Waqar Akbar Cheema
Abstract
This paper revisits “prophetic medicine” (tibb al-nabawi) by addressing a central confusion in its interpretation: the conflation of truth with universal applicability. Hadith reports describing cures are often treated either as binding prescriptions or dismissed as context-bound and unreliable. Both readings, it is argued, are mistaken. Drawing on classical scholarship, the paper proposes that such statements are truthful in substance but conditioned in their application. Read in this light, prophetic medicine is neither a fixed medical system nor a relic of its time, but a body of guidance whose meaning unfolds through context.
1. Introduction
Hadith reports that refer to the treatment of diseases or describe the curative effects of certain substances have long been a source of unease for some readers. This unease is not confined to sceptics of hadith literature; it is also found among those inclined towards overly rationalistic readings. In many cases, the difficulty lies less in the reports themselves and more in the assumptions brought to them.
Such narrations are often approached in an unduly simplistic manner. When a hadith mentions a cure in black seed, for instance, it is frequently assumed that this refers to its isolated and raw use, rather than to a broader curative potential that may involve processing, combination, or context-specific application. At the same time, modern scientific knowledge is sometimes treated as if it has already exhausted the possibilities of the natural world, leaving little room for alternative understandings of efficacy. In this regard, the Prophetic tradition itself affirms:
ما أنزل الله داء، إلا قد أنزل له شفاء، علمه من علمه، وجهله من جهله
Allah has not sent down any disease, but He has also sent down a remedy for it. Those who know it know it, and those who do not know it do not know it.[1]
It also cautions against the presumption that human inquiry has already uncovered the full therapeutic potential of natural substances. Reports such as the Hadith of the Fly[2] may be read in this light: not as prescriptive mandates, but as indicative of properties whose mechanisms may not yet be fully understood, including the possibility that what appears harmful in isolation may, under certain conditions, be counteracted within the same medium.
At the heart of these difficulties lies a failure to distinguish between the truth of a statement and the universality of its application.
While a believer affirms what is authentically reported from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), such reports do not restrict treatment to particular substances nor preclude seeking remedy elsewhere. Even where certain remedies are mentioned, they are not framed as binding obligations. Moreover, many of these narrations arise within specific spatial and temporal contexts that bear upon how they are to be understood.
This paper examines the notion of prophetic medicine in light of facts, norms, and law, arguing that such statements are truthful in substance while requiring contextual understanding in their application.
2. The Status of ‘Prophetic Medicine’ in Shar’ia
To properly understand hadith reports relating to disease and cure, one must first clarify what is meant by “Prophetic Medicine” and how it relates to the normative domain of Sharī‘a.
2.1 The factual truth of prophetic medicine
A number of scholars have compiled works on prophetic medicine, while others have clarified that such reports are not part of Sharī‘a in the sense of binding prescriptions that must be followed to the exclusion of all other treatments.
Ibn Khaldun (d. 808/1406), in his Muqaddimah, famously framed much of this material as reflective of customary Arab practice rather than divine legislation:
The medicine mentioned in religious tradition is of the (Bedouin) type. It is in no way part of the divine revelation. (Such medical matters) were merely (part of) Arab custom and happened to be mentioned in connection with the circumstances of the Prophet (ﷺ), like other things that were customary in his generation. They were not mentioned in order to imply that that particular way of practicing (medicine) is stipulated by the religious law. Muhammad was sent to teach us the religious law. He was not sent to teach us medicine or any other ordinary matter. In connection with the story of the fecundation of the palms, he said: “You know more about your worldly affairs (than I).”
None of the statements concerning medicine that occur in sound traditions should be considered to (have the force of) law. There is nothing to indicate that this is the case. The only thing is that if that type of medicine is used for the sake of a divine blessing and in true religious faith, it may be very useful. However, that would have nothing to do with humoral medicine but be the result of true faith. This happened in the case of the person who had a stomach-ache and was treated with honey, and similar stories.[3]
This position, however, has not gone uncontested. Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani cautions against drawing overly categorical conclusions:
If with these words Ibn Khaldun meant to say that medical cures reported from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) were based on isolated individual experiences and that it is possible for some of them to be against the established facts of medical science, then this is a dangerous proposition. Similarly, Ibn Khaldun’s assertion that “it is in no way part of the divine revelation” is impossible to find a textual basis or categorical proof otherwise. What is it that forbids the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) to learn of treatments through divine revelation? In fact, there is no way to be certain of either of the two possibilities. It may be that he learnt of some of the treatments through revelation, and his knowledge of others was based on experience rather than revelation.
