Did the Prophet ﷺ enjoy music? A research review

It is said that he mentioned this: some narrations indicate that skilled singers and female singers, dancers and female dancers were present among the Arabs, and the Prophet ﷺ did not consider it inappropriate to enjoy their art.

What are these “some traditions,” and what is their nature of reasoning? We have already discussed this earlier and will continue to present our observations on Ishraq’s criticisms to the esteemed readers, God willing. But before these discussions, see whether there is any statement from yourself ﷺ on this matter or not? Yes! Regarding this, it is mentioned in the books of Hadith and Seerah that you ﷺ said: The people of ignorance used to pay attention to certain things, and I intended to observe them only twice, but both times Allah protected me from it. Once, I was grazing goats with a Quraishi youth in the upper area of Mecca, and I said to him: Tonight you watch the goats, and I will attend a storytelling gathering like the youth of Mecca. He agreed. After that, I left, and just as I reached near the first house of Mecca, I heard singing and the sound of flutes. I asked what was happening. People told me that so-and-so was marrying so-and-so woman. I sat down to listen. Allah closed my ears, and due to overwhelming sleep, I slept in such a way that only the heat of the sun woke my eyes, and I returned to my companion. After that, one night I said the same thing again and reached Mecca as before. That night the same incident occurred as before; I slept until sunrise, then I returned from there. By Allah! After that, I never even imagined what the people of ignorance used to do until Allah honored me with prophethood.

This narration has been transmitted in brief and detailed forms in

, [Al-Mawared: p. 515, no. 2100], [Al-Bahr Al-Zakhar: p. 241 vol. 2], [Dala’il Al-Nubuwwah: p. 33 vol. 2], [Al-Mustadrak: p. 245 vol. 4], [Al-Tarikh Al-Kabir: p. 130 vol. 1], [Al-Matalib Al-Aliyah: no. 4212. Imam Ibn Hibban, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioning it in his Sahih is evidence that this narration is Hasan Sahih according to him. Imam Hakim, may Allah have mercy on him, declared it Sahih according to the condition of Muslim, and Allama Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, agreed with him in his Talkhis Al-Mustadrak. However, considering it as meeting the condition of Muslim is debatable. Allama Haithami, may Allah have mercy on him, stated that its narrators are trustworthy: Rijaluh Thiqaat

.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Al-Matalib Al-Aliyah: [هو حديث حسن متصل ورجاله ثقات] This hadith is Hasan Muttasil and its narrators are trustworthy.

Allama Suyuti, may Allah have mercy on him, has praised it from Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, in

, and Allama Muhammad Yusuf Al-Shami, may Allah have mercy on him, has also mentioned this praise in

. Allama Al-Busiri, may Allah have mercy on him, has also expressed the same words in

which are those of Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him. This narration has also been mentioned by Imam Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari, may Allah have mercy on him, in

and Imam Abu Nu’aym, may Allah have mercy on him, in

. Allama Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, has criticized the chain due to one narrator, Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Qais, stating that he is not well-known and only Ibn Hibban, may Allah have mercy on him, has mentioned him among the trustworthy narrators. However, this objection holds no weight, as more than two trustworthy narrators have transmitted from him. Besides Ibn Hibban, Imam Hakim, may Allah have mercy on him, and Al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, have declared this narration authentic, which is evidence of Muhammad bin Abdullah’s reliability. Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s acceptance of it in Taqreeb Al-Tahdheeb is only in light of the statements transmitted in Al-Tahdheeb. Therefore, the apparent contradiction some have perceived in the statements about Muhammad bin Abdullah in Taqreeb and Al-Matalib Al-Aliyah is also incorrect. We do not consider it appropriate to prolong this discussion here; if necessary, we will present our observations on this matter to the esteemed readers.

From this beautiful narration of Hazrat Ali رضي الله عنه, it becomes as clear as noon that before Allah سبحانه وتعالى honored you ﷺ with the position of prophethood, He protected you from enjoying gatherings of singing and music, and you also clarified that by Allah! After that, you never intended to listen to them. However, Janab Javed Ahmad Ghamidi Sahib and the scholars of illumination say: that you did not consider enjoying such gatherings and assemblies disgraceful. معاذ الله، كبرت كلمة تخرج من أفواههم

Now let us briefly present a review of this criticism of illumination to the esteemed readers.

Under the same title, Ishraq argued from

for the permissibility of music that on the day of Eid, two singing girls were singing in the house of Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her). At that moment, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ came, turned his face to the other side, and lay down on the bed. Then Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) came and reproached Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), saying: Why are these satanic instruments being played in front of the Prophet ﷺ? Upon hearing this, the Prophet ﷺ said: Let them be. When Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) became occupied with other matters, Sayyida (may Allah be pleased with her) signaled to the singing girls to leave, and they left.

Ishraq’s argument was based on the fact that the word “jariyat” appeared in the hadith, which means maidservants, and those singing maidservants were skilled professional singers because in one narration the word [قینتان] appeared instead of [جاریتان], and the well-known meaning of “qina” is professional female singers.

The sentence of [ليستا بمغنيتين] in response to which it was stated that the correct explanation is found only in Sahih Bukhari, where Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) clarified that [قالت:ولیستا بمغنيتین] she said: that both of them were not singers. Therefore, interpreting the terms “Jariya” or “Qinah” here as a professional singer is absolutely incorrect. In response to this, Ishraq wrote: Our viewpoint regarding this sentence is that it is not actually the statement of Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her). It is the conjecture of later narrators which they included in the text.

For this claim, they benefited from the research of their assistant, editor of Shariah, and resource person Mr. Ammar Khan Nasir. The summary of what he has written is that among the four students of Urwah bin Zubair who narrate this tradition, only one student, Hisham bin Urwah, narrates the word [لیستا بمغنيتین], and from Hisham, only his student Abu Usama narrates this sentence. According to the principles of narration, it is unlikely that out of all the teacher’s students, only one remembered this sentence. Therefore, this sentence is not part of the original tradition and cannot be attributed to the Mother of the Believers.

