Ibn Sirin and Dream Interpretation: What Is Established and What Is Only Attributed

If you have been looking up dream interpretation with Ibn Sirin, the honest answer starts with a small distinction that changes everything else. There is a man, Muhammad ibn Sirin. And there is a large book printed and downloaded today under his name. The man and the book are not the same thing.

The short version: what can be traced back to the man himself is small. It is a handful of reports carried by authors who wrote earlier than the famous book, each naming the line of people who passed the words along. The big volume sold under his name holds a great deal of material whose attribution to him is not established.

This page covers both sides of that: what is actually reported from him, what these printed books are, and how to read anything published under this name so you keep what helps and leave what has no basis.

The bottom line

• The closest thing to solid ground: a few reports carried with a named chain back to Muhammad ibn Sirin, most of them an answer to one person about one scene rather than a fixed dictionary of symbols. The oldest books carry three of them, on jewellery, on money and on fish.
• What changes the picture: the well-known book attributed to Ibn Sirin is material gathered over centuries, and its attribution to him is not established. What it contains is an interpreter’s opinion worth considering, not words preserved from one named man.
• Two things readers run into constantly: a symbol read as good fortune and money in one line is read as worry a few lines later inside the same book, because the scene and the dreamer’s circumstances are what tip the reading; and any page that hands you a single flat meaning has hidden that range from you.
• The rule that protects anyone reading about dreams: by the admission of the people who wrote these books, this is conjecture, not certainty. They say it about their own craft, in the oldest of these books and the newest alike.
• A possibility, not a promise: everything here is a possible meaning recorded by interpreters, not news about the future. A dream does not establish magic, envy, betrayal, illness or a date for anything.
• Where there is nothing: many images people ask about have no specific meaning in the books of dream interpretation. We say so plainly rather than inventing an answer.

Who Muhammad ibn Sirin was, and what can honestly be said

The popular picture is of a man who wrote a book, cracked the code of symbols, and held the keys to hidden knowledge. That picture was built far more by printed volumes carrying his name, and by the pages that copy from them, than by any early text.

The truer picture is simpler than that, and better. Muhammad ibn Sirin belonged to the early generations of narrators. People asked him about their dreams and he answered. That much is known because old books pass on his answers and name the men who carried them, and because his name turns up inside the narrations of the hadith scholars themselves, as in Sahih Muslim, hadith 2263.

The strongest sign of his standing in dream interpretation is not a book bearing his name. It is that early narrators passed on his answer to a dream exactly as they passed on anyone else’s: through a line of named men, in the form “he was asked, and he said.” That alone places him among the people best known for this craft in his own time.

Notice the gap between that and the famous picture. The famous one is a man holding a table of symbols, which he opens to read you what is coming. The other is a man asked about one particular scene, answering it to the extent it deserved, and saying nothing about what he did not know.

Why you will not find his birth date or his teachers here

You will not find his year of birth on this page, or his year of death, or the names of his teachers, or a list of his works, or stories about his childhood or his teaching circle. The reason is simple: a full life story belongs in the biographical literature, and this is a page about dreams and what is reported about them.

An earlier version of this article did give him a birth, a city, a standing and a shelf of books. All of that has been removed. Crediting a man with a piece of information that nothing carries is the first mistake, however widely repeated that information may be.

This is not a slight against him. It is a form of respect: to place under his name only what is reported from him, and to leave out what was added to it centuries later.

What it means for words to come “with a chain”

A chain is a string of names. The early author writes: so-and-so told me, from so-and-so, from so-and-so, that Muhammad ibn Sirin gave such and such an answer. You then know the route the words travelled and who carried them, and specialists can look into the men involved one by one.

That is what separates a report from a heading. When a book is printed with a man’s name on the cover, or a name is set above a paragraph inside it, there is no route and there are no men. There is a heading chosen by a publisher or a compiler, possibly a few years ago.

For that reason this page distinguishes three kinds of material, and tells you at each point which kind you are looking at:

These three are not a specialist’s footnote. They decide how much weight you give what you are reading. The very same sentence carries a completely different force depending on the route it came by.

