This excerpt is taken from Sheikh Irshad-ul-Haq Asri's book Islam and Music: A Review of Ishraq's Objections.
The people of Ishraq used a narration from Sunan al-Kubra by Al-Bayhaqi as evidence for the permissibility of the "art of music," in which it was mentioned that the Prophet ﷺ said to Lady Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her: "This is a singer from such-and-such tribe; will you like her singing?" Accordingly, she listened to the singing. Regarding this evidence, it was stated that this reasoning is not correct and the reference of this narration is also incorrect; this narration is from Sunan al-Kubra by An-Nasa'i, not Imam Al-Bayhaqi. Even after accepting this clarification, their rhetoric against this humble servant is an example of __ARABIC_0. And regarding the evidence, it was stated that the word ARABIC_1__ appears in the hadith, upon which the entire structure of reasoning is based; the original meaning of this word is "slave girl," whether she sings or not. Therefore, it is not correct to classify her as a professional singer, as you have already read in detail that she recited poetry loudly and Lady Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, listened. The summary of the objections of the people of Ishraq is as follows:
① From where did the information come that Qinah's style was to recite poetry in a loud voice? There is no such word in the tradition. Here the word "ghina" is used, which is commonly understood to mean singing.
② How did you separate poetry and loud voice from the meaning of ghina?
③ When in your opinion, the meaning of Qinah is not a singer but a common slave girl, and she only recited poetry in a loud voice, then why did the words "style of singing" come from your pen?
In response to all three, it is presented in order.
① The argument for reciting poetry in a loud voice is from [فغنتہا] "she sang." First, we have proven that Arabs also apply the term ghina to poetry recited with raised voice, and they do not only mean the well-known ghina as mere amusement.
② Arabs do not count poetry recited with melody and intonation among the well-known ghina, as has already been explained in detail before.
③ The answer to what was mentioned under point two can be easily understood from it. If the entire sentence had been considered before the question, there would have been no need for it. We had stated, "His style of singing was not that of an expert singer but rather reciting poetry in a loud voice." Repeating words with melody in a loud voice is, per sentence, singing. However, a person who sings like this is not called a singer or vocalist. But known singing is an art, and the one who commits it is called a singer (musician). Unfortunately, this distinction is not understood by the people of Ishraq.
Bad habits are a frequent excuse
Regarding the hadith from Al-Sunan Al-Kubra by Al-Nasa'i, which was used as evidence, it was further stated that at the end of the hadith is [وقد نفخ الشیطان فی منخریہا] (meaning) Satan has blown into his nostrils, which indicates the abomination of his action.
Keeping all our observations in this regard in mind, the bitterness and verbosity of the Ahl-e-Ishraq are remarkable. They have ultimately written about it that "How can it be believed that you ﷺ attribute singing to Satan and then listen to the same singing with your respected wife? Such a contradiction in thought and action cannot be attributed to the Prophet ﷺ. Our opinion is that this narration should be rejected so that nothing is attributed to the Prophet ﷺ that even in the slightest degree gives an impression of contradiction in speech."
Reference: (Ishraq: p. 55)
Before proceeding, two things need to be mentioned: if your opinion is to reject this narration, does that mean rejecting this sentence or the entire narration? If the entire narration is meant, then in the future exclude it from the scope of reasoning on the "Art of Music." We will wait to see whether they fulfill this "duty" or not; it remains to be seen. And if this sentence is meant, as they stated at the end of the discussion, then just say that despite the authenticity of the chain, this audacity of the people of illumination will be an example of __ARABIC_4. ARABIC_5__
Then the contradiction that the people of illumination perceived and the method they adopted regarding apparently contradictory narrations may be that of atheists and deniers of Hadith, in fact, it has been their habit in every era, whereas the scholars of Hadith, may Allah have mercy on them, clarified the correct position of Hadith by mentioning such narrations in books like Ikhtilaf al-Hadith, Mukhtalif al-Hadith, Mushkil al-Athar, etc. This way of thinking of the people of illumination also categorizes them among the deniers and deviants; it is certainly not the way of the believers and Muslims. This narration has also been mentioned by Imam Ahmad, Imam Nasai, Imam Tabarani, may Allah have mercy on them, and later scholars of Hadith, and even the Islamic historian Allama Syed Suleman Nadvi has quoted it in
Reference: (Seerat Aisha Radi Allah Anha: p. 85)
. We acknowledge the "intelligence and insight" of the people of illumination; they may hold whatever opinion they wish about this humble one, but at least they should not award the medals to the Imams of Hadith and jurists of Islam that have been given to this humble one.After the accusations and insults, the people of Ishraq innocently say: However, in our view, it is not much necessary because the meaning of this sentence is not what Al-I'tisam has explained. Its meaning is that he transgressed to an extent which was not appropriate for him to go. "Al-Kh
Reference: (Ishraq: p.55)
After that, they quoted from Taj al-'Urus and Aqrab al-Mawarid that the phrase [نفخ الشیطان فی أنفہ] is said about a person who reaches a limit which in reality is not for him.