It is very regrettable and indeed surprising that the narrator explicitly states: [قالت:وليستا بمغنيتين] that Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: that both of them were not professional singers. However, the scholars of illumination perhaps did not see the word [قالت], just as earlier they did not see this sentence at all and instead saw the word [قينة]. That is why it is being said that this is not actually the statement of Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), but rather the conjecture of a later narrator. Why do you not clearly say: that Urwah or Hisham or Abu Usamah erred in saying “qalat” (she said), and that this was their own opinion and conjecture, which they attributed to Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her). سبحان اللہ

These words are not from Musnad or any book of Sunan and Mu’jam; we have already stated that these words are from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The scholars of illumination do not accept these words, therefore they have taken upon themselves the task of denying their authenticity. Before them, no scholar has denied the authenticity of these words. We would be grateful if they present the opinion of even one of the Imams of the field in support of their claim; this effort would certainly increase our knowledge. It is not unexpected from those who hold the opinion of completely changing the sources of Shariah contrary to the entire Muslim Ummah, and such a self-made objection to the agreed-upon hadith in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim is absolutely impossible.

The misconception in which the scholars of insight are involved is that “this is the conjecture of a later narrator.” To dispel this misconception, the narrator explicitly stated beforehand that this is not from any narrator but is the own statement of Hazrat Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her). The narrator saved us from this misconception, and all scholars of knowledge remained بحمدللہ safe from falling into this misconception. But unfortunately, despite this, the scholars of insight are still caught in this misconception. If this is not a fact, then please explain how this sentence was attributed by the careful narrator to Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) when it was not her statement. Thus, criticize the narrator’s integrity and come forward, and tell us whether Urwah, Hisham, or Abu Usama was such a narrator who wrongly attributed his words to Sayyida Aisha Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her).

No one among the scholars of illumination could criticize the reliability of any narrator in this regard except concerning Tazhib (refinement), where it was stated that after Hisham went to Iraq, he became careless. Imam Hakim has also recorded his own admission in

that he heard only one narration from his father and did not hear the rest of the narrations. Moreover, this rare research was also mentioned that this narration was transmitted from him by Shu’bah, Hammad bin Salamah, Mu’ammar, Abu Mu’awiyah, Abdullah bin Numayr, and Abu Usamah, all of whom were from the people of Iraq.

Undoubtedly, Imam Ya’qub bin Shaybah stated that after going to Iraq, he became less cautious in narrating traditions from his father. But what is meant by Iraq here, the region of Iraq or Kufa?

contains the detail that Hisham came to Kufa three times and began narrating traditions on his second and third visits. It was asked from Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) whether Muharram can kill mosquitoes or not? Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) said: The people of Iraq ask about mosquitoes and kill the grandson of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

It is clear that here Iraq means Kufa, not the entire region of Iraq. Regarding Iraq and Iraqi narrations, most of the reports and statements refer specifically to Kufa, not the entire region of Iraq. Rather, we have stated that the objection regarding Hisham bin Urwah relates to his second and third visits to Kufa. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute it to the entire region of Iraq. Among those who narrated from Hisham, Hammad bin Salamah and Mu’ammar are both Basri students, definitely not Kufis, so the attempt to declare Hisham’s narration weak is not noteworthy. Similarly, based on the reference

, Hisham’s statement that he heard only one hadith from his father, and on this basis it was said that Hisham’s narration cannot be considered definitely connected.

In this regard, firstly, our request is that Imam Hakim mentioned this statement [محمد بن صالح الہاشمی ثنا أبو جعفر المستعینی ثنا علی بن عبد اللہ المدینی قال: قال أبی: وسمعت یحیی یقول کان ہشام] with a chain of narration. The question is, who is Ali bin Abdullah al-Madini in the chain? If it refers to the well-known Imam Ali bin Abdullah bin Ja’far al-Madini, who is a famous Imam, then his father is weak

. In the margin of Ma’rifat ‘Uloom al-Hadith, it is quoted from some manuscripts that this is Ali bin Abdullah bin Ali bin al-Madini, but who are Ali bin Abdullah bin Ali and his father, and who has called them trustworthy? One possibility is that it is Sahih Abdullah bin Ali bin Abdullah al-Madini, who is the son of Imam Ali al-Madini and narrates the sayings of his father, but despite extensive investigation, no authentication or validation of Abdullah bin Ali has been found. This is also stated by Allama Albani, may Allah have mercy on him,

. Similarly, we have not found the biography of Abu Ja’far al-Musta’ini. [ولعل الله يحدث بعد ذلك أمراً]

The fact that this statement is incorrect is further proven by the fact that this narration is from Bukhari and Muslim, and in fact, the two Sheikhs have mentioned nearly three hundred narrations with the chain of transmission from Hisham bin Urwah. Should it be assumed based on this statement that all these narrations are certainly not connected? In Sahihayn, the tradition of the mudallis (one who conceals a weak link in the chain) is considered to be based on hearing. However, Hisham’s narration is disconnected, سبحان اللہ. What stronger evidence could there be for the incorrectness of this statement than the fact that in Sahih al-Bukhari there are narrations with the chain ہشام أخبرنی أبی، ہشام حدثنی أبی، ہشام سمعت أبی in which there is explicit mention of hearing? Consider,

, etc. These are fourteen hadiths among the first two thousand hadiths in which Hisham explicitly states hearing from his father. In the narrations of Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, and the Musnads and Sunan, the explicit mention of hearing is an additional factor. But unfortunately, Idara Ishraq has relied on such a statement to support its incorrect position, a statement whose own chain of transmission is questionable and whose conclusion is completely wrong and contrary to facts.

Furthermore, see that this Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, narrated through the chain عبید اللہ بن إسماعيل عن أبي أسامة عن هشام عن عروة, is not the only narration transmitted through this chain; rather, there are thirteen other Hadiths narrated verbatim through the same chain. Observe:

The Idara-e-Ishraq, under its reckless boldness, may claim that none of these are certainly continuous, and also that these are narrated from Hammad bin Usama Abu Usama, a student of Iraqi Kufi, therefore they are not continuous. But no student of knowledge with a refined taste for Hadith can say this.

