Sunan Ibn Majah
Sunan Ibn Majah 3516
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدَةُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ هِشَامٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَاصِمٍ، عَنْ يُوسُفَ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ رَخَّصَ فِي الرُّقْيَةِ مِنَ الْحُمَةِ وَالْعَيْنِ وَالنَّمْلَةِ .
Unreviewed translation. All hadiths in this collection are available in five languages. Titles and introductions may remain in Arabic.
ʿAbdah ibn ʿAbd Allāh narrated to us: Muʿāwiyah ibn Hishām narrated to us: Sufyān narrated to us, from ʿĀṣim, from Yūsuf ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥārith, from Anas: The Prophet permitted ruqya for venomous stings, the evil eye, and al-namlah (a named skin ailment).
Notes and open questions — unreviewed
The source English witness glosses al-namlah as sores or small pustules/ulcers on a person’s sides. The Arabic gives only the historical ailment name, so it is retained without assigning a modern diagnosis.
أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ رَخَّصَ فِي الرُّقْيَةِ مِنَ الْحُمَةِ وَالْعَيْنِ وَالنَّمْلَةِ .
النَّمْلَة is an historical ailment name; the English witness describes sores/pustules or ulcers on the sides, but the Arabic clause does not further define it.
Should al-namlah be retained as a named ailment rather than equated with a modern skin diagnosis?