Three reports carried back to him with a chain

The clearest material whose credit to him can actually be traced is three reports in the oldest books of dream interpretation. Each one names the men who carried it until the line ends at him, and each one answers a particular scene. They are the most useful thing on this page, because they let you see with your own eyes what his words really look like.

The first report: pearls, a necklace, a crown and earrings

In the section on ornaments and gems you first meet the words of the author himself: whoever sees a necklace on himself takes on an office and carries a trust — a responsibility hung around his neck that he will answer for. Then comes a report with a chain reaching Muhammad ibn Sirin: a pearl is the Qur’an, a necklace is judgement, a crown is kingship, and a pair of earrings is adornment and beauty among people.

Look at how that works. It is four short sentences, each returning an image to a meaning that sits close to it. A necklace is hung around the neck, so it becomes a picture of something a person carries and answers for. A crown is placed on the head, so it becomes a picture of something that raises its wearer among people.

This is analogy and resemblance, not a report about the unseen. A ready-made dictionary would not need that closeness between the image and its meaning in the first place.

In the same section there is more about pearls: strung pearls, meaning pearls gathered on a thread, are good speech. Pearls scattered rather than strung are read as a child or as servants; they may be fine words; and a single pearl may be a woman.

Notice the word “may,” and how often it recurs. A single symbol is read more than one way in these books, and the reading shifts with the form it took in the dream: strung or scattered, one or many. That is the manner of the old books, not the flat certainty you meet on most pages. If pearls are what you dreamed about, our page on pearls and gems in a dream works through those forms one by one.

The second report: dirhams and dinars

The second report is also carried back to him with a chain, and its subject is money. In it, he disliked seeing raw, unworked silver and gold — the kind nothing has been made from yet — and made an exception for the worked kind.

The detail in it is worth having. Good dirhams are fine speech and poor ones are bad speech. Dinars are letters that reach their owner, or documents he receives. Dirhams handed over in a purse or a bundle are a secret entrusted to the dreamer. And small copper coins are poor speech and noise.

There is a practical lesson here. Money in a dream is not read as money in waking life; it is read as speech. The good is fine speech, the poor is bad speech, and what is concealed in a purse is a secret being kept. That is a long way from the pages that promise a windfall to anyone who dreams of cash. If coins were the heart of your dream, the detail belongs on our page about money in a dream.

Notice too that the whole of that detail turns on the condition of the thing: good or poor, worked or raw, in the open or inside a purse. These qualifiers are not decoration. They are what makes the meaning.

The third report: a question and an answer about fish

The third report is as close as we get to a real gathering. Muhammad ibn Sirin was asked about a man who saw himself catching fish out of the water, and he gave one answer. He was then asked about a slightly different scene, and gave a different answer.

This is the most useful of the three for understanding how he worked. He was not dictating a dictionary arranged alphabetically. He was answering one questioner about one scene, and his answer moved when the scene moved.

A necessary caution here. The first answer in this report sounds harsh on the surface, and we pass it on as an interpreter’s opinion about one scene described to him, not as a judgement on anybody and not as a suggestion about anyone’s income. Nobody who dreams of fishing has anything of the kind in the dream. The forms of that image are set out in full on our page about dreaming about fishing.

What the three reports teach

Four things, and all four cut against the popular picture:

• There is very little of it. These are a handful of sentences inside a book, not a fat volume arranged alphabetically.
• The form is conversational. A question and an answer, a man facing one particular case, not an author drafting a chapter.
• The meaning is tied to the form of the thing. Good or poor, strung or scattered, worked or raw. Drop the qualifier and you have ruined the meaning.
• There is no promise and no threat. No timing is given, no named person, no guaranteed future.

So when you come across a page offering twenty tidy meanings under his name, with no qualifiers and no detail, you can be confident you are not looking at this kind of material.

How far should you trust a report with a chain?

A chain raises the standing of the words. It does not turn them into a ruling about your life. That difference gets lost constantly, and readers end up thinking that anything that arrived by a known route has become firm news about them.

The sound way to read such a report has three stages. First: these are words passed down from a particular man by a known route, and that is the most a chain can give. Second: the content is an interpreter’s effort at reading a symbol, and that effort is conjecture, as you will see shortly. Third: whether it fits your dream is a separate question again, answerable only by looking at your scene and your circumstances.