This critique challenges the categorical exclusion of such reports from any connection with revelation. He continues:
Nevertheless, we are certain that it is impossible for medicine-related information, which the Prophet (ﷺ) is authentically reported to have stated positively, to be untrue, whether he had learnt it from other humans or not. This is because the Prophet (ﷺ) could not positively state what does not confirm with the facts. If it was based on revelation, then evidently it was according to the facts; if it was not revelation-based, then he could not have settled in affirming the untrue. As to the report about the fecundation of palm-trees that Ibn Khaldun sought evidence with, therein the Prophet (ﷺ) did not state anything positively (lam yajzim). It was merely guesswork as the Prophet (ﷺ) stated in that incident: “I had only made a guess. So, do not cling to me in my guess.” Assertive statements cannot be understood on these lines.
Yes, it may, however, be said that the medical cures reported from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) were not among the duties of prophethood. They are not part of the Shar’ia in the sense of obligation upon every individual required to be followed in every situation.[4]
Taqi Usmani then substantiates his conclusion with the following remarks of Shah Wali Ullah Al-Dehlawi (d. 1176/1762):
[What] was reported from the Prophet (ﷺ) and recorded in the books of hadith falls under two categories.
The first category (of the Prophetic sciences) comprises those things which are a means for the propagation of the message …
The second category (of the Prophet’s sayings) comprises whatever does not come under the topic of propagating the message … Included in this section is medicine, and also topics like the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him, “Be keen to acquire (as best for Jihad) a black horse; with a whitish blaze on its forehead,” and this was based on experience. Included (in this) are what the Prophet (ﷺ) did as part of his daily routine, not as religious practice.[5]
From this, a balanced position emerges: prophetic medical statements are truthful in substance, but not binding as law. This conclusion admits of a further clarification. Even where such medical statements do not constitute part of the Sharī‘a in a prescriptive sense, what the Prophet (ﷺ) is authentically reported to have stated positively cannot be considered untrue. For had an assertion of this nature been incorrect, it would not have been left uncorrected, as persistent error in such matters would undermine the authority of the Prophetic office. In this sense, such statements carry an implicit or tacit approval.
This, however, does not entail that the treatments mentioned were universally optimal or applicable in all circumstances. The very nature of medicine—as dependent on condition, environment, and individual constitution—precludes such generalisation.
Moreover, this applies only to what the Prophet (ﷺ) himself stated or expressly approved. It does not extend to treatments merely practised in his presence or administered to him by others. Such practices need not carry any revelatory sanction, as indicated by reports that ʿAisha would treat him using remedies she had learnt from the visiting tribes from all over Arabia.[6]
3. Contextualising the Prophetic Medicine
The efficacy of medicine, especially that based on natural substances, depends on a range of interrelated factors. A remedy may be effective in one environment but not in another; beneficial under certain conditions yet harmful under others. Climatic variation, dietary habits, and patterns of living all influence how substances interact with the human body.
These considerations apply equally to what is termed ‘prophetic medicine’. The medical references found in hadith reports were addressed to a particular audience, within a specific ecological and cultural setting, and often reflected what was most suitable and accessible in that context.
At the same time, the language in which such statements are conveyed further shapes their meaning, as expressions may carry forms of qualified generality rather than absolute universality.
Abu al-‘Abbas al-Qurtubi (d. 656/1258) states:
إن هذه المذكورات في هذا الحديث إنما خصَّت بالذكر ؛ لأنَّها كانت أغلب أدويتهم ، وأنفع لهم من غيرها جكم اعتيادهم لها ، ومناسبتها لغالب أمراضهم ، ولا يلزم أن تكون كذلك في حق غيرهم ممن يخالفهم في بلادهم وعاداتهم وأهويتهم . ومن المعلوم بالمشاهدة اختلاف العلاجات والأدوية حسب اختلاف البلاد والعادات ، وإن اتحدت أسباب الأمراض. والله تعالى أعلم .
