Someone compared two incidents regarding magic and following an Imam. Previously, we said that
“If an Imam believes in Sorcery (sihr), and after we explain clearly with evidence, the imam still stubbornly persists, then he should not be followed in prayer.”
I explained that statement. But I failed to clearly add that we have since revised that position. The wording gave the impression that I still hold that earlier view. Because of that, some circulated a video claiming I had changed my stance only now. When I saw the video, I realized that I did not fully clarify that the earlier view had been revised. So, I made that video private.
Our stance has not changed regarding Sorcery being shirk. We have consistently said believing that the Prophetﷺ was affected by sorcery contradicts the Qur’an and constitutes shirk. That has not changed. The issue is about the ruling on those who believe in sorcery.
Do we automatically declare them mushrik and refuse to follow them in prayer? That is where clarification is needed. There are two categories. One group blindly believes without evidence. Another group believes based on hadith reports and Qur’an 2:102, thinking they are following evidence. Even if they believe in sorcery, the act itself is shirk. There is no difference of opinion on that. But are they knowingly committing shirk, or are they ignorant?
There is a hadith: During the Prophetﷺ’s lifetime, some Companions used to swear “By the Ka‘bah.” Swearing by other than Allahﷻ is shirk. Yet they did this in the Prophetﷺ’s presence. The Prophetﷺ did not immediately condemn them until a Jew pointed it out, saying, “You commit shirk by swearing by the Ka‘bah.” Then the Prophetﷺ corrected them: say “By the Lord of the Ka‘bah,” not by the Ka‘bah itself.
Similarly, some Companions would say, “Whatever Allahuﷻ and you willed.” The Prophetﷺ corrected them: say, “Whatever Allahuﷻ willed, then you willed.” Do not join Allahuﷻ and me together.
So, they committed shirk unknowingly. If someone had died during that period before correction, would we call them mushrik? No. Though the act was shirk, they were ignorant. From this, we understand that a person may commit shirk unknowingly and still be Muslim. Therefore, if someone believes in sorcery based on hadith thinking it is correct, they are committing shirk, but unknowingly.
Now, comes the comparison with Imam Bukhari and other hadith scholars. They recorded the hadith about sorcery. Does that mean they believed in sorcery as a doctrine? Recording a report does not automatically mean endorsing it. They recorded based on chains of narration. They also recorded reports condemning sorcery.
If you declare anyone who records such a hadith to be mushrik, then you must reject all hadith scholars, including Bukhari and Muslim. Then you would have no hadith left—only the Qur’an. That leads to contradiction. Hadith scholars recorded reports based on transmission criteria, not necessarily because they personally endorsed every content detail. Therefore, you cannot equate recording a report with theological endorsement.
So, our position is consistent. Sorcery is shirk. But a person may fall into shirk unknowingly, as shown by the hadith examples. Therefore, we do not automatically declare such people mushrik in a way that nullifies following them in prayer. That is the clarification.
For example, in Bukhari, there is a narrator. The person from whom Bukhari narrates is also a narrator. The person from whom that man narrates is also a narrator; again, the person from whom that man narrates is also a narrator. But the very last person who speaks — he is not a narrator.
In a hadith, if you look from here, he appears as the last; if you look from there, he appears as the first. From that side, he is the first source. The narrator is the one who conveys the report. He is the one who says it. The one who reports takes the words of the next person and conveys them. But the one who actually speaks — the one who owns the statement — who is he? Whose words is he saying? He himself is saying it. He is the first source. He is saying it himself.
Similarly, when someone says, “The Prophetﷺ said…”, that person is narrating. If he speaks about the actions and matters of the Prophetﷺ, he is the one saying it. So, the term “narrator” applies to Bukhari — you may say he is a narrator and move on. Whether he believes it or not does not come into discussion there. You say he is conveying the information he heard.
For example, take the hadith about sorcery. What does the hadith about sorcery say? Bukhari reports it. There are many such hadith but take one example — hadith number 3268. It says: “Haddathana Ibrahim ibn Musa” — Ibrahim ibn Musa told us. So, is Ibrahim ibn Musa saying it on his own, or is he reporting what he heard? He is reporting what he heard. He says: “Akhbarana ‘Isa” — ‘Isa told us.
So who is ‘Isa? He too is someone who heard and reported. ‘Isa tells Ibrahim. What does ‘Isa say? He says it through Hisham — Hisham, the son of ‘Urwah. He says it through Hisham. So did Hisham speak from himself? No — he says it through his father ‘Urwah. ‘Urwah says it from Aisha (Mother of Believers). Finally, it reaches Aisha (Mother of Believers).
Now in this report, is Aisha (Mother of Believers) a narrator, or is she the owner of the statement? When it is said that the Prophetﷺ was affected by sorcery, is she narrating it from someone else? Is she believing something someone told her? How should this be understood?