We pass no judgement on the men in these chains; that is the work of specialists in narrator criticism. What is in the books is passed on as it stands, so that you can see where the words came from.

The summary is that a chain answers the question “who did these words come from?” and does not answer the question “is this true for me?” The second question is answered by you, from your circumstances and the details of your scene, not by any book.

The book printed under his name: what is it?

Most people looking into this subject end up at a printed book, or at a file whose title carries the name Ibn Sirin. These books genuinely exist and are genuinely read. The question is not whether they exist. It is whose words they are.

What can be said clearly is that these books are gathered material. They contain old quotations, later additions, and passages whose author is unknown. The attribution of the whole to Muhammad ibn Sirin is widely repeated and not established. So we do not build a meaning on them alone, and we do not credit what they contain to him.

That is also why the wording on this page never changes. Material of this kind is introduced as something a book attributed to Ibn Sirin has it that, and never as words in the man’s own mouth. It is a small habit of phrasing, and it keeps a real difference visible to you every time.

What these compilations look like from the inside

Take a clear specimen: a modern printed compilation that arranges the material alphabetically and, inside each entry, stacks paragraphs with names set above them. The name Ibn Sirin above one paragraph, the name al-Nabulsi above another, and paragraphs with no name at all.

Those headings are all there is. No route, no men, no record of who passed what to whom. A printed paragraph with a name on top of it. That is why it is not sound to say that what sits under the heading is his speech, or to quote it from him in a flat, declarative voice.

Take an example from that same compilation, from the entry on snakes: it says a snake may be someone with authority, may be a wife, and may be a child. That sentence is printed under a heading bearing the name Ibn Sirin, with no men and no route above it.

In the same entry another sentence lists a much wider range: an enemy, or a state, or a treasure, or a woman, or a child. And with it comes one striking qualifier: if the man was not afraid of the snake, the reading turns into his own strength and standing rather than hostility surrounding him.

Look at what just happened. One symbol, inside one book, is read as an enemy, as a treasure and as strength, and the whole direction flips on whether fear was present or absent. Anyone who lifts a single sentence out of that and hands it to you as the meaning has hidden the book itself from you.

This is the practical reason for saying that the attribution of the book to him is not established. It is not that the material has no value. It is that treating it as the speech of one named man stops you reading it as what it is: a list of possibilities among which your own scene does the choosing.

What stays useful in them

A reader might conclude from all this that we are telling them to put these books down. That is not the intention. The material in them is a real inheritance, and it is genuinely useful once you know where to place it.

Three things in them are worth the most. First, they show you how the older writers reasoned by analogy, returning an image to a meaning that resembles it in its name or its shape. Second, they lay out the range of possibilities inside a single symbol, which is the best cure there is for false certainty. Third, they document what people across the centuries actually said about dreams.

One thing in them does the most damage: being read as a table of answers, so that a reader takes a single line and builds a decision on it, or a suspicion about somebody close to them.

The upshot is to read them the way you would read an old scholar’s opinion on a question: you know who is speaking, you know his reasoning, and you know it is an opinion. Not the way you would read a report about tomorrow.

And what about al-Nabulsi?

The name Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi comes up whenever dream interpretation is discussed, and he has a well-known work on dreams. What it holds is the opinion of a later interpreter. We take it on those terms, and we do not make it a foundation to build on by itself.

In the compilation mentioned above, some entries carry his name above them and others carry no printed name at all, so crediting those to him is an inference from the page layout rather than anything established. The same rule applies here: a name above a paragraph is not evidence of who said it.

The short of it is that the names Ibn Sirin and al-Nabulsi have become, in the book trade, labels for a genre of content more than verified attributions. That does not mean abandoning the material. It means reading it as the effort of interpreters, and refusing to be certain about who said it.

An early witness: when the narrator himself hesitated

The clearest evidence that his words were getting mixed with other people’s is not a claim of ours. It is recorded inside Sahih Muslim. In the Book of Dreams, immediately after hadith 2263, the narrator passes on a sentence about the fetter and the collar, and then says outright that he does not know whether it belongs to the words of the Prophet or was said by Ibn Sirin.