Reference: (Ishraq: pp.55-56)
But if only! The people of Ishraq, despite all their claims of religion and knowledge, had tried to understand this sentence in the same meaning, then neither would they have seen any contradiction, nor would they have felt any absurdity. Consider, the maidservant began to recite the verses melodiously, but when she started to exceed the limits, you expressed dislike and said that the devil was playing a trumpet from her nostrils. Judge fairly, after the meaning of the tradition was explained, were all the objections of the people of Ishraq invalidated or not? In other words, your dislike was not only for reciting the verses melodiously, but for exceeding the limits and reciting the verses like professional singers. Now tell me, what is the objection?
The attribution to the devil is sufficient to indicate its abomination.
The Prophet's ﷺ statement about the female singer in the hadith: that the devil plays a flute in her nostrils. This is an argument for the prohibition and abhorrence of professional singing, but the scholars of illumination say: In the usage of the Arabic language, the word "devil" is not explicitly in the sense of prohibition or abhorrence. There are many examples in the narrations where the Prophet ﷺ attributed certain things to the devil: but this does not mean that he intended to declare them forbidden or vile at all.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.56)
After this, they quoted some blessed hadiths in which certain actions are attributed to the devil. Before explaining these actions, see that the meaning of [نفخ الشیطان] which the scholars of illumination have quoted from Taj al-Arus, and in the same Taj al-Arus it is narrated from the famous grammarian and exegete Imam Zajjaj that [إن الشیء إذا استقبح شبہ بالشیطان] "When the ugliness of something is described, it is likened to the devil."
Reference: (Taj: p.294 vol. 2)
The people of Ishraq [نفخ الشیطان فی أنفہ] do not derive prohibition from it, so be it, but they should acknowledge the repulsiveness and ugliness of actions attributed to Satan. And they should avoid classifying it among the permissible matters of nature. Satan is the clear enemy; there is no good aspect in being associated with him. Muslims should avoid him and the actions that please him. But if it is destined for someone to be inclined to please him, then we can only pray for that person.
Regarding the actions about which it has been stated that despite their association with Satan, it is by no means intended to declare them forbidden or detestable, one such action is yawning. There is a narration in Bukhari: [التثاؤب من الشیطان] Although Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned this narration in the Book of Manners [باب ما یستحب من العطاس وما یکرہ من التثاؤب] indicating its dislike and detestability. In fact, Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, also narrated after this that [إن اللہ یحب العطاس ویکرہ التثاؤب] that Allah Almighty likes sneezing and dislikes yawning. Not only that, but the Prophet ﷺ also explained the dislike of yawning by saying that when someone feels like yawning, they should try their best to suppress it because when someone yawns [ضحک منہ الشیطان] Satan laughs at them.
Reference: (Bukhari, Book of Manners, Chapter: When one yawns, let him place his hand over his mouth, No: 6226)
Now, if an action is disliked by Allah Almighty, and Satan is pleased with it, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ emphasizes stopping it, then for every Muslim that action is certainly detestable, abominable, and disliked. But perhaps the people of Ishraq are unique in that they do not see any repulsiveness in such actions. Under this hadith, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote that among the characteristics of the Prophet ﷺ is that he never yawned, and Allama Ibn Arabi said: [إن كل فعل مكروه نسبه الشرع إلى الشيطان] "Every detestable act has been attributed by Shariah to Satan."
Reference: (Fath al-Bari: p.614, vol.2)
Since the people of Ishraq have set out with determination to create Shariah, perhaps they do not see any disgust or repulsiveness in such actions.