Let us assume that after going to Iraq in the later period, Hisham bin Urwah became careless, but what evidence is there that this narration was reported by Hisham during that careless period? The reference to Hisham’s careless period is mentioned by the authorities of Ishraq from Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, but the same Tahdhib also clearly states that during this period, Waki’, Ibn Numayr, and Muhadhir heard from Hisham. Its words are: [سمع منه بآخره وكيع وابن نمير ومحاضر]

Explain what kind of pinnacle of trustworthiness and honesty this is, that to support one’s stance, one narrates a statement to declare Hisham’s narration weak, but ignores what removes its weakness. When this narration is transmitted in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim from Waki’, Ibn Numair, and Muhadhir besides other earlier students of Hisham, it is absolutely unjust to declare Hisham’s narration disconnected on the basis of this objection.

Among the hadith scholars, it is almost settled that the mursal narrations of the mudallis in the Sahihayn are to be understood as based on hearing (sama‘), and the narrations of the mukhtalit are narrated before the mixing (ikhtilaat). If narrations have been taken from such narrators, it is based on the support of other evidences, because the investigation of the two Sheikhs (Bukhari and Muslim) in this regard is well-known. How far is the decision of the Imams of Hadith from the decision of the Idara Ishraq, which, except for one narration about Hisham from Urwah, declares the rest of the narrations as disconnected and states that after going to Iraq, the narrations of Hisham are not accepted by the senior hadith scholars.

Consider that if this was indeed the opinion of the senior hadith scholars, would the companions of the Sahihs have mentioned Hisham’s narrations from Iraqi students in their books? And would the Imams of the field have declared these narrations authentic? We should be informed who those senior hadith scholars are who have declared the narrations of Hisham from Urwah in the Sahihayn as disconnected? Rather, Hafiz Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, has even stated: [في حديث العراقيين عن هشام أوهام تحتمل] There are possible doubts in the hadith of Hisham from the Iraqis.

Therefore, it is absolutely incorrect to discuss the traditions of the Iraqis through Hisham.

In this context, Idarah Ishraq has also mentioned another self-established principle here that in this tradition, the narration from Abu al-Aswad through Urwah is stronger because only one narrator, Amr ibn al-Harith, transmits it from him, and from Amr, only one student, Abdullah ibn Wahb, narrates it. Due to the limited number of narrators, the text has been preserved from the alterations of various narrators. In contrast, many students of Ibn Shihab and Hisham ibn Urwah have transmitted this text. As a result, the personal inclinations of the narrators are evident in the text. For example, in Sahih Ibn Hibban, Ishaq ibn Rashid inserted these words into the text from Ibn Shihab: [فسبهما وخرق دفيهما] or as Abu Usama added [قالت: وليستا بمغنيتين] in Hisham’s narration.

If the text of a hadith is narrated by different narrators, the rule is that the narrations of all trustworthy narrators are combined, and the different parts are gathered to determine a complete narration, provided that no sentence or part narrated by the trustworthy narrator is anomalous. The esteemed writer Ishraq, who is participating in this discussion, and respected Ammar Khan Sahib would have inquired from his grandfather what the ruling is on the excess of trustworthy narrators, and he would not have wasted his time in such lengthy explanations or unnecessary details. Accordingly, Maulana Sarfaraz Sahib Safdar narrates that the excess of trustworthy narrators is unanimously considered authentic and reliable by all hadith scholars.

Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri says:

[اعلم أن الحديث لم يجمع إلا قطعة قطعة فتكون قطعة منه عند واحد وقطعة أخرى عند واحد فليجمع طرقه وليعمل بالقدر المشترك ولا يجعل كل قطعة منه حديثا مستقلا]

And know well that the hadith has been collected in fragments. So one fragment is with one narrator, and another with another narrator; therefore, it is necessary to collect all the chains (and texts) of the hadith and act upon the common value, and not to make each fragment an independent hadith.

Hammad bin Asama Abu Asama are unanimously trustworthy and reliable; the sentence they narrated is not contrary to the tradition. Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim mentioning it in their Sahihs is an additional confirmation. In fact, except for the Idara-e-Ishraq, all the scholars of the Ummah agree on its authenticity. No objection has been reported from any learned person among the earlier scholars. Idara-e-Ishraq has merely criticized it based on conjectures, so there is nothing surprising in that.

As for the wording of the narration in Sahih Ibn Hibban, in which Ishaq bin Rashid inserted these words in the text, when mentioning [فسبهما وخرق دفيهما], this sentence, especially the words [وخرق دفيهما], are undoubtedly the focus of attention, because Ishaq bin Rashid, although trustworthy, has some conjectures in narrating from Imam Zahri. Thus, the words of Hafiz Ibn Hajar are: [ثقة في حديثه عن الزهري بعض الوهم]

And this narration has also been reported by Ishaq bin Rashid from Imam Zahri. Therefore, the objection of Idara Ashraq in this regard is absolutely incorrect. As for the fact that the stronger text is the one narrated by Abu Al-Aswad, and from him Amr bin Al-Harith narrates, and from Amr only one student, Ibn Wahb, narrates, and there is no suspicion of alteration by the narrator in its text, in our view, the text narrated by Abu Al-Aswad or Hisham or Zahri, which has been transmitted from trustworthy narrators, also has no semantic defect, as, God willing, its clarification will come later.

It is also strange that the text from Abu Al-Aswad’s method is protected from the conjectures and alterations of narrators. Perhaps they did not pay attention that from the same chain of Abu Al-Aswad, immediately after it, these words are also present that on the day of Eid, the Abyssinian people were playing with spears. [فبما سألت النبی صلی اللٰه عليه وآله وسلم وإما قال:تشتهين تنظرين] Then I asked you about seeing them, or you ﷺ said: Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her)! Do you want to see?

In the narration of Abu Al-Aswad, this narration is transmitted from Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her). Which of the two is more authentic? Just as it will be determined from other narrations, similarly, in Abu Al-Aswad’s narration, who and what kind of singers (gamers) were they? If the clarification has been made from Hisham’s narration that they were not singers, then there is no contradiction between the two. If the solution to Hazrat Aisha’s hesitation in Abu Al-Aswad’s narration is correct from other narrations, then why is the clarification about the singers unacceptable?