That is a valuable witness. The narrator here is close in time to Muhammad ibn Sirin and is qualified in this craft, and even so he stops and says he does not know. If that is the situation of a single sentence inside a book edited in that era, what is the situation of a volume assembled centuries later with his name placed on it?

The lesson is not to doubt everything. It is to be modest about attribution. Anyone wanting to credit words to a man should show where they came from. Anyone who cannot should say: this is what appears in a book attributed to him.

Why pages disagree about the same symbol

You open five pages about one symbol and come away with five conflicting meanings. The reason is not that the books are vague. It is what happens to a text on its way from the book to the page.

• The qualifier is dropped. The book says: if the thing was good, then this; if it was poor, then that. Only the first half gets copied, and the meaning inverts.
• “May be” becomes “means.” The books list possibilities one after another; the copier picks one and presents it as the final answer.
• Authors get mixed together. A sentence from an old book, a sentence from a modern compilation, and a sentence with no known author are all gathered under a single name.
• Things are added that are not in the books at all. Talk of magic and envy, for instance, in places the old books never mention.
• The page is written for the search box, not the reader. It is built to answer every conceivable question, even where some of those answers have no basis.

Knowing these causes helps you immediately. When you read a striking meaning, ask: where is its qualifier? Who said it? Is it a possibility or a flat assertion? If you cannot find an answer to those three, you are looking at a copy rather than at something written in a book.

The rules that move the meaning

If you set aside the question of who said what and ask instead about the method itself, you find that old and modern books agree on a small number of clear rules. Those rules will serve you better than a hundred memorised meanings.

First: this is conjecture, not certainty

The people who wrote these books say themselves that their craft is conjecture rather than certainty. The oldest of them puts it plainly: a person working in this field is not certain about a dream, and what he offers is guesswork and the weighing of probabilities.

That is a sentence an early author wrote about his own craft, not about anyone else’s. If the man who wrote the book says that about himself, then anyone who comes along afterwards and hands you one flat, closed meaning has gone further than the source he is quoting.

Modern works on the rules of dream interpretation set down the same principle: the work here is analogy, resemblance and conjecture. It is not decisive; it is something to be weighed and drawn on; and nobody should swear to its hidden outcome unless waking life bears it out.

Carry that rule with you before anything else. Every meaning you read here or anywhere else is a possibility. Its worth is that it opens a door to reflecting on your own situation, not that it tells you what is going to happen.

Second: your own situation is part of the meaning

The old interpreter asked before he answered. When the matter was unclear to him, he asked the dreamer what was on his mind, and about his habits and his disposition, and built his answer on that.

That is a long way from the common practice today. A page that gives one answer to millions of readers is doing the opposite of what the books it quotes lay down.

Modern works set down the same rule: interpretation differs according to people’s circumstances and standing, so the dreamer’s situation and standing are examined first, and the fitting reading is built on that.

“The dreamer’s situation” here means real circumstances and real preoccupations, not a social box with ready-made meanings pinned to it. A student, an employee and a mother are not boxes; they are wholly different situations, and two people inside one box can be in entirely different places.

Third: the accompanying detail is what tips it

The accompanying detail is everything that came with the image: where the scene took place, what you did in it, how you felt, whether the thing was good or poor, whole or damaged. The books of rules make that detail what the reading rests on, so the meaning is sought according to it rather than according to the symbol alone.

You have already seen this rule at work in everything above: strung pearls rather than scattered ones, a good dirham rather than a poor one, a snake feared rather than one not feared. The detail is not secondary. It is the meaning.

Which is why the first useful question after waking is not “what does this symbol mean?” but “what details do I remember, and what did I feel?”

Fourth: not everything you see needs interpreting

A large share of what you see in sleep is self-talk: what occupies your head while you are awake and comes back to you at night. It is bound up with the body, and it carries desires and suppressed feelings that surface in sleep. It has no interpretation.

This is a broad door, and it takes a weight off a great many people. Someone who falls asleep thinking about an exam, or an argument, or a trip coming up, and then sees that in a dream, has most likely seen what was already occupying him, not a message pointing at something else.

So ask yourself before you go hunting for a symbol: did I see something like this scene today? Did I talk about it? Am I under pressure, or short on sleep? If the answer is yes, you have found the nearest and simplest explanation.