Similarly, another argument from Sahih Bukhari is given that [الحلم من الشيطان] dreams are from Satan. However, here by "dream" (al-hulm) not every dream is meant; the Prophet ﷺ himself clarified this matter [الرؤيا الصادقة من الله والحلم من الشيطان] true dreams are from Allah Almighty and false dreams are from Satan.
Reference: (Bukhari, no: 6984)
In other words, you have classified true and good dreams as "Ru'ya" and dreams based on falsehood and wrong matters as "Hulm." It is the cleverness of the people of Ishraq that they did not quote the complete words of the Hadith and interpreted "Hulm" to mean dream, but ignored the manner in which the Prophet ﷺ explained it. It is known that linguists generally consider Ru'ya and Hulm synonymous, but even in the dictionaries, it is clarified that: [فرق بينهما الشارع فخص الرؤيا لخير وخص الحلم بضده ويؤيده حديث الرؤيا من الله والحلم من الشيطان]
The Lawgiver (Prophet ﷺ) distinguished between the two: Ru'ya refers to good dreams, and Hulm refers to bad dreams. When the Noble Prophet ﷺ explained this difference, then what does it reflect if this distinction is still not observed? Therefore, if "Hulm" is attributed to Satan, it is because it is falsehood and evil in contrast to truth and goodness, which are satanic traits and, in any case, bad.
Reference: (Taj al-Aroos: p.355 vol.8)
Similarly, a hadith [العجلة من الشيطان] haste is from Satan.
Reference: (Tirmidhi: 2012, p. 149 vol. 3 with commentary)
has been quoted by the people of Ishraq, from which their intention is clear that there is no disgrace in attributing haste to Satan. Although here the matter is the same as the first hadith, observe the complete words. [الأناة من الله والعجلة من الشيطان] tranquility and dignity are from Allah Almighty, and haste is from Satan.Any action compared to an act attributed to Allah is in every way blameworthy, not praiseworthy. Haste is always chosen by ignoring the consequences, and a person ultimately becomes distressed. Coming quickly towards good deeds and doing good deeds quickly in themselves are two different things; the first is praiseworthy while the second is blameworthy. Even a prayer performed hastily is unacceptable. The people of Ishraq quoting this hadith for their purpose is also considered by us as a result of haste. If they had kept the complete narration in front of them and reflected calmly, they would not have quoted it in support of their view.
Similarly, there is a narration
Reference: (Sahih Muslim No: 510)
which states: [الكلب الأسود من الشيطان] The black dog is Satan. For a truthful believer, there is no doubt that if the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has said this, then it is absolutely correct. Regarding the black dog, the Prophet ﷺ said that it is Satan, so what doubt can there be in this? Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, explains this reality by writing: [إن الكلب الأسود شيطان الكلاب والجن تتصور بصورته كثيرا وكذلك بصورة القط الأسود، لأن الأسود أجمع للقوى الشيطانية من غيره] The black dog is the Satan of dogs. It often takes the form of a black dog, just as it assumes the shape of a black cat. This is because the black color is more susceptible to the influence of satanic powers compared to other colors.
Reference: (Majmoo' al-Fatawa: p52 vol19)
For this reason, the black dog is called Satan.
The people of Ishraq also gave a proof for their claim: the Prophet ﷺ said: [إن المرأة تقبل صورة شيطان وتدبر في صورة شيطان] A woman comes in the form of Satan and returns in the form of Satan.
Reference: (Muslim, Kitab al-Nikah: 1403)
If the people of insight had reflected and pondered over the remaining part of this narration, they would not have presented these words as an argument. The Prophet ﷺ said immediately after this that when a person sees a woman, he should go to his wife so that his thoughts may be diverted. These words of the hadith are a solution to a social evil. The evil thoughts and satanic whispers that arise from seeing women coming and going are the reason why the Prophet ﷺ described the coming and going of women as from Satan and also provided a solution: when satanic whispers arise in a person's heart upon seeing a woman walking by, he should go to his wife and fulfill his desire. In this way, a person will be saved from satanic whispers. For this reason, among the various hadiths, scholars have also used this hadith to argue that women should not unnecessarily attend men's gatherings. If satanic whispers arise from seeing women coming and going, then how can the woman be held blameless? And why is it unpleasant to describe this reality as from Satan in order to instill aversion?