These things are specifically mentioned in the hadith because they were the most common medicines with them, more beneficial than other things for their common ailments. It is not necessary that they had the same effect on others living in different regions with different lifestyles. Experience shows that different medicines are suitable for different regions and lifestyles, even when the underlying causes of disease are the same.[7]
3.1 Linguistic context and qualified generality
Classical scholarship also highlights the importance of language and rhetorical usage. Al-Khattabi (d. 388/998) explains that expressions such as “a cure for every disease” with relation to the black-seed[8] are not intended in an absolute sense:
وهذا من عموم اللفظ الذي يراد به الخصوص؛ إذ ليس يجتمع في طبع شيء من النبات والشجر جميع القوى التي تقابل الطبائع كلها في معالجة الأدواء على اختلافها وتباين طبائعها وإنما أراد أنه شفاء من كل داء يحدث من الرطوبة والبلغم وذلك أنه/ حار يابس, فهو شفاء بإذن الله للداء المقابل له في الرطوبة والبرودة وذلك أن الدواء أبدا بالمضاد والغذاء بالمشاكل.
This falls under general wording intended specifically. For it is not the case that any plant contains all properties needed to treat every illness of differing natures. Rather, what is meant is that it cures illnesses arising from moisture and phlegm. This is because it is hot and dry; thus, it cures—by Allah’s permission—those ailments opposed to it in moisture and coldness. For treatment is always by opposites, while nourishment is by similars.[9]
Similarly, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d. 852/1449) says:
وقال أبو بكر بن العربي العسل عند الأطباء أقرب إلى أن يكون دواء من كل داء من الحبة السوداء، ومع ذلك فإن من الأمراض ما لو شرب صاحبه العسل لتأذى به، فإن كان المراد بقوله في العسل” فيه شفاء للناس” الأكثر الأغلب فحمل الحبة السوداء على ذلك أولى.
وقال غيره: كان النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- يصف الدواء بحسب ما يشاهده من حال المريض، فلعل قوله في الحبة السوداء وافق مرض من مزاجه بارد، فيكون معنى قوله «شفاء من كل داء»؛ أي: من هذا الجنس الذي وقع القول فيه، والتخصيص بالحيثية كثير وشائع”
Qadi Ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 453/1148) said: According to physicians, honey is more deserving of being considered a remedy for every disease than black seed. Yet even so, there are certain illnesses in which, if a person were to consume honey, it would harm him. Thus, if the statement regarding honey—‘in it is healing for people’—is understood to refer to what is predominant and most common, then applying the same understanding to black seed would be even more appropriate.
Others have said: the Prophet (ﷺ) would prescribe treatment in accordance with what he observed of the patient’s condition. It is possible that his statement regarding black seed corresponded to a disease arising from a cold temperament. Accordingly, the meaning of his statement ‘a cure for every disease’ would be: for every disease of that particular kind about which the statement was made. Specification by context and circumstance is both frequent and well established.[10]
A further illustration may be seen in the reports concerning ʿajwah dates.[11] While the protection mentioned is expressed in general terms, related narrations introduce important qualifications: some emphasise consumption in the early morning while fasting, and others reflect regular use as understood by ʿĀ’ishah[12]. Read together, these indicate that the benefit is linked to particular conditions. In this light, the term samm (lit., poison) in the report may not necessarily refer to an instantly fatal substance; it may extend more broadly to harmful substances whose effects may vary in nature and intensity and may be mitigated under specific conditions of use.[13]
3.2 The spatio-temporal considerations
That the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) lived in seventh-century Arabia is a fact that has an important bearing upon the understanding of hadith reports with a medical undertone. Such sayings were immediately and most importantly relevant to the immediate listeners and companions of the Prophet (ﷺ). Therefore, whatever curative or adverse effects of substances have been mentioned in hadith reports must be seen in the light of the knowledge and means available to the people of that specific time and space. Even if tacitly approved by revelation, it only signifies that substances so categorised had particular effects. A substance said to have curative effects would have been the best possible remedy for certain ailments from those available and known to the people of seventh-century Arabia. It does not necessarily mean that, at all times, believers everywhere need to seek a remedy exclusively through the substances mentioned in hadith reports.
The following examples establish this.