From our explanation, it becomes clear that the addition of Abu Usama in Hisham’s narration is from a trustworthy and reliable narrator, which does not contradict any word; therefore, it is completely authentic. The fact that the two Sheikhs mentioned it in their Sahih and no credible hadith scholar objected to it is proof of its authenticity. The doubts expressed regarding Hisham bin Urwah are baseless and founded on whispers weaker than a spider’s web. Just as in Abu Al-Aswad’s narration [قالت دخل علی رسول الله صلی اللٰه عليه وآله وسلم… قالت: وكان يوم عيد].

, in both places this statement is attributed to Lady Aisha Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her), whereas in

Book of the Two Eids: Number 949] in the other place قالت is not present. Similarly, Hisham’s narration [قالت دخل] and [قالت ولیستا بمغنيتين] are also statements of Lady Aisha Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her). Denying this here is meaningless and merely based on false objection.

Our kind friend states with great challenge: that until Ahl al-I’tisam refute the following points, our argument remains valid.

① Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) listened to singing. ② The Prophet ﷺ did not forbid Sayyida from listening to singing. ③ When Sayyidna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) tried to stop Sayyida from listening to singing, the Prophet ﷺ forbade him from doing so.

If they want to deny these points, they should pause for a moment and consider that such denial could be interpreted by someone as a rejection of the Hadith.

However, if the scholars of Ishraq had reflected, they would have found answers to these “points” in our arguments. We have already explained what is meant by “singing” in the narration and who was the singer, and that it was on the day of Eid, which is why the Prophet ﷺ permitted it. But even after this clarification, if they say they want an answer, then in response, it is enough to say:

If you yourself do not wish, there are a thousand excuses.

The Ahl al-I’tisam accept this hadith by the grace and bounty of Allah exactly as the scholars of hadith and jurists have accepted it. Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, established a chapter on this hadith [باب الحراب والدرق يوم العيد اور باب سنة العيدين لأ هل الإ سلام] and the subtle manner in which he pointed to the reality of the issue can be seen in detail in Fath al-Bari. The commentator of Sahih Muslim, Allama Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, established this chapter which represents the scholars of hadith and jurists. [فصل في جواز لعب الجوارى الصغار وغنائهن وضربهن بالدف يوم العيدين] (That is) this chapter is about the permissibility of little girls playing, singing, and beating the daf on the days of the two Eids. Amir Ala al-Din al-Farsi has titled this narration as follows:

[ذكر البيان بأن الغناء الذي وصفناه إنما كان ذٰلك أشعارا قيلت في أيام الجاهلية فكانوا ينشدونها ويذكرون تلك الأيام دون الغناء الذي يكون بغزل يقرب سخط اللٰه جل وعلا من قائله]

Imam Bayhaqi, may Allah have mercy on him, established a chapter on this hadith as follows:

[باب الرجل لا ينسب نفسه إلى الغناء لا يؤتى لذٰلك ولا يأتي عليه وإنما يعرف بأنه يطرب في الحال فيترنم فيها]

Consider carefully: What do these noble Imams say? They say that this is the kind of singing that no respectable person would prefer for themselves, and it is not a cause of Allah’s displeasure. The singers were young girls, and the day was also Eid. The Salaf understood this meaning from this hadith, and بحمدللہ Ahl al-I’tisam also understand it this way. The denial of the authentic hadith is being done by the people of illumination, who, due to their own intellectual bias, declare the authentic hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim as weak and disconnected. This is what is called:

The thief scolds the constable.

Therefore, the denial of the authentic hadith here has also come to the share of the people of enlightenment, just as previously they have boldly denied the hadiths of stoning, the hadiths of the descent of Jesus (peace be upon him), etc. The denial of the authenticity of [قالت وليستا بمغنيتين] has also, Mashallah, come to their share. Before the people of enlightenment, no scholar among the scholars of the Ummah denied its authenticity; even Hafiz Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) could not deny its authenticity.

Judge fairly, who is the denier of the authentic hadith?

What is meant by the words [جاريتان تغنیان] in the hadith of Hazrat Aisha رضي الله عنها? The people of Ishraq insist that it means professional singers. Firstly, it was stated that in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, it is explicitly mentioned by Sayyida Aisha رضي الله عنها herself that neither of them were singers. After this clarification by Sayyida Siddiqah رضي الله عنها, there is no need for linguistic subtleties, but the people of Ishraq found a solution by denying the explanation of [قالت:وليستا بمغنيتين]. What is the position of this denial? The honorable readers have already come to know its reality.

In this semantic context, it has been mentioned that the term “Jariya” is generally applied to a girl and an underage girl. The commentators of Hadith have also understood it this way, as mentioned by Allama Ayni, Allama Nawawi, Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Hafiz Ibn Jawzi, and Hafiz Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on them. However, the people of Ishraq state that in Lisan al-Arab and others, “Jariya” refers to a young woman. We do not at all deny that the term “Jariya” can also be applied to a young woman. But if the same meaning of “Jariya” is taken as the people of Ishraq have quoted from the lexicons, then why do they not say that the term “Jariya” is applied only to a young woman? When they do not agree with that, then what is the benefit of those references? Can they deny that in the lexicon the term “Jariya” is also applied to an underage girl? Allama Tahir Patni has clearly written that [الجارية من النساء من لم تبلغ الحلم] Jariya refers to a woman who has not reached puberty.

This is the same point we have already mentioned with reference to Allama Aini. The commentators of Hadith have taken the meaning of “Jariya” in this way. That is why it is said that the term “Jariya” generally applies to an underage girl. When a word has two or more meanings in the lexicon, the meaning is determined from the context of the text to understand what is intended here. We have already stated with references that Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Hafiz Ibn Jawzi, Allama Aini, Hafiz Ibn Qayyim, and Allama Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on them, take “Jariya” here to mean a صغيرة السن girl. However, the people of Ishraq (illumination) say:

① The verb تغنیان has been used for “Jariyatan,” which means: that both of them were singing and they were maidservants.