Another narration referenced from Tirmidhi also mentions that the Prophet ﷺ said: [الراكب شيطان والراكبان شيطانان] One rider is one devil, and two riders are two devils.
This narration is present not only in Tirmidhi but also in Muwatta Imam Malik, Abu Dawood, and others. Sheikh Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned it in
Reference: Sahihah (No: 62)
. The noble hadiths prohibit traveling alone, and this narration is also in that context: when a traveler returned, the Prophet ﷺ asked, "With whom did you come?" He replied, "I was alone; no one was with me." Addressing him, the Prophet ﷺ said this statement. Allah, Glorified and Exalted, has called not only jinn but also some humans devils, and this ruling is due to their disobedience. Allama Al-Mundhiri, may Allah have mercy on him, stated that here too, the disobedient to Satan is meant, because traveling alone in forests and deserts has been prohibited. Whoever opposes this command is thus described as a follower of Satan. Tell me, is the one who opposes the Prophet ﷺ a follower of Satan or not?In this regard, the last narration mentioned by the people of Ishraq is that sneezing, yawning, menstruation, vomiting, and nosebleeds during prayer are from Satan. This narration is transmitted with reference to Tirmidhi. Since its chain is weak, Abu al-Yaqzan Uthman bin Umair, its narrator, is weak, mixed, and a muddler. Therefore, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, writes: [ضعيف واختلط وكان يدلس]
Reference: (Taqreeb: p.355)
In fact, Allama Al-Busiri, may Allah have mercy on him, said: [أجمعوا على ضعفه] that all hadith scholars agree on its weakness.
Reference: (Misbah al-Zujajah: pp. 353, 190, vol.1)
Therefore, when this hadith itself is weak, it is not the method of the scholars to use it as evidence.Based on these narrations, to say that some things have been attributed to Satan does not mean that they are declared forbidden or abominable; this is outright deception and ignorance of the facts. You have read that in the narrations mentioned, regarding the actions attributed to Satan, was there no mention of dislike or abomination? Allah Almighty has commanded to avoid Satan and satanic deeds of every kind. Whether those actions are forbidden, disliked, or have other defects, they will remain reprehensible due to their attribution to Satan and will not be considered permissible or natural.
Dance
Among the components and accessories of music, there is also a dance, therefore the scholars of Ishraq have also discussed its proof. In response, it was stated that the basis of this argument is the word Zafn, and Allama Ibn Duraid said in
Reference: (Jamhara al-Lugha: p.12 vol.3)
: that Zafn [شبیہ بالرقص] means to move like dancing. We have similarly quoted from Allama Ibn Jawzi (may Allah have mercy on him) and Allama Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him), etc., that its meanings are to jump and leap. It was also stated that the meaning of Zafn here as dancing is not correct. In response, the scholars of Ishraq said that to say that the meaning of Zafn is not dancing but jumping and moving the feet up and down is like someone saying that the meaning of "tanaawul" (taking/eating) is not eating but putting something in the mouth, chewing, and swallowing it. Afterwards, the meaning of Zafn as dancing was quoted from Lisan al-Arab and others.
Reference: (Ishraq: pp. 58-59)
We acknowledge the "literary services" of the people of Ishraq, but facts do not change with the style of expression. One meaning of zafin is dancing or jumping like dancing, and another is the meaning in the traditions under discussion. The meaning of zafin is jumping like dancing; we did not impose this ourselves, we gave a proper reference and also quoted the meanings of the hadith from the commentators of hadith. And on this basis, it was stated that this "zafin" was performed in the mosque in these traditions. If its meaning is indeed "dance," then this "art of dance" should be performed in mosques and they should be called معاذاللہ (Dancing club), but the people of Ishraq become satisfied by attributing it to emotionalism, without considering that if music and dance are among the permissible things of nature, then what is the reason for prohibiting their performance in mosques? Rather, according to the reasoning of the people of Ishraq, the evidence is for permissibility in mosques. So where is the emotionalism in this? When you have declared music to be among the permissible things of nature, then issue this fatwa as well so that you, the people of the West, can also provide the evidence of "enlightenment" from mosques.
Here it is further worth considering that "Zafn" being described as movement like [شبیہ بالرقص] dance is a case of analogy and the thing compared. Even a novice student of literature knows that there is a difference between the analogy and the thing compared. But the people of Ishraq, despite all their claims, are stuck on convincing that these two are the same.
