine did not reach among the Arabs – as Edward Van Dyke states – “the degree of precise science. Rather, it was restricted to some pieces of information gained through experiments. However, neighbouring states to the Arabs were at a high degree of development and advancement, especially in medicine. For this, few Arab individuals used to capture some medical knowledge from them and bring it back to their homes, Among what enticed them to follow in this path were the Ḥadiths related from the bearer of Islamic Law in the partaking of some treatments.”
MEDICINE: ITS RENAISSANCE AND RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY
If it’s established that the expression “The Prophetic Medicine” only became widespread in the Fourth Century A.H., perhaps there’s an indication to this. For this century witnessed the renaissance of medical science on the hand of Imam ar-Rāzī (313 A.H.), the author of al-Ḥāwī, and others similar to him. This was after the caliphs in the Second and Third Centuries became concerned with energizing science, especially medicine, and called to their court the teachers and skilled professionals in this practice. They gave many gifts to the skilled translators of Greek medical compilations to Arabic. During the rule of al-Manṣūr al-‘Abbāsī (148 A.H.) they contacted the School of Jundishapur, where al-Manṣūr called upon one of its physicians – who was Georges ibn Bakhtayashū’ – to treat him for indigestion, who in turn earned a favourable status with the caliph after having treated him. The school was moved to Baghdad, and this physician was among the most prominent translators of medical texts afterwards next to Ḥunayn ibn Is’ḥāq and others. Hence, Greek medicine was the foundation upon which Islam’s physicians built the science of medicine.
It’s important to note here that it was often the case that medicine was connected to philosophy during these times. Indeed, medicine was considered a branch from naturalism, which is a branch of philosophy. ibn Khaldūn says, “and from the branches of naturalism: the practice of medicine.” A number of medicine’s pillars were philosophers, equally whether from the Greeks or the Muslims. Even ibn Sīna in the introduction to his book The Canon said that physician in his medical practice needs the evidence as a philosopher, not as a physician.
The atmosphere that we mentioned a side of is what aided in the medical renaissance at the beginning of Islam, without stopping at the religious affiliation of the physical or the medicine and its origin. Even Ibn Rushd said in the Decisive Statement (Fasl al-Maqāl), “We must seek help in what we are setting on from what those before us have said in that matter, regardless whether that other has shared with us the religion or not. For the tool through which rectification can happen is not considered based on it being a tool of one who shares with us in the region or not if it fulfils the conditions of rectification.”
Indeed, the careful observer of some compilations of prophetic medicine will find that it was influenced in its ordering [of chapters] by books from the likes of ibn Sīna (428 A.H.) in his famous book The Canon, which has no relation to prophetic medicine at all, for it’s the product of accumulated medical knowledge from those preceding him and Greek medicine. For example, ibn al-Qayyim spoke about illness and its categories, the cure, and seeking treatment. Then, [he spoke about] treatment with natural medicine, and then about the way of him ﷺ in treating certain illnesses. He then mentioned something about medications and foods. As for the book of as-Suyūtī, his book is organized based on three themes: the first is principles of medicine, the second is medications and foods, and the third is on treating illnesses. Now let us contemplate on the organization of The Canon by Ibn Sina (428 A.H.) to find: general matters, individual medications, partial illnesses, illnesses that are not specific to a limb/organ, compounded medications.
Add to this that there is a vast space between The Canon by Ibn Sina, which was considered an opening in medicine as a science that has its generalities and detailed specifics, to the degree that it was the primary resource for practicing medicine, and the books of what’s called the prophetic medicine, which do not ascend to the level of an encompassing “science”. Rather, they’re isolated reports from here and there, and in most of it revolves around general counsels. It does not contain a specific medical theory so that it can be called a science. If Haji Khalifa gave a chapter for it in his book Unveiling Conjectures (Kashf ash-Dhunūn) with his title “The Science of the Prophet ﷺ’s Medicine“, then this does not equate to science in its technical meaning. Rather, it has the simple meaning that’s covered in the compilation, because this was mentioned in the compilations of Abī Na’īm and others after him. Indeed, this is what Ṭāsh Kubrī Zadah affirmed in The Key to Felicity (Miftāh as-Sa’ādah) where he said, “The science of the Prophet ﷺ’s medicine is a science researching the Prophetic Hadiths reported in treating the infirm.”
