This excerpt is taken from Sheikh Irshad-ul-Haq Asri's book Islam and Music: A Review of Ishraq's Objections.
Even the people of Ishraq admit the fact that the jurists of the four schools are unanimous on the prohibition of "music," and indeed we have stated that the Companions of the Prophet, may Allah be pleased with them, also agreed that "music" is forbidden and unlawful. There is not a single Companion from whom the permissibility of it has been authentically transmitted, as we have previously quoted from Hafiz Ibn Hajar, Allama Qurtubi, Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah, and Allama Albani, may Allah have mercy on them. According to the Pervezian thought of the people of Ishraq, they have departed from the Salaf of the Ummah and entered the field with new principles and new reasoning, so they are accustomed to speaking without regard to the Salaf. They blackened many pages of their prestigious monthly magazine but could not prove the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, or the great Tabi‘in, may Allah have mercy on them, as their supporters. In the terminology of the Holy Quran, this way of thinking is an example of __ARABIC_0. ARABIC_1__ Indeed, in every era, this has been the method of reasoning of the innovating sects; they disregarded the Salaf and used the Holy Quran as a practice board, thus repairing the Quran under the guise of serving it. This is exactly what Mr. Ghamidi and his associates are doing.
The Companions of the Prophet, may Allah be pleased with them, and the Imams of the religion argued the prohibition of music from the Quran, the necessary details of which we have already presented, but the people of Ishraq did not find this command in the Quran; rather, it is stated that the Quran is silent about the reprehensibility of music or musical instruments.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.31 April 2006)
Similarly, observe their audacity and even misrepresentation; they say: The Bible and Hadith mention the reprehensibility of music. This reprehensibility is not absolute but is due to its association with drunkenness and immorality on certain occasions. Al-I'tisam, like the previous two chapters, did not consider it appropriate to make any criticism or commentary on this chapter as well.
Reference: (ibid.)
The details of why we remained silent on the first two chapters have already been discussed, but if we do not comment on Ishraq's thoughts here according to their arrangement, does that mean we have remained completely silent? We have already addressed the cause of the prohibition of music and corrected Maulana Ghamidi Sahib's misunderstanding under that clear title, so despite that, to say that Al-I'tisam did not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter is so contrary to reality and audacious. Perhaps they consider commentary only that which follows their arrangement. سبحان الله
First Verse:
Reference: Surah Luqman (Verse No: 6)
states:Among the people are those who [لہو الحدیث] buy to mislead others from the path of Allah without knowledge.
Regarding the same verse, Hazrat Abdullah bin Masood, Abdullah bin Abbas, and Jabir bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with them) state that [لہو الحدیث] in the verse refers to singing. In fact, Hazrat Ibn Masood (may Allah be pleased with him) swore three times by Allah that it means singing. This is also the opinion of most commentators, and the jurists have used this verse as evidence for the prohibition of singing, as has already been detailed with references. In this context, we addressed the objections of the Ashraaq, and the entire interesting detail of what they quoted from some commentators and deceived the honorable readers with their names has already been explained, to which the Ashraaq have not provided any reasonable response. They only tried to brush the dust off their foreheads, which falls under the category of achieving nothing. Now see what they have said in their commentary on our article. They write:
Our argument in two words was that if the Arabic lexicon, the customary usage in the Quran, the context of the speech, and the opinions of the commentators are taken into account, then it is in no way correct to definitively interpret [لہو الحدیث] as referring to singing. Alkh
Reference: (Ishraq: p.32)
It is very unfortunate that we have already responded to their claims under the category of "distortion of thought," and the explanation regarding reliance on the context of the Quran, the opinions of the commentators, and the lexicon has already been given. Therefore, the question of "two words" is merely a childish consolation that holds no significance. Consider the extent of their stubbornness that regarding [لہو الحدیث], while removing any misunderstanding that could arise from the statement of Hazrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi (may Allah have mercy on him), it was stated:
Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) said that by this [الغناء وأشباهه] is meant, and in one narration if they have said it is a fabricated hadith, then in another narration the words of the fabricated hadith are [هو الغناء ونحوه], implying that even in the fabricated hadith, the meaning intended in the first instance is singing.