② In the narration, the commentary of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, from “Mazmar al-Shaytan ‘Ind al-Nabi ﷺ” gives the impression that the singing ones were not girls.

③ In one narration, instead of “Jariyatan,” the word “Qintan” is used, which means a female singer or a singing maidservant.

④ Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, has also identified these slave girls based on some narrations. In summary

The explanation of these matters is in the following order.

① ،،تغنیان،، What was meant by singing and what was the singing of the Arabs? This will be discussed in its proper place later.

Consider here: Is singing necessarily linked to slave girls? And is the singing of girls not considered singing?

② The girls who were singing were not only singing but also playing the daf (tambourine). Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) declared it a satanic instrument based on the actual act. The Prophet ﷺ did not say: “Abu Bakr! It is not appropriate for you to call it a satanic instrument,” rather, he overlooked the girls’ joyful act because it was Eid. How much interest did the Prophet ﷺ himself have in it? He lay down on the bed and turned his blessed face away. In one narration, it is mentioned that he covered himself with a sheet. How distant is your disinterest from the perception of the people of enlightenment that you enjoy singing and music. Because it was the day of Eid and due to the girls’ act, you did not forbid it; if you had adopted the stance of Siddiq-e-Akbar (may Allah be pleased with him), then even on Eid such expressions of joy would not have been permissible.

③ The discussion on the meaning of قینۃ comes later; the summary is that in the narration ،قینہ، is used in the sense of continuation, not in the sense of a professional female singer.

④ Undoubtedly, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, based on some narrations, has interpreted the term “Jariyatan” here as maidservants. However, this point is subject to consideration because the explanation of [ليستا بمغنيتين] given by himself is evidence that if they were maidservants, then they certainly were not professionals. As for some narrations, it is to be noted that:

Firstly: They mentioned in Al-Tabarani from the narration of Hazrat Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her) that she was the slave girl of Hazrat Hassan bin Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him). This narration is mentioned in

. However, one of its narrators, Al-Wazi’ bin Nafi’, is very weak. Allama Haithami (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned this narration in

and said: Al-Wazi’ is abandoned. Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) himself gave a detailed account of him in

and did not transmit even the slightest word of authentication; rather, at the end, he also quoted that [قال الحاکم و غیرہ روی أحادیث موضوعة] Imam Hakim (may Allah have mercy on him) and others said that he narrates fabricated hadiths. Therefore, when his narrator is abandoned, judge fairly whether it is correct to use this as evidence? We have already given a detailed critique of this narration to which the people of Ishraq have not responded.

Secondly: Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote regarding Al-Arba’in lil-Sulami that they were the maidservants of Abdullah bin Salam. However, he did not mention any chain of narration for this. This narration is also not noteworthy because the one whom Hafiz himself considers to have authentic chains of narration, this narration is against him.

Thirdly: Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned in this regard a narration from Ibn Abi al-Dunya that in the narration from Hisham from Faleeh, there was a singing Hammama and her companion. At one place, Hafiz Sahib considered its chain authentic and at another place considered it good, as also mentioned in Ishraq. But consider that this is explicitly stated by Faleeh bin Suleiman, about whom Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said that he is truthful but makes many mistakes.

We are surprised that the scholars of insight do not accept the statement narrated by the trustworthy and reliable narrator Abu Usama Hamad bin Usama from Hisham, لیستا بمغنيتین, but they readily accept the narration from Hisham through a narrator like Faleeh, who is the subject of discussion. Therefore, when the chain of narration itself is not reliable, what is the meaning of using these narrations as evidence? Then, even if it is accepted that it was Hamama or Zainab, what is the proof that this act was after puberty? And were they not maidservants before puberty? Moreover, the matter of sending a singer at the time of marriage is different, which does not necessarily imply that the same singers came to the house of Sayyida Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her) on the day of Eid.

From our explanation, it becomes clear that جاریتان does not mean taking adult maidservants and considering them professional singers based on any strong evidence.

In the same narration of Hazrat Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), the words [عندھا قینتان تغنیان] appear, from which the scholars of Ishraq state that they mean professional female singers. In this context, it was argued that defining Qinah solely as professional female singers is incorrect. When this foundation itself is flawed, how can they be considered professional female singers? Now, when they admit that the meaning of this word is simply a slave girl.

Then how is it correct to define قینتان as professional female singers? Especially when the hadith explicitly states that they were not both singers. The lexicographers, while explaining the meaning of Qinah and mentioning this narration, also pointed towards the same meaning that Qinah means a slave girl, whether she sings or not. In fact, the meaning of Qinah is [ماشطة، مغنية، جارية] even someone who adopts a profession is called Qain. Accordingly, Allama Al-Khattabi (may Allah have mercy on him) says:

[القينة الماشطة والقينة المغنية والقينة الجارية وكل صانع عند العرب قين] (غریب الحدیث: ص775 ج2)

If in a hadith ،،قینتان،، appears in one place and ،،جاریتان،، in another, there is no fundamental difference between the two. It is not without interest to note here that the people of Ishraq consider the most “organized” text to be that of Abu al-Aswad, while they regard Hisham’s narration as disconnected and mursal, using this as an excuse to deny the phrase [لیستا بمغنیتین]. However, they forget at the next stage that the word [قینتان] is also in the same manner of Hisham. If Hisham’s narration is not accepted by the people of Ishraq, then how was the word Qintan proven correct? And how was it correct to interpret the meaning of Jaritan as a professional singer based on the same disconnected narration?

We had mentioned in this regard that in the narrations from Urwah, the word “Jaritaan” appears in the reports of Abu al-Aswad, Hisham, and Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri. However, in the narration of Shu’bah from Hisham, the word “Qintaan” is used, which the scholars of Ishraq have referenced from

. In Shu’bah’s narration, there is also a doubt expressed whether it was the day of Eid al-Fitr or Eid al-Adha. Whereas in Zuhri’s narration, there is no such doubt; it mentions the days of Mina, that is, Eid al-Adha. In fact, in

, the narration of Shu’bah also uses the word “Jaritaan.” Therefore, if in some places in Shu’bah’s narration the word “Qintaan” appears, its meaning is also “Jaritaan,” and among the Arabs, it is well known that “Qinah” means flowing. The scholars of Ishraq have never accepted this straightforward explanation, and in response, they say:

Question: Does this doubt weaken the narration or create ambiguity in the meaning of “Qintaan”? This doubt is also mentioned in the narration of Musnad Ahmad.