Eating, consuming, and chewing and swallowing something are three modes of expressing one reality, and there is no contradiction among them. Whereas there is a contradiction between "dance" and "resembling dance"; otherwise, saying like dance or similar to dance is merely a formality. Also, if in language "Zafn" is called dance, does it also include شبیہ بالرقص or not? Rather, it is also written: [أصل الزفن اللعب] that Zafn is essentially a game, and on this basis, commentators have taken its meanings as play and jumping around. Therefore, the meaning of "Zafn" as dance, or rather performing the dance by experts, is a modern innovation of the people of Ishraq and a deviation from [سبیل المؤمنین].
The people of Ishraq had written that from some narrations it is understood that expert singers, female singers, dancers, and female dancers were present in Arabia, and the Holy Prophet ﷺ did not consider it inappropriate to enjoy their art. In response to their audacity, we had stated that the absolute evidence they presented for the Prophet ﷺ enjoying the singing of professional artists and the dance of professional dancers is a result of their sophistry or misunderstanding. In reply, the people of Ishraq say: It should be clear that we have not expressed any impression of the Prophet ﷺ’s personal inclination towards dance, music, or other fine arts. Even if some fine arts are mentioned in the narrations attributed to him, it only indicates the permissibility of those arts, and there is no impression of liking or engaging in them to any degree.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.59)
An Excuse Worse Than the Sin
After our objections, the apology and clarification of the Ahl-e-Ishraq are commendable, but it seems they (I mean Mr. Manzoor-ul-Hasan) said this perhaps in reference to their defensive remarks. As far as the statements of Mr. Ghamidi regarding the benefits of the narrations are concerned, the matter is quite the opposite. Consider his words:
This narration makes it clear that the Prophet ﷺ did not consider the art of music inherently false; if that were the case, he would have stopped this professional female singer or at least would never have allowed Sayyida (may Allah be pleased with her) to listen to her singing. It is also known from some other narrations that expert male and female singers and dancers existed in Arabia, and the Prophet ﷺ did not consider enjoying their art to be blameworthy.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.33 March 2004)
After that, the narrations of Tirmidhi and Bayhaqi have been mentioned, in which it is stated that the Abyssinian woman performed "dance," the children of Medina were standing around watching her, you also saw her "dance" and showed it to Lady Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), and at the end of the narrations, Ishraq wrote: The Abyssinian slaves and maidservants were skilled in the art of dance and music. From the narrations, it is understood that Abyssinian men and women displayed their art in the presence of the Prophet ﷺ, and he did not disapprove of it.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.35 March 2004)
Even after these two statements, if the people of Ishraq say: that we have found no indication of the Prophet ﷺ's personal inclination towards dance and music, then it is unclear what kind of impression this unknown notion is.
① Did you not offer Lady (may Allah be pleased with her) to watch the "dance"?
② Did you and Lady Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her) not watch the "dance"?
③ Were the children also not watching the "dance"?
④ Did you not say that she was an expert dancer and singer?
⑤ Did he not perform the art in front of everyone?
⑥ Did you ever deny it in any way?
When all these things are accepted by the people of Ishraq, then what is there to deny now? The people of Ishraq cleverly play with words and say that you ﷺ did not make music, etc., a covering or a blanket. From your ﷺ reference, only the permissibility of these fine arts is known; there is no impression of liking or engagement even at the lowest level.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.59)
In other words, they want to say that you ﷺ were engaged in worship and obedience, but as permissibility, sometimes you also fulfilled this "hobby." (استغفراللہ)
The point to consider is: Were the songs heard as permissible, and the display of the art of expert dancers and dancing girls that you ﷺ witnessed, for enjoyment, or did you disapprove of it? You do not accept disapproval in any context, and now you are cleverly denying the liking of fine arts, whereas earlier you had stated: Common women, children, and singers played the drum and sang welcome songs, which the Prophet ﷺ liked.
Reference: (Ishraq: p26 March 2004)
It has even been said that: If singing and musical instruments were inherently false, then not only would you not have expressed liking for them, but you would have also prohibited them.
