Islamic Scholar Shaykh Ahmadullah Explains Rulings on Catching Thieves
Shaykh Ahmadullah has explained the Islamic legal position regarding traditional methods of catching thieves using recitation over rice or bowls. He emphasized that Islamic law strictly requires concrete evidence and witnesses to prove any theft or crime.

In recent discussions regarding traditional practices in Bangladesh, prominent Islamic scholar Shaykh Ahmadullah has addressed the common cultural methods used to identify wrongdoers. Specifically, he focused on the practice of reciting verses over rice or operating a bowl to catch thieves, clarifying what the religion actually prescribes for such situations.
According to the information reported by Jago News on September 6, 2026, Shaykh Ahmadullah provided a detailed explanation of the Islamic legal framework governing accusations and crimes. He pointed out that under Islamic jurisprudence, there is no valid legal basis or authentic Hadith supporting the practice of using recited rice or bowl divination to locate or identify thieves.
The scholar highlighted the fundamental legal maxim established by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), who stated, 'Al-bayyinatu alal muddai,' meaning that the burden of proof rests upon the accuser. In accordance with this principle, Islamic sharia mandates that concrete evidence and proper testimony are absolutely compulsory to prove any theft or criminal act.
This clarification addresses widespread misconceptions about supernatural or occult methods sometimes relied upon in local communities to solve crimes. By turning back to established textual sources, the scholar reinforced that accusations of theft must be handled strictly through lawful investigation and verifiable proof rather than through unsupported folk traditions.
The detailed discourse serves as a religious guideline for Muslims in Bangladesh seeking to understand the correct procedures for justice and evidence as outlined by traditional Islamic scholarship. It reiterates that religious law prioritizes verifiable facts and due process over unverified customary practices when determining guilt.