(a) On one occasion, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) allowed a group of people who had some stomach-related problems to move to certain pasture-lands and seek a remedy with the camel urine there.[14] Arabs had known the curative effect of camel urine.[15] Labid bin Rabi’a, a renowned pre-Islamic poet, alludes to it in one of his poems.[16]
Ottoman era pharmacist Dawud al-Antaki (d. 1599) mentions that camel urine cures one form of abdominal disease, ascites (istisqa’), especially when they graze in pastures having herbs Achillea millefolium (qaysum) and Artemisia (shayh).[17]
Therefore, while camel urine was seen as helpful in the treatment of certain abdominal diseases, it may not always have the same effect in other regions with different climatic conditions and grazing available to the herds. Moreover, as already observed, the hadith does not obligate seeking treatment of ascites with camel urine nor does it bar against seeking a cure with other, possibly more effective medicine.
(b) The Prophet (ﷺ) is reported to have mentioned that the meat of a cow has a disease, while its milk is healthy to drink.[18] Whereas the Qur’an (6:142-146) mentions the permissibility of cow meat and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) himself slaughtered it on occasions,[19] the reliable hadith mentioning the harmful nature of cow meat did not have any legal connotation; rather, it was health care advice. Scholarly explanations highlight the statement’s spatial and climatic context. It has been pointed out that in the particularly dry climates, such as that of Hijaz, cow meat is deemed as unhealthy, whereas cow milk is considered beneficial.[20] Naturally, the same does not apply to other regions with different climatic conditions.
Thus, what once served as the best available remedy may no longer do so as medical knowledge and treatments evolve; likewise, what proved harmful in one climatic setting may be nutritionally beneficial in another.
3.3 Formulation, dosage, and method
Another important dimension is how a substance is used. A remedy may not be effective in its raw form but may require processing, combination, or appropriate dosage. It might be effective in raw form, or when ground, pressed, or taken alongside another substance. This reflects an awareness of formulation rather than simplistic usage.
A report attributed to ‘Awf b. Malik al-Ashja‘i illustrates this principle. He combined substances mentioned in the Qur’an—rainwater, honey, and olive oil—seeking healing through their cumulative effect.[21] Whether taken as prescriptive or illustrative, it points to an early recognition that efficacy may lie not merely in the substance itself, but in its manner of use.
The hadith of honey further clarifies the importance of dosage and persistence. In the well-known report of a man complaining of his brother’s stomach ailment, the Prophet (ﷺ) repeatedly instructed him to administer honey. When the condition did not immediately improve, he said, “The stomach of your brother has lied,” and when the patient took more honey, he was relieved.[22] Scholars explained that this did not imply any deficiency in the remedy itself, but rather pointed to the patient’s condition and the need for continued administration.[23]
The implication is clear: the effectiveness of treatment is tied not only to the substance itself, but also to its formulation, quantity, and continuity of use.
3.4 Timing and Bodily Condition
Certain treatments are also linked to timing and bodily condition. Timing here refers not to a historical period, but to the immediate physiological and environmental suitability of a treatment. Cupping (hijamah), though recommended,[24] was considered more suitable in warmer climates and for particular physiological states. Ibn Sirin (d. 110/728) is reported to have remarked, “When a man reaches forty years, he should not undergo cupping.” Al-Tabari (d. 310/923) explained that this was because, as a person grows old, bloodletting does more harm than good.[25]
A prominent early hadith scholar, Maʿmar b. Rashid (d 153/770) reported that he underwent cupping at the crown of his head, after which his memory was severely affected—so much so that he required prompting in prayer—and he did not repeat it thereafter.[26] It serves as a telling illustration of the need for discernment in the application of such treatments.
The broader implication is clear: medical practices mentioned in the hadith are not universally applicable self-executing prescriptions. Their application requires knowledge, context, and often expert guidance.
Underlying all these considerations is a further qualification: the patient’s condition and the nature of the disease itself. The same substance may benefit one individual, prove ineffective for another, and be harmful for a third, depending on differences in constitution. Likewise, many prophetic prescriptions correspond to particular categories or presentations of illness, not to diseases in an undifferentiated sense. These factors do not introduce new principles so much as they operate through the foregoing ones—language, context, formulation, and timing—reinforcing the idea that such reports are inherently case-sensitive and not amenable to unqualified generalisation.
Taken together, these factors show that prophetic medical statements are inherently conditional in application, even where they are truthful in substance.’