Worked examples: the best-known symbols

Now three examples people ask about constantly, with everything above applied to them: what the old books contain, what the circulating books contain, and a plain statement where there is no specific meaning at all.

Does teeth falling out really mean anxiety?

Most pages tell you that teeth falling out means anxiety and weakness, and credit that to Ibn Sirin. Nothing in the old books supports the attribution in that form.

What the oldest of them contains is something else entirely: teeth are the household and the relatives, the front teeth the closest of them and the molars the most distant. Whatever the dreamer saw in them — beauty, decay, falling or change — concerns those people.

So the picture there is a picture of kinship, not one of psychological anxiety. It is reasoning by resemblance: teeth sit tight against one another, and close family are described in Arabic in much the same terms, as a kinship that interlocks.

The same section contains harsher readings of some images, and we do not set them out here. Many people take them as news of a relative’s death, which they are not. They are an interpreter’s opinion about an image, and a dream does not report anyone’s death or its timing.

In the work known under al-Nabulsi’s name there is a completely different reading of teeth falling out: a long life, and, for someone carrying a debt, that his debt is settled.

The point of putting the two readings side by side is to let you see with your own eyes how far two books can differ about one image, and that the sentence circulating today as “the meaning of teeth” is in neither of them. The scene-by-scene detail is set out on our page about teeth falling out in a dream.

The snake: what the oldest books say, and what was added

The snake is among the most asked about of all images. The oldest thing in front of us on it is a single short sentence: a snake is an enemy who keeps his hostility hidden.

Notice the qualifier: hidden. The sentence is about a concealed quarrel, not an imminent danger, and not magic or envy. And you saw a moment ago how far the meaning widens inside the book attributed to him, reaching as far as treasure and strength.

We have given this symbol a page of its own that walks through the scenes one by one: what a snake in a dream can mean, with the qualifiers that usually fall out in the retelling.

Example three: images with no specific meaning

Here we say what pages usually do not. Clear water, a palace, birds in the sky, and many other images published with ready-made meanings under the name Ibn Sirin, have no specific meaning in that form in the old books of interpretation.

That does not mean your dream is meaningless. It means the meaning comes by the other route: from the details of the scene, from your circumstances, and from what you felt while you were in it. That is the route the books themselves follow.

Here is how to work with that in practice:

• Write the scene down as it was before your mind loses it: the place, the people, what you did.
• Name your feeling in one word: calm, unease, fear, joy. Feeling is among the strongest of the details.
• Ask about your day: did anything like this scene pass in front of you while you were awake?
• Ask what is on your mind: what has been going round in your head lately?
• Do not start with the symbol. Look it up last, after you have gathered everything above.

And if your question is about a symbol the books do treat in detail, read its page whole rather than one line of it, as on our page about dreaming about feces, where the meanings appear with their qualifiers and their limits.

What is reported from the Prophet about dreams

Before any interpretation, there is established material in the two Sahih collections that puts dreams in their place, and it is the first thing worth knowing before going anywhere near meanings.

In Sahih Muslim, Book of Dreams, hadith 2263, from Abu Hurayra, the Prophet is reported as saying that dreams are of three kinds: a good dream that is glad tidings from God, a distressing dream from Satan, and a dream from what a person tells himself.

That division on its own settles most of the confusion, and it is worth keeping the reference with it: Sahih Muslim, hadith 2263. Not everything you see in your sleep is a message, and not everything that unsettles you is news. A whole third of it is what a person tells himself, which is to say the echo of your day and your worries.

In Sahih al-Bukhari, the Book of Dream Interpretation, hadith 7044, from Abu Qatada, the Prophet is reported as saying that a good dream is from God; that whoever sees what he likes should tell it only to someone he loves; and that whoever sees what he dislikes should seek refuge in God from its harm and from the harm of Satan, spit lightly three times, and tell nobody about it, for it will not harm him.

In Sahih Muslim, Book of Dreams, hadith 2262, from Jabir, there is an addition describing what someone who sees what he dislikes should do: spit to his left three times, seek refuge in God from Satan three times, and turn over from the side he was lying on.

Consider the care for the heart in this guidance. The aim is for the effect of a disturbing dream to lift from the person who had it, not for him to go looking for an interpretation that will make him more anxious. The last clause in the Bukhari narration, hadith 7044, is explicit: it will not harm him.