Reference: (Ishraq: p46 March 2004)
Consider: Do you admit the "liking" of musical instruments and singing regarding the Prophet ﷺ or not? But now it is being said that there is not even the slightest impression of "liking" or engagement attributed to you. Rather, it is further stated that: due to official responsibilities, you generally adopted an attitude of avoidance towards them in your personal capacity.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.60)
Whereas earlier, based on a self-constructed meaning of a narration, it was also said: what meaning should be given to the act of Sayyida Aisha (RA), Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (RA), and the Prophet ﷺ himself listening to singing?
Reference: (Ishraq: p.34 March 2004)
When you generally adopted the path of avoidance, then the narrations on which the people of Ishraq are now issuing a fatwa of permissibility interpret your habits as "liking," and consider it as evidence of permissibility. But now when "liking" is denied, how is permissibility established?
What a difficult predicament the one with a torn garment on his chest is in!
If this stitch is made, then it is undone; if that stitch is made, then this is undone.
Now, the people of enlightenment have accepted a certain reality about the noble personality of the Prophet ﷺ, which we consider welcome, but this does not at all mean that in Madinah Tayyibah there were musicians and professional singers, that musical gatherings were held, and artists displayed their art with the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ participating and applauding them. Allama Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him, has refuted this false notion, stating: [إن الغناء المطرب لم يكن من عادة النبي ﷺ ولا فعل بحضرته ولا اتخذ المغنيين ولا اعتنى بهم، فليس ذلك من سيرته ولا سيرة خلفائه من بعده ولا من سيرة أصحابه ولا عترته فلا يصح بوجه نسبته إليه ولا أنه من شريعته]
That singing was not the habit of the Prophet ﷺ, nor was this done in his presence by anyone, nor were singers invited, nor was any arrangement made for it. Therefore, singing is not your practice, nor was it the practice of your caliphs after you, nor of the other Companions, nor of your family. Hence, attributing singing to you is not correct, nor is it your Shariah.
Reference: (Kaf al-Ri'aa: p.280)
This statement was narrated by Allama Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, from Imam Abu al-Qasim al-Dawlaqi in
Reference: Kaf al-Ri'aa (p. 289)
, and the same reality was expressed by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, in
Reference: Majmu' al-Rasa'il al-Kubra (p. 299, vol. 2)
. Therefore, music is neither a pastime favored by the Prophet ﷺ nor by the noble Companions, may Allah be pleased with them.Praise of Pleasant Melody
The people of Ishraq (illumination) have narrated under this title a hadith from Sahih Bukhari in which the Prophet ﷺ, upon hearing the recitation of the Qur'an by Abu Musa, may Allah be pleased with him, said that you have been given one of the instruments of the family of Dawud. From this, they argue that the words "Psalms of the family of Dawud" are used in a positive sense in this narration, and it confirms the Biblical statement that Prophet Dawud used musical instruments for the praise and glorification of Allah. Instead of repeating the objections we have presented against this argument, see what the people of Ishraq say about it. It has been said:
First: Where have we stated that the commendatory words of the Prophet ﷺ mentioned above mean musical instruments and not melodious recitation? We have titled this narration as "Praise of Melodiousness" and explicitly written that the Prophet ﷺ liked melodiousness; it is not written that the Prophet ﷺ liked musical instruments or musical tools. Alkh
Reference: (Ishraq: p.61)
The title "Praise of Melodiousness" is not hidden from our view, but we reflect on the conclusion drawn from this narration. Has it not been said that: The Prophet ﷺ liked singing in recitation, he described the recitation of the Quran as a musical instrument through melodiousness, and he mentioned the instruments of the people of Dawud in a positive manner.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.37 March 2004)
Consider carefully! First, the recitation of Hazrat Abu Musa was described as "singing," and to understand what the people of Ishraq mean by "singing," refer to the pages of
Reference: Ishraq (pp. 39 to 41, March 2004)
, where they take it to mean all kinds of music and well-known songs. Whereas all the jurists do not permit the recitation of the Quran to be called "singing." It was not limited to "singing" alone; it was also said that you described the melodious recitation as "instrument," and positively mentioned the instruments of the people of Dawud. Is not "instrument" a musical instrument? What does the agreement of "singing and instrument" indicate? Furthermore, it was said: "By calling it the Psalms of the family of Dawud, you have confirmed the Biblical traditions that they used musical instruments for praise and glorification." The word "instrument" thus reflects "musical instruments," yet despite this, it is boldly said that where have we said that the honorable words of the Prophet ﷺ refer not to melodious recitation but to the Psalms' "instrument"? If we have completely dismantled the trap of "melodious recitation" that you want to set, then why are you so upset about it?When the musical temperament calls the recitation of the Quran "instrument" and proves under the title of "musical instruments" that musical instruments can be used in happy occasions, and even brings evidence from the Bible that Prophet Dawood used musical instruments for praise and glorification, then if after these premises they say somewhere that we have not written that "the Prophet ﷺ liked Psalms or musical instruments," it is either their naivety or cunningness. In this entire discussion of "Islam and music," they have not written at all that you ﷺ liked musical instruments. When the fact is that they have already written, "If singing and musical instruments were inherently false, then not only would you not have expressed liking for them, but you would have also forbidden them."