4. Conclusion
The difficulty, then, lies not in the reports themselves, but in how they are read. When approached without regard to context, they invite either unwarranted literalism or misplaced doubt. Yet the tradition did not treat them in this manner. It recognised that such statements are true in what they affirm, but conditioned in how they apply.
In this light, prophetic medicine is neither a binding system of treatment nor a remnant of pre-scientific thought. It is, rather, a body of guidance whose truth remains constant, even as its application varies with circumstance, condition, and understanding.
Thus, neither faith requires the abandonment of discernment, nor does discernment call into question what is authentically affirmed. Each is preserved in its proper place.
References:
[1] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 3578, 3922, 4334, 18546 – graded as hasan/sahih; Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, Hadith 23884.
[2] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 3320, 5782
[3] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History, Translated by Franz Rosenthal. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1958, 150-151 (Translation emended)
[4] ‘Usmani, Muhammad Taqi, Takmila Fath al-Mulhim. Beirut, Dar al-Ahya al-Turath, 2006. Vol.4, 255-256
[5] Al-Dehlawi, Shah Wali Ullah, Hujjat Allah Al-Balighah – The Conclusive Argument from God, 373-374
[6] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 24380- graded as sahih.
[7] al-Qurtubi, Abu al-‘Abbas, al-Mufhim lima Ashkal min Talkhis Kitab Muslim, (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir, 1996) Vol.5, 595
[8] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 5686-5687
[9] Al-Khattabi, Abu Sulayman, ‘Alam ul-Hadith, (Makkah: Jami‘a Umm al-Qura’, 1988) Vol.3, 2112
[10] Al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifa, 1379 AH) Vol.10, 145
[11] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 5445, 5768; Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 2048-156;
[12] Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, Hadith 23945.
[13] Al-Mawarid: Arabic-English Dictionary (Beirut: Dar el-Ilm lil-Malayin, 1995) 642; also, Mustafa al-Siba’i, Al-Sunnah wa Makanatuha fi al-Tashri’ al-Islami, (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1982) 282-283
[14] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 1501, 233, 4192
[15] ‘Abdul Razzaq al-San‘ani, al-Musannaf, (Dabhel: Majlis al-‘Ilmi, 1983) Hadith 1479-1480; Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, Hadith 24123.
[16] ‘Ali, Jawwad, al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al-‘Arab qabal al-Islam, (Dar al-Saqi, 2001) Vol.16, 31
[17] Al-Kattani, ‘Abdul Hayy, al-Taratib al-Idariyah, (Beirut: Dar al-Arqam, 2016 Vol.2, 230 quoting from Dawud ibn ‘Umar al-Antaki’s “Tadhkirat Uli al-Albab wa al-Jami’ li al-‘Ujab al-‘Ujab.”; see also Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, ‘Uyun al-Athar, (Beirut: Dar al-Qalam, 1993) Vol.2, 126
[18] ‘Ali b. al-Ja‘d, al-Musnad, (Beirut: Mo’assasa Nadir) Hadith 2683; Al-Tabarani, Abu al-Qasim, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, (Cairo: Maktaba Ibn Taymiyya, 1994) Vol.25, 42 Hadith 79; Al-Hakim, Abu ‘Abdullah, al-Mustadrak, (Beirut: DKI, 1990) Hadith 8232
[19] Al-Nasa’i, al-Sunan, Hadith 290 – graded as sahih.
[20] Al-Sakhawi, Shams al-Din, Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah fi Bayan Kathir min al-Ahadith al-Mushtaharah ‘ala al-Alsinah, (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, 1985) 464, 528 No. 713, 854
[21] Ibn al-‘Arabi, Qadi Abu Bakr, Ahkam al-Qur’an, (Beirut: DKI, 2003) Vol.3, 138; al-Qurtubi, Abu al-‘Abbas, al-Mufhim lima Ashkal min Talkhis Kitab Muslim, Vol.5, 610
[22] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 5684
[23] Usmani, Muhammad Taqi, Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim, (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 2006) Vol.4, 313
[24] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 5696-5697
[25] Al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.10, 151
[26] Ma‘mar b. Rashid. Al-Jami‘, (Damascus: Dar al-Minhaj al-Qawim, 2026) Vol.2, 170 (No. 427); Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Hadith 3860; Al-Khatib al-Tabrizi, Mishkat al-Masabih, Hadith 4572.
