Islamic Ruqyah Today: Practices, Regulation, and Controversies

Introduction — What is Ruqyah and Why It Matters Now

Ruqyah (often translated as Islamic exorcism or Qur'anic healing) refers to the recitation of Qur'an, prophetic supplications (duʿāʾ), and other authorised prayers intended to remove spiritual harm attributed to jinn, envy, or malevolent influences. While rooted in classical texts and prophetic practice, ruqyah today exists at the intersection of religion, health care, law, and digital culture — making it a live issue for families, clinicians, and religious leaders.

Contemporary scholarship frames ruqyah both as a devotional medical‑religious practice and as a pastoral intervention; recent comparative analyses emphasise its continuity with traditional Islamic healing while documenting new institutional and ethical questions in the 21st century.

How Ruqyah Is Practised Today

Common elements of ruqyah sessions include recitation of specific Qur'anic verses (for example, al‑Fātiḥah, Āyatu'l‑kursī, and the Mu'awwidhatayn), prophetic supplications, blowing or light spitting (tafkhim/tahqīr) on water or the patient, and instructions for the patient (prayer, avoidance of impermissible practices). Practitioners range from informal family elders to trained raqīs working in community centres or online services.

Over the past decade there has been growth in structured training programmes, certificates, and organisations that teach ruqyah methodology and ethical standards — some aiming to combine religious authenticity with basic safeguarding and referral protocols. The International Academy of Ruqyah and similar organisations now advertise formal courses and session booking services.

In many Muslim‑majority and diaspora communities, ruqyah is also integrated into counselling or guidance services; empirical research from Southeast Asia finds practitioners and clients often report perceived psychosocial benefits when ruqyah is delivered alongside appropriate medical or psychological care. At the same time, standards and practices vary widely across regions and providers.

Regulation, Safeguarding, and Legal Responses

Regulatory approaches differ internationally. Some ministries and community organisations insist ruqyah remains a religious act performed by believers rather than a licensed profession, while others call for clearer oversight to prevent exploitation and harm. For example, a statement from Bahrain’s Ministry of Justice emphasised that ruqyah is permitted within Islamic teaching but warned against commercialisation and criminalised practices such as sorcery or fraud.

Independent professional guidelines and community codes of conduct have emerged to fill regulatory gaps. Organisations such as AIMS (and similar bodies) publish ethical ruqyah guidance that stresses adherence to Qur'an and Hadith, prohibition of polytheistic or fabricated rituals, safeguarding vulnerable people, and mandatory medical referrals when appropriate. These non‑statutory standards aim to reduce harm where statutory regulation is absent.

High‑profile harmful incidents and legal cases have sharpened public and official attention to ruqyah. Media investigations and secular watchdog groups have raised concerns where charities or unregulated providers promote fear or unsafe interventions; past criminal cases involving medically dangerous practices have further complicated public perceptions and prompted calls for clearer safeguarding.

Controversies, the Mental‑Health Interface, and Best‑Practice Recommendations

Key controversies cluster around four areas: (1) distinguishing spiritual distress from psychiatric or neurological disorders; (2) preventing abuse, neglect, or dangerous physical interventions during deliverance rituals; (3) credentialing and commercialisation of ruqyah; and (4) the rise of online/digital deliverance and platform responsibilities.

Clinical and social‑science research recommends routine medical screening and collaborative pathways: when a person presents with alleged possession, clinicians and faith leaders should communicate, prioritise medical and psychiatric assessment for treatable conditions, document informed consent, and use ruqyah only when it adheres to safe, evidence‑aligned practices. Recent studies in Muslim contexts emphasise the potential value of culturally congruent interventions when combined with standard care and call for formal referral pathways.

Practical best‑practice steps advocated by scholars and community groups include: (a) written safeguarding policies for ruqyah providers; (b) clear medical‑clearance checklists before any intensive deliverance session; (c) refusal of any practice involving physical harm or deprivation; (d) transparent fee policies; and (e) training that includes basic mental‑health literacy and local legal obligations. Organisations offering ruqyah training increasingly market courses that emphasise these areas, but uptake and regulation remain uneven.

Conclusion. Ruqyah remains an important spiritual resource for many Muslims. Its legitimacy in religious terms is broadly accepted among traditional scholars when performed in accordance with Qur'anic and prophetic sources, but contemporary practice raises non‑religious questions of safety, professional standards, and law. Where possible, communities and clinicians should prioritise integrated, rights‑respecting responses that protect vulnerable people while preserving sincere religious care.