Notice too that all of this, in Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 7044, and in Sahih Muslim, hadith 2262, is about how a Muslim should conduct himself with his dream, not about the meanings of symbols. Symbols are a field of individual judgement; this is a field of guidance. Confusing the two is what has led so many people to treat interpretation books as though they were binding texts.

Telling the three kinds apart

People routinely run three things together, and the division recorded in Sahih Muslim, hadith 2263, separates them clearly and comfortingly.

The first is the good dream, described there as glad tidings. The second is what comes from Satan, described in that division as distressing, which is to say that its purpose is to grieve you and occupy you, which is exactly why the guidance in Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 7044, is to tell nobody about it. The third is what a person tells himself, the echo of what is already in your head.

The practical use of this division is that it frees you from chasing a meaning for every scene. Two of the three are not asked for meanings at all: one is left behind with a prayer for refuge, and the other is a reflection of your day.

These categories carry no decisive marker inside the scene itself, so nobody can tell you with certainty which of them your dream belongs to. What they give you is a frame that lightens the load and stops you loading every scene with a message.

How to read a page that credits an interpretation to Ibn Sirin

These pages are not going away, and you are going to read them. What helps is holding a tool that lets you sort what serves you from what harms you.

Five questions before you believe an interpretation

• Where did these words come from? Is the book they came from named, and its author, or does the page just say “interpreters say” with nothing behind it?
• Is there a qualifier? The old books tie the meaning to the form of the thing and to the dreamer’s circumstances. A page that gives one meaning with no qualifier has abridged something that cannot be abridged.
• Does it assert something about the future? Any sentence promising you a date, a person or a guaranteed outcome is a sign the writer has gone past what he is quoting.
• Does it accuse anyone? An interpretation that makes you suspect a spouse, a relative or a neighbour is a harmful interpretation, whatever name is printed above it.
• Were you asked about your situation? The books have the interpreter asking the dreamer about his circumstances. A page that knows nothing about you cannot give you an answer that is yours.

What on this page is quoted word for word

On this page you will find prophetic reports quoted word for word, each with its collection and its number: Sahih al-Bukhari 7044, and Sahih Muslim 2262 and 2263. They are there to be read rather than skipped past, because they are the established material in front of you.

The meanings of symbols are a different matter. What we write about those is an explanation, in today’s language, of what the books of interpretation say. They are meanings recorded by interpreters, so read them on those terms, and always hunt in them for the qualifier: “if it was,” “perhaps,” “and if he saw.”

The difference between the two matters a great deal. The first is established material with guidance to be acted on; the second is human judgement, to be weighed and sifted. Treating them as one and the same loads the books of symbols with more than they can carry.

One scene, three readings

Imagine three people who saw the same scene: a gold necklace being placed around their necks.

The first is a student about to take on a responsibility in a volunteer group. The reading recorded in the books about a necklace is that it is an office and a trust, which here sits close to what is genuinely occupying him: a burden he is carrying and will answer for.

The second is a man who visited a jeweller’s yesterday and bought a gift. The likeliest thing in his case is the rule that self-talk has no interpretation, and that what occupied him by day came back to him at night.

The third is a woman who woke from the same scene unable to breathe, the necklace tightening around her throat. The detail that tips it here is her feeling rather than the symbol, and the likeliest reading is that she is carrying something that weighs on her.

One scene, three readings, all of them starting from the same rules. This is exactly what a page that writes a single sentence under the heading of a symbol can never give you.

Common mistakes with this material

• Copying a meaning without its qualifier, so that a reading given for the good version of a thing gets applied to the poor version.
• Turning a possibility into a report. The books say “may be”; the copier says “means.”
• Hunting for one symbol while ignoring the rest of the scene, which is what misleads readers more than anything else.
• Collecting contradictory interpretations from different pages and then believing the harshest of them.
• Building a decision on a dream: cutting someone off, breaking an engagement, leaving a job. That is the most dangerous thing in this whole field.

These mistakes share one thing: the meaning gets pulled out of its place. The books write a meaning inside a condition, next to other meanings that stand against it. Take it out of all that and leave it standing alone as a line, and it is no longer what its author wrote, however exactly the words were copied.

