The following Hadith is under discussion:

 ‘Amir b. Rabi’ah saw Sahl b. Hunayf’s (رضي الله عنه) body and commented: ‘By Allah! I haven’t seen such an attractive body. Sahl then fell to the ground. The Prophet (ﷺ) was dismayed and said: ‘Why do you’ll kill your fellow brothers. Why didn’t you make du’a for him to be blessed. Take a bath for him.’ So Amir b. Rabi’ah – who was the one who cast the gaze of admiration which had this effect – made ablution with water. The water was collected in a bowl which was poured on Sahl after which he [regained consciousness and] was able to walk again.’[1]

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, in essence, that if the person who caused the evil eye is identified, they should wash, and that water is poured over the afflicted person.

Some queries have been raised as follows:

1. Isn’t this a superstitious belief/practice?
2. If such a treatment worked, then why can’t we see it working today and have it documented? This would serve as a great proof for the existence of evil eye (and by extension, Islam).

This question unsettles a lot of sincere people, so it’s not odd to feel this way. Before discussing the evil eye, what the Hadith says and what it does not say need to be separated; a lot of confusions arise from there:

• This is not a general medical treatment.
• This is not a ritual done randomly.
• This is not “bath water has healing power.”
• It is conditional: when the source is known, when Allah (ﷻ) wills, within a specific spiritual context.

Framing it as bath water curing disease would misrepresent the Hadith.

Is this a superstition?

In Islam, superstition (khurāfah) is when you believe an object or act has independent power and Islam explicitly rejects that. The washing is not said to cause healing. Allah (ﷻ) causes healing. The washing is a means (sabab), like du’a (supplication to Allah (ﷻ), ruqyah, and even medicine. Islam does not require that causes be material or mechanistically explainable for them to be real.

Examples Islam already affirms:

• Du’a changes outcomes.
• Envy can cause harm (the Qur’an says so explicitly).
• Words can protect (ruqyah).
• Intentions matter.

None of these fit modern materialist expectations either but we don’t find them problematic.

If it works, why can’t we prove it today?

This question feels as follows:

“If something is real, it must be reproducible, documentable, and observable on demand.”

That assumption itself is philosophical, not scientific.

Now, to the question itself, the Prophet ﷺ did not say that this will always work instantly. He described a specific response to a specific spiritual harm, contingent on sincerity, identification of the source, absence of other confounding factors, and Allah’s (ﷻ) will. That alone disqualifies it from the idea of reproducing it experimentally. Even medicine doesn’t meet this standard as many medical treatments work sometimes, fail sometimes, depend on the body, depend on timing, and depend on unknown variables. Yet, we don’t say medicine is fake because it doesn’t cure everyone instantly.

The Qur’an itself rejects coercive proof. Allah (ﷻ) explicitly says that signs are not given on demand just to force belief. Faith is not meant to be a magic trick performed for skeptics. If Islam were provable by pouring water on people in public demonstrations, faith would be meaningless. Everyone would ‘believe’ the way one accepts gravity, not through moral and spiritual submission.

Why the Companions saw things we don’t often see

This part is uncomfortable but important. The early Muslim community had direct prophetic guidance, extreme spiritual sensitivity, minimal noise from psychological and environmental confounders, and unquestioned certainty in Allah (ﷻ).

We already accept that their du’as were answered more dramatically, their spiritual experiences were more vivid, and their blessings were greater; this doesn’t make later Muslims deficient; it means spiritual phenomena correlate and scale with spiritual conditions, not just procedures.

This life is a test of trust, not a science fair. Islam does not rest on the evil eye hadith. It rests on the Qur’an, the Prophet (ﷺ), coherence of theology, moral realism, fitrah, and historical continuity. The evil eye is a secondary, experiential reality, not a pillar of belief.

Summary of above discussion: Islam teaches that envy can harm and that certain spiritual responses may help, but healing is always by Allah (ﷻ) and not subject to experimental demand.

Nothing in this hadith asks us to abandon reason. It asks us to abandon materialism disguised as reason. Islam never claims that all realities submit to laboratory verification. It claims something deeper: not everything that exists is measurable, and not everything measurable is what matters.

Scientific aspect

1. Modern psychology accepts something Islam stated plainly 1,400 years ago

A person’s mental and emotional state can cause real, physical effects in the body. Examples that are not controversial today:

• Stress raising blood pressure
• Anxiety causing chest pain
• Trauma suppressing immunity
• Nocebo effects (harm caused by negative expectation)

These are not imaginary and are measurable. The evil eye sits somewhere in this space, but Islam frames it morally and spiritually rather than clinically.

2. The nocebo effect

In psychology and medicine, the nocebo effect is the opposite of placebo:

• A person expects harm
• That expectation produces real symptoms
• Even when no physical cause exists

People have developed nausea, paralysis, pain, rashes, and heart symptoms purely from belief, suggestion, or perceived threat. This is not fringe science. It’s discussed in mainstream medical literature and diagnostic manuals like DSM-5-TR under somatic symptom and stress-related disorders.

The idea of evil eye is not entirely similar but has some key parallels. Islam says envy harms. Psychology says hostile attention + belief + stress harms. Same phenomenon, different language.

3. Why who caused it matters (and why washing makes sense)

With the following, the Hadith suddenly looks less strange.

In psychology:

• Harm intensifies when the source of threat is identifiable
• Closure and reversal of perceived threat often reduces symptoms

If someone believes: “This specific person envied me and harmed me”, then anxiety spikes, vigilance increases, and the body stays in stress mode. Now imagine the reverse intervention:

• The source acknowledges no harm
• Performs a humility act
• The victim witnesses reversal and reconciliation

Psychologically, that collapses the threat narrative, removes fear, restores safety, and allows the nervous system to reset. The washing is not about water chemistry. It is about breaking the psychological-spiritual loop of perceived hostile intention.

Modern therapy does this symbolically all the time, just without water.

This is the parallel between modern psychology and the Hadiths under discussion.

4. It doesn’t work on demand today either

Psychosomatic effects are context-dependent, require belief, vary massively between individuals, and fail under observation pressure. This is why placebo effects weaken when studied aggressively, nocebo effects disappear when the narrative is disrupted, and symptoms resolve privately but not in lab conditions.

This explains the question of “why can’t we document instant cures today?” This is because meaning collapses under hostile scrutiny, and psychology agrees.

5. Why Islam doesn’t medicalize the evil eye

Islam does something modern psychology cannot do. It assigns moral responsibility to envy, regulates behavior to prevent harm, and protects victims without blaming them.

Psychology often ends up saying: Your mind caused this. Islam says instead: You were harmed, Allah (ﷻ) can heal you, and envy is a real moral danger. That’s a more humane framework, not a less rational one.

6. Why this still doesn’t prove Islam to skeptics

Psychosomatic harm already exists without proving metaphysics. A skeptic can say: ‘This is psychology’. A believer can say: ‘This is psychology + unseen moral reality’. Both can explain the mechanism. Only Islam explains the ethical and spiritual dimension. And Allah (ﷻ) never promised to collapse those layers into a single coercive proof.

Conclusion

What the Hadith describes is not superstition. It aligns quite well with what we now know about stress, suggestion, expectation, interpersonal harm, and recovery through narrative reversal. Islam named it al-ʿayn; psychology names it psychosomatic harm/nocebo response. Different vocabularies but same human nervous system.

Indeed, Allah (ﷻ) knows best.

---

References and footnotes:

[1] Muwatta Imam Malik, vol. 2, pg. 258  & ‘Amalul Yawmi wal Laylah of Nasai, Hadith: 208. Also see Zadul Ma’ad, vol. 4, pg. 149-150