Ruqyah Online: Standards, Risks and Regulatory Trends in the Digital Age
Examines online ruqyah practices, theological positions, consumer risks, platform policies, and regulatory trends — guidance for practitioners and policymakers.
Introduction — Why 'Ruqyah Online' Matters Now
The practice of ruqyah (Islamic deliverance by Qur'anic recitation and prophetic supplications) has migrated rapidly from private homes and mosques to video calls, recorded audio, and dedicated websites. Commercial marketplaces, online academies, and booking platforms now advertise remote ruqyah sessions, structured training courses, and subscription services—a shift that expands access but also raises urgent theological, clinical and regulatory questions.
This article summarizes (1) prevailing doctrinal positions and professional standards used by contemporary Islamic guidance bodies; (2) consumer protection, clinical and safeguarding risks peculiar to remote deliverance; and (3) platform and public-policy trends shaping how online ruqyah is permitted, moderated, or restricted in 2024–2025. The aim is practical: help practitioners, platform moderators, clinicians and policymakers reduce harm while respecting religious practices.
Doctrinal Standards and Professional Guidance
Core doctrinal guardrails for ruqyah emphasize that the content and intention must be Qur'an- and Sunnah-based, free from shirk, and understood by participants. Contemporary guidance sites and Islamic organisations publish stepwise conditions for permissible ruqyah (clear wording, sound meaning, and reliance on Allah alone).
On the permissibility of remote ruqyah, views differ. Several prominent voices and fatwas have warned against defining mobile or recorded audio as full ruqyah when the classical method involves direct recitation and often the physical act of blowing or close presence; some scholars call phone-only ruqyah an innovation to be approached with caution. At the same time, certified institutions and online academies teach structured remote ruqyah techniques and offer supervision and certification for practitioners who commit to shariah-aligned methods and safeguarding. These competing positions mean there is no single scholarly consensus about modality; local scholars and councils often set practical limits.
- Minimum acceptable elements often recommended by advocacy groups: transparency about method (live recitation vs. recordings), clear reliance on Qur’an/Sunnah, avoidance of unauthorised invocations, and documented consent.
- Professionalisation trends: some organisations now offer multi-level training, supervision, and codes of conduct to reduce quackery and protect clients.
Risks, Platform Policies and Regulatory Trends
Key risks associated with online ruqyah fall into three overlapping categories: (A) consumer protection and fraud (paid scams, credential laundering); (B) clinical and safeguarding harms (delayed medical/psychiatric care, inappropriate recordings, coercion); and (C) digital harms (privacy breaches, non-consensual posts, deepfakes, algorithmic amplification of misleading or harmful content). Reported marketplaces and websites offering pay-per-session ruqyah services illustrate the commercial scale of the activity and the potential for scams when oversight is low.
Social platforms are under growing pressure to address health and wellbeing misinformation and algorithmic amplification of potentially harmful content. Investigations and reviews have shown that health and mental-health content on short-form platforms can contain misleading advice and risky quick-fix claims; regulators in the UK and other jurisdictions are strengthening duties on platforms to tackle harmful content and misinformation. These policing and legislative trends affect deliverance content when it crosses into medical or mental‑health territory or when live rituals are recorded and shared without consent.
In the United States and elsewhere, lawmakers have also moved to target emergent digital harms—deepfake and exploitative synthetic media laws (for example the 2025 'Take It Down' and related proposals) and renewed debate about platform liability are reshaping how platforms moderate content and respond to complaints. For operators of ruqyah services and platforms hosting such content, this means increased risk of takedown orders, legal exposure where non-consensual intimate or exploitative footage appears, and higher expectation of robust complaint and safety processes.
Practical manifestations
| Risk | Common scenario | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Fraud / commercial exploitation | Anonymous websites selling "guaranteed" deliverance | Verified credential lists, escrow payments, consumer warnings |
| Clinical delay | Clients told spiritual causes only for seizures or psychosis | Referral protocols, red-flag screening, joint casework with clinicians |
| Privacy & consent | Live sessions recorded and posted | Explicit consent forms, no-recording policies, content takedown agreements |
Government responses vary: some ministries emphasise that ruqyah is religious practice and warn against professionalisation that becomes exploitative; others criminalise related acts (sorcery, fraud) and assert oversight when public harm occurs. This patchwork regulatory environment increases the need for robust self-regulation by religious bodies and clearer platform policies.
Recommended immediate actions (for 2025)
- For practitioners: adopt written consent, publish limits (what ruqyah does and does not treat), keep referral contacts for medical/mental-health emergencies, and avoid charging for guaranteed cures.
- For platforms: treat remote deliverance content like other health-related material: label, restrict algorithmic recommendations for vulnerable audiences, remove non-consensual recordings, and create an expedited complaint/takedown channel for ritual abuse or exploitation.
- For policymakers and regulators: clarify that protections for religious practice do not extend to fraud or abuse; require transparency reporting for faith-healing marketplaces and require platforms to include faith-ritual content in health/misinformation risk assessments.
These measures aim to protect vulnerable users while respecting legitimate religious practice; they follow emerging NGO, scholarly and ministry recommendations calling for ethical ruqyah practice and safeguarding.
Conclusion: Online ruqyah is here to stay. The digital shift brings opportunity—wider access to pastoral support and structured training—but also the need for clearer norms, better cross-sector referral pathways (between scholars, clinicians and platforms), and legal clarity to reduce harm. A mixed approach—community standards backed by platform safety engineering and targeted regulatory rules where harm is demonstrable—offers the most practicable path forward in 2025.