Which is why reading a whole entry is better than memorising ten clipped lines. The clipped line gives you false certainty; the whole entry gives you a picture closer to the truth, even if it is less decisive.

A quick table: how much weight to give what you read

Related dreams

• Snake Dream Meaning: What the Details Actually Change
• Teeth Falling Out in a Dream: A Complete Guide
• Money in a Dream: Speech, Documents and Trust
• Pearls and Gems in a Dream: Speech and Knowledge

What this page cannot tell you

We finish with what matters more than every meaning above. This page does not tell you what is going to happen, does not uncover hidden knowledge, and passes judgement on nobody.

• No news about the future. No date for a marriage, no exam result, no report of provision or misfortune on its way.
• No religious ruling. What is here is quoted from books of dream interpretation. Anyone wanting a ruling should ask a qualified scholar.
• No medical or psychological diagnosis. If nightmares recur to the point of affecting your sleep or your day, seeing a doctor or a specialist is a useful step.
• No accusation of anyone. A dream establishes no one’s hostility, and it establishes no magic, no envy and no betrayal.
• And no attribution without a route. We do not put under a man’s name what no book carries.

Frequently asked questions

Can I interpret my own dream?

Yes, and you are better placed than anyone for the first step, because you know the details of the scene, how you felt in it, and what occupies you when you are awake. Start by writing the dream down, then ask about your day, then look at the accompanying detail. Do not begin by searching for the meaning of a symbol; that is the end of the road, not the start of it.

Is the interpretation credited to Ibn Sirin accurate?

The question itself needs adjusting. Most of what is published under that heading is taken from gathered books whose attribution to him is not established. What is reported from him with a chain is small and tied to the case it answered. And even that small amount is described by the people who work in this field as conjecture and analogy rather than certainty, so accuracy is not really the measure.

Are there fixed rules for interpreting dreams?

There are rules for the method, not for the meanings. The books agree that the accompanying detail decides, that the dreamer’s circumstances enter into the reading, that what is self-talk has no interpretation, and that the whole field is conjecture to be weighed. That every symbol has one fixed meaning is precisely what the books themselves do not say.

How seriously should I take an interpretation?

Take it for what it is: a door to reflecting on your own situation, not a report about tomorrow. Act on the guidance in the two Sahih collections when a dream disturbs you; Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 7044, states that it will not harm him. And do not build a decision affecting your work or your family on a dream.

What makes a report with a chain different?

It names the route. The early author names the man who told him, and the man who told that man, until the line reaches Muhammad ibn Sirin. That is completely unlike a paragraph printed in a modern book with his name set above it, because above that paragraph there is no route and there are no men.

What are the “secrets” in the book attributed to him?

There are no secrets in the sense being advertised. There is a large body of material arranged alphabetically, listing several possibilities for each symbol, sometimes contradictory ones, and tying them to the scene. The most useful thing in it is exactly that range, because it stops you shrinking a symbol to a single meaning.

Should I rely on that book to understand my dream?

Read it as the effort of interpreters rather than words preserved from one named man, read the whole entry instead of one line, and put the accompanying detail and your own circumstances ahead of the symbol. If you find it promising you a future or making you suspicious of a person, that is a sign the retelling has gone past the book.

In summary

• The man and the book are two different things: a few reports with chains on one side, a compilation of unestablished attribution on the other.
• The oldest books carry three reports back to Muhammad ibn Sirin, on jewellery, on coins and on fish, and all three are answers to particular scenes.
• A chain tells you where words came from. It does not tell you whether they apply to your dream.
• The compilations are worth reading for their range of possibilities, not as a table of answers.
• Even inside Sahih Muslim, hadith 2263, a narrator stops and says he does not know whether a sentence belongs to the Prophet or to Ibn Sirin, which is the best argument there is for modesty about attribution.
• The rules matter more than the meanings: conjecture rather than certainty, the dreamer’s circumstances, the accompanying detail, and no interpretation for self-talk.

If you take one thing away from this page, let it be this: the name printed on a cover is not evidence, the qualifier inside the text matters more than the bare meaning, and your own circumstances are part of the answer rather than something outside it.

اقرأ هذه المقالة بالعربية