From Junun to Marad: Obsessive Doubts and Faith Informed Pathways to Psychological Wellbeing

Abstract

Intrusive and repetitive doubts (waswas) constitute a significant source of psychological and spiritual distress among Muslims, yet contemporary religious responses often frame such experiences through moralised or incapacitating categories that inadvertently exacerbate anxiety, guilt, and despair. This article argues that classical Islamic jurisprudence developed a far more nuanced and resilience-promoting framework for obsessive doubts, conceptualising them as a form of illness (marad) rather than insanity (junun) or moral failure. This article demonstrates how pre-modern scholars distinguished between involuntary intrusive cognition and morally accountable intention, thereby preserving religious agency (taklif), dignity, and spiritual participation for affected individuals. Through analysis of key legal maxims, such as prioritisation of certainty over doubt and mitigation of hardship, this article shows that Islamic law functioned not merely as a system of ritual regulation, but as a preservation of psychological resilience. Jurists explicitly discouraged excessive repetition, over-precaution, and compulsive self-surveillance, recognising their capacity to generate spiritual exhaustion and undermine wellbeing. This article further argues that contemporary evidence-based approaches like Exposure/Response Prevention closely parallel jurists’ early approaches within jurisprudential frameworks. By reframing fiqh al-muwaswas (juristic treatments of obsessive misgivings) as a faith-informed model of mental wellbeing, this article contributes to current discussions on Islamic ethics, spiritual care, and resilience. It offers constructive implications for religious leadership, Muslim mental health practitioners, and ethical fatwa production, positioning Islamic jurisprudence as a vital, yet underused, resource for fostering psychological resilience and human flourishing within Muslim communities.