Why believing in fortune telling, tarot cards, and zodiac signs is major shirk 🧵

Unfortunately there are muslims that are either ignorant on this or they simply don’t care or use the excuse of “it’s only for fun” but believing in these things like tarot cards, zodiac signs, and fortune telling is haram and shirk.
Zodiac signs (or horoscopes) and tarot cards claim that they know the future. Any believing person knows that God is only one that is all knowing and no one can know the future except him. The name Al-Alīm (the all knowing, the omniscient) belongs to Allah only.
This isn’t exclusive to Islam only, fortune telling is also a sin in Christianity and Judaism. There are over 100 verses in the Bible that condemn fortune tellers and sorcerers.

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.”

- Exodus 22:18 NIV
100+ verses in the Bible that prohibit fortune tellers and sorcerers.

https://t.co/S8HBizgmnG
• Verses from the Quran that prohibit it:

[Quran 5:3]
These fortune tellers and cards and signs also claim that they know the unseen which is something that only Allah knows and believing them would be disbelieving in the Quran. [27:65]
[6:59]
• Ahadith that prohibit it:

"Abu Masud Al-Ansari narrated:
"The Messenger of Allah (S.A.W) prohibited the price of a dog,the earnings of a fornicator (from fornication), and the payment made to the fortune-teller."

- Vol. 4, Book 2, Hadith 2071
“Safiyya reported from some of the wives of Prophet ﷺ, Prophet ﷺ having said:
He who visits a diviner ('Arraf) and asks him about anything, his prayers extending to forty nights will not be accepted.”

- Sahih Muslim 2230, Sahih Muslim V.6, 5821
https://t.co/OsnG9QKIK0
Learn more about tawhid and stay away from things like these which lead to shirk.

More from For later read

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?