Give credit to the honesty and integrity of Ahl-e-Ishraq that they want to convince their readers about us by quoting the middle part of the same phrase, stating that Al-I'tisam has written: Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) in one narration meant Batil al-Hadith (false hadith).
Reference: (Ishraq: p.33)
But they forget to mention that immediately after this in Al-I'tisam, Batil al-Hadith refers to his second mentioned statement, which is about singing and the like. Furthermore, the delightful point is that this statement of Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) is in explanation of the phrase of Mufti Muhammad Shafi, yet it is very regrettable that despite our explanation, Mufti Sahib's same phrase is quoted against us. [لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله] whereas we ourselves have quoted from Mufti Sahib that [لہو الحدیث] according to those who consider every such play that distracts from Allah to be included, singing and music are also included in it.
Reference: (M'arif al-Quran: p.25 vol.7)
Despite this clarification, considering [لہو الحدیث] as general from Mufti Sahab's text is a very childish act. Exactly the same act has been done by him with the names of other commentators as well; he has previously quoted their incomplete positions. Thus, the detail of the cleverness he showed in mentioning incomplete texts of Imam Dhahak, Qatadah, Hasan Basri, as well as Imam Ibn Jarir, Allama Zamakhshari, Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, Maulana Maududi (may Allah have mercy on them), is already present in our detailed article. Now, Ahl-e-Ishraq has quoted a piece from these complete texts in Al-I'tisam and created the impression that see, these meanings have also been quoted by Al-I'tisam. [إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون]
We have already explained in detail the wrong impression Ahl-e-Ishraq gave with the names of these gentlemen. In fact, we have lamented their ignorance regarding the reference to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad's Tafsir, yet Ahl-e-Ishraq do not hesitate to repeat the same statements with slight modifications.
At the end of this discussion, the Ahl-e-Ishraq also reiterated that we have not categorically excluded music from the application of [لہو الحدیث]. Rather, it has been explicitly written that the corruptors, in order to divert people from the Quran and engage them in superstitions, would have used means of amusement and play that, considering the times, would obviously be sermons, entertainments, musical gatherings, and poetry recitals.
Reference: (Ishraq: pp.34-62 March 2004)
Although we have also mentioned about this that the mention of sermons and poetry gatherings has come in the time of the House, who used to listen to their eloquence and poetry in comparison to the Quran? Despite all opposition, the leaders of the disbelievers used to secretly listen to the Holy Quran from the Prophet ﷺ at night. In comparison, what was brought were these "music gatherings" and these "entertainment shows." As the noble companions, may Allah be pleased with them, have said, in the Holy Quran __ARABIC_14, whose translation Ghazali himself made as those who buy ARABIC_15, Ibn Abbas and others interpret it as those who buy ARABIC_16__ singers. Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari has also preferred this interpretation that it means something bought for a price. All this is evidence that in comparison to the Quran, here singing and musicians are meant. Although it includes all those things that distract from the remembrance of Allah." In summary
But consider that the people of Ishraq have also remained silent about this. That is why we have stated that the recent defensive commentary of the people of Ishraq regarding this verse falls under the category of achieving nothing. And their four-page writing is merely a child's consolation.
Moreover, when the people of Ishraq admit that they have not excluded music from the application of [لہو الحدیث], then to what extent is it correct to say that the Holy Quran is silent about the reprehensibility of music or musical instruments? If your disposition is not definitively satisfied with taking music to mean __ARABIC_18, then even if not, but if music is not excluded from ARABIC_19__ but rather included in it according to you, then the reprehensibility and immorality of music has, in general, been stated in the Holy Quran. Despite this, to say that the Quran is silent about the reprehensibility of music—how much is this based on truth?