Dear readers! Please consider that it was stated about “Jariatan” that it is necessary to understand it as “bondmaids” who were known as expert singers. The strongest evidence for this is that in the other narration, the words “Qintan” have been mentioned. When the meaning of “Jariatan” as expert singers is primarily based on the word “Qintan,” it was also mentioned that this term appears in the narration of Shu’bah from Hisham. There is also hesitation in the chain regarding the specification of the day. Just as this hesitation and ambiguity are resolved by other narrations, similarly, the hesitation about these words is also removed by other narrations. Especially when the word “Jariatan” itself appears in the same chain of Shu’bah from Hisham. And “Qinah” means a bondmaid, as we have quoted from Allama Khatib. When this strongest evidence itself is proven weak, then how can it be justly concluded that “Jariyah” necessarily means an expert female singer?

Rather, now the scholars of narration consider Hisham bin Urwah’s report to be entirely disconnected and mursal, and the word Qintan is also in Hisham’s narration. If the statement of [لیستا بمغنیتین] is not correct and is disconnected, then how can the word Qintan be correct? In Hisham’s narration, there is a denial and insistence on the other; if this is not an example of [تلک إذاً قسمة ضیزی], then what is it?

Similarly, the statement of the scholars of Ishraq that the meaning of Qinah is to enslave and the meaning of Jariyah is also not a singer but to enslave, then what is the strength of the argument that was made to interpret Jaritan as meaning little girls;

but the scholars of Ishraq did not consider that when they said: that the well-known and understood meaning of Qinah is a professional singer, it was clarified that actually the meaning of Qinah is a slave girl whether she sings or not. It is not correct to take this to mean a professional singer, especially since Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) herself clarified that they were not singers. After that, to interpret it as a professional singer is not just. Therefore, when the basis for taking Jariyah to mean a professional singer (the word Qinah) itself is weak, there is no objection to interpreting Jariyah as little girls.

Mr. Ghamidi and his circle, while explaining the meaning of Qinah, wrote that its known and common meaning is a professional female singer.

Regarding this, it was stated that Imam Laith said that common people say that القینة means a female singer. This is not the opinion of the Arabs. The people of Ishraq found this very unpleasant and, in their arrogance of scholarly superiority, said that after reading this it is difficult to decide whether to consider it a mark of their knowledge or honesty. The people of Al-I’tisam have probably forgotten that the dictionary they quoted this statement from is not of any foreign language but of the Arabic language. The term “common people” here refers not to Urdu but to Arabic, and its reference is also to the common people of Arabia. In summary

In the heart and mind of this incapable person, there is no concept of بحمدللہ scholarly excellence; despite all his weaknesses, this service of defending Hadith is merely the result of Allah the Glorified and Exalted’s grace. Otherwise, his condition is such that it is not in his destiny to achieve excellence; even in imperfection, he did not become perfect in sorrow. If Imam Laith has narrated this from the common people: [القينة المغنية], then Abu Amr has narrated the same statement from some people; his words are: [وبعض الناس يظن القينة المغنية الخاصة ]

That some people believe that Qinah specifically refers to a female singer, and this is also the opinion of the masters of illumination. That is why they say that the known and understood meaning of Qinah is a professional female singer. The matter requiring contemplation is that according to Imam Laith, may Allah have mercy on him, this is the opinion of the common people, and according to Imam Abu Amr, this is the opinion of some people. What is their own view regarding this opinion? Imam Abu Amr explicitly clarified this immediately after [قال وليس كذلك]. Abu Amr said it is not like that. Whether they are the common people or some, according to the people of illumination, they are all Arabs. So when their statement was refuted, how did their opinion become acceptable? If the people of illumination had pondered, there would have been no need for such lengthy explanation. The common people are also the common people of the Arabs. The lexicographers are not the intended ones, and in every language, the matter is not of the common people; the experts and masters of that language are accepted.

The connoisseur of speech, O new beloved, this is the mistake here

Imam Abu Ubaid رحمه الله wrote an entire book in which the common people oppose the Arabic language. Its name is [ما خالفت فيه العامة لغة العرب]. Similarly, Abu Al-Jarrah also wrote an entire chapter on the same topic [باب ما خالفت العامة فيه لغة العرب]. After this, we do not feel the need to point out such mistakes of the common people. The common people are, after all, common people, not Imams. Therefore, we stated that our modernists have deceived the common people by using their statements as evidence, and this is indeed the truth. Getting emotional over this is not wisdom.

One of the arrows from the quiver of the people of Ishraq regarding the meaning of Qinah is that in Al-I’tisam, it is written about the hadith of Hazrat Abu Imamah رضي الله عنه that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: [لا تبيعوا القينات ولا تشتروهن ولا تعلموهن] Do not buy or sell singers, nor train them in music.

The pen is a finger with teeth, what should be written about it?

It seems they want to say that the meaning of Qinah here in Al-I’tisam is “singer.”

Firstly: It is asked whether the people of I’tisam have used this narration as evidence? Certainly not, in I’tisam itself it is explicitly stated that this narration is weak because Ubaidullah bin Zahr, his teacher Ali bin Zaid, and then his teacher Qasim bin Abdul Rahman are all consecutively weak narrators. If we were to use this as evidence, the matter would be somewhat reasonable. وإلا فلا

Secondly: We have refuted the well-known meaning of Qinah as “singer” and stated that its original application is for a continuous state, whether it is a singer or not. Therefore, following the context of the speech and the statements of the commentators, here we have taken the meaning as “singer,” and any objection to this is merely for embellishment of the narrative. The commentator of Tirmidhi writes:

[القينات بفتح القاف وسكون التحتية في الصحاح القين الأمة مغنية كانت أو غيرها قال التوربشتي وفي الحديث يراد بها المغنية لأنها إذا لم تكن مغنية فلا وجه للنهي عن بيعها وشراءها]

In Al-Qainat, the letter ‘Q’ has a fathah and ‘Ya’ is sakin. In Al-Sihah by Al-Jawhari, Qain means a maid, whether she is a singer or not. Allama Al-Turabishti said that here in the hadith, “singer” is meant because if she were not a singer, there would be no reason to prohibit her buying and selling.