Reference: (Ishraq: p46 March 2004)
After that, how naive it is to say that we have titled it "Praise of Melodiousness." But as mentioned, what are the lines of reasoning of those who favor music under this title? We have stated that "Psalms" means melodiousness, but they interpret it as "instrumental music." In fact, they call the recitation of the Quran "singing." Yet they say we have titled it "Praise of Melodiousness." Excuse me! Putting a syrup label on a bottle of wine does not make wine syrup. What do you ultimately want to prove by "singing" and "instrumental music"? The people of enlightenment, despite their "knowledge and wisdom," call melodiousness "instrumental music," but accuse this humble servant of changing the dictionary. What else can we say except:
The thief scolds the constable
Another Trick
See another trick of the Ahl-e-Ishraq, that by using the words of the Psalms and the family of David, the Prophet ﷺ seemingly confirmed those Biblical traditions about Sayyiduna Dawood (peace be upon him) and his people, according to which they used musical instruments for the praise and glorification of Allah. They considered their argument very simple and said it is exactly like when the Prophet ﷺ said: if I had gold equal to the size of Mount Uhud, I would distribute it among the needy. Based on this tradition, if it is said that the Prophet ﷺ confirmed the existence of a mountain named Uhud on the earth, it would not be wrong. Similarly, our argument from the words of the Psalms of the family of David should be understood in this way.
Reference: (اشراق:ص61)
It is strange that on one hand it is said that we never meant by the praised words of the Prophet ﷺ pleasant melody but rather a musical instrument 'saz', yet on the other hand it is said that the words of the Psalms of the family of David apparently confirmed the Biblical traditions about Sayyiduna Dawud (peace be upon him) and his people, according to which they used musical instruments for the praise and glorification of Allah. On one hand, by denying the 'saz' in the Psalms of the family of David, pleasant melody is meant, and on the other hand, from the same words, confirmation of the Bible is understood, which states that Prophet Dawud (peace be upon him) used musical instruments for praise and glorification. Tell us, should this be called a contradiction of thought or the result of confusion?
We should be told how the pleasant melody of Prophet Dawud (peace be upon him) confirmed this statement of the Torah: O Lord, I will sing a new song for You, I will praise You on a ten-stringed harp.
Reference: (Psalms: 9/144, Ishraq: p13 March 2004)
Where is the pleasant melody, and where is the ten-stringed harp?Secondly: How has it been established that this statement of the Holy Book is preserved and a proven fact like Mount Uhud, and that the Holy Book is free from distortion? It is possible that the people of Ishraq, according to their principle, say that the phonetic melody of the Quran is an indication of the permissibility of music, because music is obviously a form of harmony of sound and words. And this is mentioned in the Torah. This is evidence that the statement of the Torah is preserved, although where is the phonetic melody of the Holy Quran and where is the reading of the Quran or praise and eulogy with stringed rebab, drums, bands, and musical instruments, where are the gatherings of singers and singing for which the people of Ishraq provide justification, and where is the melodious recitation of poetry; the Quran only mentions melodious praise and glorification, not "the rebab with ten strings" at all. On the basis of which the people of Ishraq are seeking the permissibility of musical instruments, our explanation itself reveals the futility of the people of Ishraq mentioning the example of Mount Uhud.
The critique of the commentary we made on the permissibility of music is presented for the esteemed readers. Next, we will present the critique of their arguments regarding the prohibition of music.
[إن شاءالله وما توفيقي إلا بالله العلي العظيم]