MEDICINE OF ḤADITH SCHOLARS .. AND MEDICINE OF THE GREEKS
There is an important observation here that must be mentioned and built upon. It’s that occupation with what was known as The Prophetic Medicine was a Hadith occupation in the first degree. In its origin, it was a chapter among Hadith chapters. Hence, the generality of those compiling in it were Ḥadith scholars. The method of Ḥadith scholars is to care for everything that came from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and their overwhelming affair is to consider all of that part of the Sacred Law. From this, it does not appear as strange for ibn al-Qayyim to say: “The medicine of the Prophet is certain, unequivocal, divine, coming forth from Revelation and the lantern of Prophethood.” This is an excellent Ḥadith-type consciousness. Let us then contemplate the preceding jurist-type consciousness that argues at the level of permissibly of seeking treatment and its ruling. Indeed, what drove the Shafi’is from obligating treatment from illness is the lack of certainty in the benefit of the medicine that ibn al-Qayyim says is unequivocal and certain! Similarly, let us contemplate the opinion that leaving treatment is better, as opposed to the declaration of a divine medicine the consumption of which would negate the strength and reliance of a believer [upon Allah]!. The Ḥadith and juristic consciousnesses meet at the level of envisioning medicine and treatment as interventions in the human body. From this was the delving into the question of permissibility of treatment or lack of it, and in prophetic medicine considering that this intervention is based on what is sanctioned in the Sacred Law as reported in the Ḥadiths.
Let us then contemplate all these observations, combined with the previous section about the origin of medicine as a branch from naturalism, which is a branch from philosophy, and the flourishing of medical knowledge with the translation movement that included Greek philosophy and medicine during the Abbasid period. All this means that this movement occurred in isolation from both the juristic and Ḥadith consciousnesses. Despite this, we find the commentaries of Ḥadith benefited from Greek medicine and relied on Hippocrates’ theory on the humours and temperaments, as well as the Greek theory positing the four fundamental elements: fire, air, water, and earth. From this come expressions like hot, cold, humid, and dry in the “Prophetic Medicine” books and commentaries on Ḥadiths.
To this point there doesn’t seem to be much sensitivity against relating and benefiting from Greek medicine. Despite the existence of “The Prophetic Medicine” books and the arguments around seeking treatment and whether that negates reliance upon Allah, I didn’t find arguments around the obligation of adopting prophetic medicine and rejection of Greek medicine, for example. I also didn’t find arguments around the science of prophetic medicine in opposition to the science of Green medicine. Rather, as we’ve said, there was a crossing between the two. And there were physicians from many religions such that Edward Van Dyck said: “The great majority of physicians from 150 A.H. until 300 A.H. were Christians.” ibn Abī Sab’īa authored a dedicated “Generations of Physicians” considering medicine a human inheritance, and mentioned physicians from the Greeks, the Alexandrians, those present at the beginning of Islam’s manifestation, the Syriacs, the translating physicians, and physicians from the Arab Peninsula, the Maghreb, India, Egypt, and Sham region.
All this means that when Ibn Rushd spoke about dismissing consideration of the religious background for the consideration of benefit and health, it had an affirming reality in the history of Islamic civilization and its influences. Meanwhile, the total separation occurring today in talking about a Western medicine, another Islamic, and a third prophetic, and centering around ideological defences in the face of our disturbed relationship with the West in recent decades, and doing so within the narrative of Islamization and the trite use of it by many of those fervent for Islam, all this means the Islamic situation is not well.