Therefore, the meaning of Al-Qainat here is singers, for the same reason and cause of singing, but considering Jaritan as Qainat and then assigning the well-known and understood meaning of Qinah as a professional female singer is not correct, as we have already explained. والحمدللہ علی ذلک

In the same hadith of Hazrat Aisha Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her), the word تغنیان is used, which Mr. Ghamidi and the people of Ishraq interpreted to mean that two female singers (slave girls) were singing songs of the Battle of Baaath. We argued that here the meaning is to recite verses related to the Battle of Baaath. Ghina, which means singing, song, and singing with melody, is not intended here. Because firstly, the Arabs called reciting poetry in a loud and beautiful voice ghina, and with references, it is shown that this is the meaning understood by the linguists and the commentators of the hadith. However, the people of Ishraq, following the footsteps of orientalists, are eager to introduce a new Islam. Therefore, they could never accept this fact. Hence, they are compelled to interpret ghina as any kind of music and listening. Accordingly, they write:

First objection and its answer:

The first question is: on what basis is it said that Taghniyan means that she was reciting the verses in a simple voice? Who gave us or you the authority to alter the established meaning, application, and reference and assign it new meanings? In Islamic literature, rare examples of this are Mr. Parvez and his predecessors, who discovered meanings of Arabic words and styles that neither the Arabic language nor any other language has been ready to accept. Consider this! Isn’t your effort in defining the meaning of Ghina of a similar nature? After that, they quoted the meanings of Ghina from Lisan al-Arab, Al-Sihah, Al-Mujam al-Wasit, etc., as music and singing songs.

Dear readers! Undoubtedly, no one has the right to determine the meaning of any word, بحمدللہ this insolence was not committed by this incompetent person. Consider what has been quoted from Lisan al-Arab and other books, and what the commentators of Hadith have explained; can the people of illumination say anything in this regard? The same Lisan al-Arab, which states that the meaning of al-ghina (singing) is sama’ (music). Is it possible that their keen insight missed the line written just one line above in the same book that [كلما من رفع صوته ووالاه فصوته عند العرب غناء]

That which produces a loud voice and makes it beautiful and desirable is considered ghina by the Arabs.

[وفي حديث عائشة رضي الله عنها وعندي جاريتان تغنيان بغناء بعاث أي تنشدان الأشعار التي قيلت يوم بعاث وهو حرب كانت بين الأنصار ولم ترد الغناء المعروف بين أهل اللهو واللعب]

And in the Hadith of Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), it is mentioned that two slave girls of Baath used to sing to me, meaning the meaning of taghniyan is that they used to recite poetry that was said on the days of the Battle of Baath, and the Battle of Baath was fought between the Ansar (Aws and Khazraj). This ghina is not the one known among the people of amusement and play.

Rather, we have already stated that this very point was mentioned by Allama Ibn Athir, may Allah have mercy on him, in

. The same has been said by Allama Ibn Rajab, may Allah have mercy on him, Allama Ayni, may Allah have mercy on him, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him. Moreover, the clarification of Sayyida Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, that [لیستا بمغنیتین] they were not singers, also supports this, that they used to recite poetry in the simple Arab manner, not in the style of singers. Furthermore, Allama Al-Kurmani, may Allah have mercy on him, has written:

[أي ليس الغناء عادة لهما ولا هما معروفتان به، قال القاضي عياض أي ليستا ممن تغنى بعادة المغنيات من التشويق والهوى ولا ممن اتخذه صنعة وكسبا]

That [لیستا بمغنیتین] means that singing was neither their habit nor were they known for it in that regard. Qadi Iyad said that they did not sing in the manner of female singers.

Therefore, if the meaning of Tughniyan is that this incompetent person recited poetry in a simple manner, then بحمدللہ this is exactly the meaning that the lexicographers and commentators of Hadith have given to this Hadith. The people of Ishraq, like Mr. Parvez, are concerned with laying out a new framework away from the Salaf of the Ummah, and according to their own “Sunnah,” they only rely on the lexicon; they do not consider what stance the Salaf took regarding the various interpretations of the lexicon. The people of Ishraq are nurturing this Parvezian thought. Our words that she was reciting poetry in a simple voice caused a misunderstanding among the people of Ishraq. If they had considered what we wrote under the topic of Ghina and the people of Arabia, they would certainly have avoided heated speech. By “simple voice,” we mean reciting poetry in a good voice, distinct from the style of singers. As we have quoted from Allama Ibn Athir, Allama Ibn Manzur, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, Allama Ayni (may Allah have mercy on them), it means reciting in a good voice. Ignoring this, the misunderstanding they had from the words “simple voice” is exactly like the interpretation of Ghina in lexicons as “Sama‘.”

The predecessors of the Ummah defined a meaning in the light of various words of this Hadith, but the people of Ishraq, in their intellectual deviation, interpret the word “qina” as a professional female singer. When it was pointed out that Sahih Bukhari and Muslim clearly state that she was not a singer, the people of Ishraq realized this and, out of sincerity, concluded that the authenticity of the Hadith should be denied so that the “flute” of the singers continues to play. When they have come forward to encourage professional singers and musicians along with bands and musical instruments, how can they understand the meaning of a simple voice?

Second Objection and Its Answer:

The people of Ishraq say:

The second question is: Here, you define the meaning of the verb “ghina” as reciting poetry in a simple voice, but why is it that later in the discussions of the Qur’an, you have identified the words “lahw al-hadith” and “samd” as examples of the same verb “ghina,” and by using music and singing as its synonyms, you have declared it false and forbidden?

The reason why we do not take تغنیان here to mean a singer, or rather a professional singer, has already been understood by the esteemed readers. As for taking the words لہو الحدیث and Samad to mean singing,

Firstly: We ourselves did not intend these meanings.