In all hadith, the first person in the chain — you call him a narrator. But he is not merely a narrator. He is the owner of the statement. When the Messengerﷺ of Allahuﷻ speaks, will you call him a narrator? A hadith says, “The Messengerﷺ of Allahuﷻ said…” Will you call the Messengerﷺ a narrator? No, you will not.
Likewise, if Aisha (Mother of Believers) speaks about something she personally witnessed, she is speaking from herself. She is saying what she thought. She is not reporting something she heard from someone else.
You must understand this clearly. When Aisha (Mother of Believers) speaks, she does not say, “Someone told me.” She speaks about what she saw with her own eyes, what she experienced, what happened. She conveys what she witnessed.
So, in this chain, the term “narrator” applies to Bukhari. It applies to Ibrahim ibn Musa. It applies to ‘Isa. It applies to Hisham. It applies to ‘Urwah. But it does not apply to Aisha (Mother of Believers).
Why not? Because Aisha (Mother of Believers) did not narrate it from someone else. She spoke what she understood, what she believed, what she perceived. She spoke with her conviction.
So, you can say: Aisha (Mother of Believers) said it, ‘Urwah believed her and conveyed it, Hisham believed ‘Urwah and conveyed it, ‘Isa believed Hisham and conveyed it, Ibrahim ibn Musa believed ‘Isa and conveyed it, and Bukhari believed Ibrahim and conveyed it. Up to ‘Urwah and those after him, you can call them narrators.
But the first source — the origin of the report — that person is not merely a narrator. He or she is a witness. They saw it directly. They convey what they saw and what they believed happened. So you cannot make Aisha (Mother of Believers) just a narrator.
What did Aisha (Mother of Believers) say? She said the Prophetﷺ was affected by sorcery — to the extent that he would think he had done something which he had not done. She said the Prophetﷺ experienced that level of condition due to sorcery.
Is that narration? Or is that her belief? Narration means repeating what someone else said. Belief means she is the first source. So, Aisha (Mother of Believers) is speaking from belief.
Now according to Bukhari’s position — not our belief, but Bukhari’s position — did Aisha (Mother of Believers) believe that the Prophetﷺ was affected by sorcery? Yes. Not as speculation, but from observation. She describes how he behaved during that period. She describes his condition as a wife who observed her husband closely.
So, this is not second-hand reporting. It’s her own conviction. According to Bukhari’s position, Aisha (Mother of Believers) believed in sorcery. So, what does that show? If believing in sorcery were shirk, would Bukhari have recorded this hadith in his Sahih? His position must be that believing in sorcery does not make someone a mushrik.
That is why he records it. If he believed Aisha (Mother of Believers) committed shirk by believing this, he would not have included it. So, Bukhari’s stance becomes clear: If someone believes in sorcery, that does not automatically make him a mushrik. Otherwise, he would have rejected Aisha (Mother of Believers)’s report.
The same applies to other hadith scholars. They accepted narrations from people who believed in sorcery. That means they did not consider such belief to be shirk. Now, if you say: “This imam believes in sorcery, therefore he commits shirk. I will not follow him in prayer.” You have the authority to make that decision. But if you make that decision, then you must apply the same ruling consistently to Bukhari, Muslim, and all earlier scholars who recorded these hadith.
If you declare that believing in sorcery is shirk, then all those scholars who affirmed it must also fall under that ruling. If they fall under that ruling, then their narrations cannot be accepted. If their narrations cannot be accepted, then hadith as a whole will collapse. Because the first narrator of every hadith in Sahih Bukhari is – Bukhari himself. If he committed shirk, then you cannot accept anything he narrated.
So, if you say, “My local imam believes in sorcery, so I will not pray behind him,” then you must also say, “I reject Bukhari entirely.” Otherwise, it becomes contradictory.
If you say earlier scholars misunderstood, then why can’t contemporary scholars also have misunderstood? Misunderstanding is possible in every era. Even during the Prophetﷺ’s lifetime, companions misunderstood certain subtle matters of shirk until corrected.
So, the point is this: be consistent. If you declare someone a mushrik for believing in sorcery, then you must apply it across 14 centuries of scholarship. If you are not prepared to do that, then you must accept that scholars may have misunderstood while still remaining within Islam. That is the core of the discussion.
The brother who asked this question says he wants to protect his deeds. If he truly believes someone commits shirk and chooses not to follow him in prayer, then that is his personal decision. But he must answer the larger implication: what about the scholars of the past?
If you say Bukhari misunderstood — then say the same about present scholars. If you say present scholars committed shirk — then say the same about Bukhari and reject his entire work. Only then would your position be logically consistent. That is the issue being discussed.