Secondly: The context of the speech, especially the background of [يشتری لهو الحديث], clearly indicates that here singing is included in idle talk, and the original reference of singing is a professional singer. However, the people of Ishraq, even at this point, deviate from the Imams of the Salaf and say that there is no specification of singing here. Further discussion on this will come later at the appropriate place in ان شاءاللہ.

Third Objection and Its Answer:

The people of Ishraq further wrote that if Jaritaan was simply reciting poetry in plain words without any melody or nature of singing, then why did Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) describe it as the chant of Satan?

We have already mentioned this before, and we have just now pointed out the misunderstanding they had regarding reciting poetry in simple words, that due to reciting poetry with the daf (tambourine) in the house of the Prophet ﷺ, Hazrat Sayyiduna Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه called it the devil’s chant, and who denies the fact that the reprehensibility of certain things increases due to the occasion and place. What does the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ not rejecting Hazrat Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه ultimately indicate? Calling the melody, which in Arabic was in the form of hady or nasb, a known singing (ghina) is itself incorrect. Hafiz Ibn Hajar رحمه الله clearly stated that the term ghina applies to a loud voice in which melody is found, which Arabs consider similar to hady and do not regard it as (mughanni) singing

, just as those who recite praise and eulogy with melody are not called professional singers.

Fourth objection and its answer:

One inquiry from the scholars of Ishraq is that in the narration of Ibn Shahab Zahri, it is mentioned that both were playing the daf. The question is, why was such a musical instrument necessary to recite poetry in a simple voice, which was used to produce the important rhythm (taal) of singing?

In response: It is stated that since they were not professional singers جاریتان لیستا بمغنیتین, the very idea of them playing the daf with rhythm (taal) is utterly incorrect. The scholars of Ishraq have previously written that an amateur playing the tabla without rhythm is not music, and even an expert playing the board with rhythm is music.

When they were non-singers, and they beat the daf, then how did it become a particular arrangement? And how did the state of “taal” (rhythm) come about?

Another question (Huda and Ghina)

The Ahl-e-Ishraq further stated that in desert journeys, reciting Hadith in a prolonged, melodious manner is one of the various forms of singing among the Arabs, just as classical music, Khayal, Thumri, Ghazal, Geet, Mahia, Tappa, Qawwali, etc., are forms of singing in the Indian subcontinent. The thing sung using these forms will only be considered frivolous or impermissible if it promotes a non-religious or immoral cause. Hadith recitation is not permissible merely because it has chosen a form of singing that the Prophet ﷺ expressed approval of. Similarly, a vulgar song sung with the daf will not be acceptable solely because it is sung with a musical instrument whose permissibility is mentioned in the Ahadith. Al-Khal

Despite all their intelligence and acumen, the people of Ishraq have here fallen into a confusion of topics or have tried to confuse the readers. Undoubtedly, chanting and reciting poetry in a prolonged manner is considered singing among the Arabs. But did the Arabs thus call those who recited poetry in this manner ‘mughanni’ (singer) or ‘gooya’ (reciter)? Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, explicitly stated:

[إن الغناء يطلق على رفع الصوت وعلى الترنم الذي تسميه العرب نصب ولا يسمى فاعله مغنيا] The term ‘ghina’ (singing) is applied to reciting poetry in a melodious voice with intonation; the Arabs called this ‘nasb’ (chanting), but they did not call the one who did this a ‘mughanni’ (singer).

Almost the same thing was said by other gentlemen as well, as we have previously mentioned with references under the topics of singing, the people of Arabia, and music during travel. In school, students recite praise, naat, anthems, supplicatory words, and poetry; you may associate their recitation with any musical tune, but are they considered singers, musicians, or vocalists? And is there any introduction of them in school in this regard? They are naat reciters, certainly not singers or musicians. Unfortunately, the people of Ishraq did not consider this fundamental difference. That is why they are entangled in such labyrinths.

Obscene songs or obscene poetry are inherently objectionable; singing them with the daf does not justify them. Musical instruments are inherently impermissible; no good speech can be a proof for the permissibility of musical instruments. The daf is also a musical instrument with bells tied to it, as we have previously quoted from Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him. Therefore, their lengthy explanations are merely a deceptive tale with no real substance.

The Ahl al-Ishraq skillfully mentioned a hadith from Sunan al-Kubra by al-Nasa’i and a hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari in which the singing of “Qinah” is mentioned. Based on this, they asked the question: what is the thing that made the same act permissible in one place and impermissible in another? The discussion on the narration from Sunan al-Kubra will come later in ان شاءاللہ. Ultimately, it condemns the act of Qinah. As for the narration in Sahih al-Bukhari, it is from Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), in which during a gathering of wine drinking, Hazrat Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him) was sung a Qinah, and he cut the humps of the she-camels and tore their bellies. This incident occurred before wine was declared forbidden. The Ahl al-Ishraq say that the association of wine drinking and its consequences removed singing from the realm of permissibility and placed it in the realm of impermissibility.

The question is: Did the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ issue a ruling on the impermissibility of singing at that moment? Since this is not established, what rationality is there in considering wine drinking as the primary cause based merely on one’s conjecture and assumption? Especially when wine was not yet prohibited, the people of enlightenment and the people of rationalism merely run their intellectual horses, whereas as a result of this very incident, the commentator of Bukhari, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote that among the things proven permissible by this hadith are [وجواز الغناء بالمباح من القول وإنشاد الشعر والاستماع من الأمة] the permissibility of singing based on the opinion that it is permissible, and a slave girl reciting poetry and listening to poetry.

Therefore, what the people of enlightenment have derived from this incident is also absolutely incorrect.

Admission of the Truth

The tradition presented by the Ahl-e-Ishraq regarding the permissibility of music on Eid, which they attributed to Hazrat Aisha Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her), clearly shows the weakness and even distortion of their argument before the esteemed readers. Besides the hadith of Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), they also cited a hadith of Hazrat Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her) from Al-Mu’jam Al-Kabir in this context, the weakness of which we have already explained. Their silence in defending this point is evidence that they have acknowledged the validity of our objection.