Second Verse
The esteemed jurists have also argued the prohibition of music from
Reference: Surah An-Najm, verses (59, 60, 61)
, in which it is stated: "Do you wonder at this discourse? And you laugh and do not weep, while you are 'Samid'?"The meaning of "Samid" is singing; the people of Ishraq have also acknowledged that linguistically, Samid means singing, but the people of Ishraq say that from the context it is clear that here it is not correct to take it to mean a singer.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.35)
It is strange that regarding [لہو الحدیث], it was said that if Arabic lexicon and the context of the speech are considered, then its meaning is not singing. But here, the literal translation and meaning of Samid prove to be singing, yet it is said that from the context it is clear that here it is not correct to take it to mean singing or a singer. Earlier, denial was based on the lexicon, even though the context there also demands that Lahw al-Hadith means singing. And now, when linguistically Samid’s meaning is proven to be a singer or singing, the context is used as an excuse. سبحان الله
Although from the context of the text, it is not unlikely to interpret it as singing, as we have quoted from Tafheem-ul-Quran. In fact, this context is exactly in accordance with Surah Luqman, verse [لہو الحدیث]. However, on the contrary, it is said that most commentators do not interpret it as one who sings. We asked, who are those most commentators? In response, without giving a reference, it is said: So-and-so interpreted it as arrogance, so-and-so as heedless, so-and-so as angry, so-and-so as playful.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.24 March 2004)
Reference: (Ishraq: p.35)
Although we have already clarified that this is merely a verbal dispute, [لاھون، غافلون] are "play and amusement" excluded from the well-known meaning of "ghina"? These are actually different names for the same reality; this is a difference of interpretation, a difference of variety, not contradiction. It is surprising that in this context, citing Tafheem al-Quran, it is also mentioned that Mujahid calls one who bows his head out of arrogance "Samad." But they do not explain what the author of Tafheem himself translated the Quran and what he meant in the first revelation. Similarly, regarding Zamakhshari, they do quote that the meaning of Samad is "arrogant and angry one." But they do not mention that he also explained the meaning of Samad as "sing to us" [اسمدی لنا ای غنی لنا]. What should we call this negligence of the people of Ishraq? Then, it has been stated in the principles of Tafsir that when a word has multiple meanings and there is no contradiction among them, all those meanings are correct. The same applies to interpretive opinions. And if this difference is not applicable, then preference should be given to one meaning. As detailed in
Reference: Al-Burhan (pp.167-172 vol.2)
and
Reference: Al-Itqan (pp.176-178 vol.2)
. Consider regarding this verse that the literal meanings of "Samad" have been used as one who is involved in play and amusement, heedless, forgetful, arrogant, standing, singing, and bewildered.
Reference: (Taj al-Arus: p.381 vol.2)
We have already stated that singing (ghina) includes frivolity, playfulness, and negligence, so there is no contradiction among them. Similarly, there is no contradiction between arrogance and standing up. However, there appears to be an apparent contradiction between singing, arrogance, and being perplexed. Although, in the context of the verse, the people of Mecca were afflicted with all three ailments, so from the perspective of the addressees, there is no contradiction in the three meanings. In our view, all these actions are examples of "Samad" and are reasons for being prevented from the Holy Quran, and among them is one form of singing, i.e., music. Therefore, this too is an example of this verse and a proof of its prohibition.
Mr. Ghamidi and his supporters insist that the meaning of Samad here is to become heedless and to show disregard for the Quran.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.65 March 2004, Ishraq: p.35 April 2006)
In response to this, it was asked what caused the negligence of the polytheists of Mecca? What were they afflicted with that made them indifferent to the Holy Quran? An arrogant person is not indifferent; he is hostile, and the hostile one devises new excuses and tricks for opposition; he is not negligent. The trick these hostile people used to show indifference to the Quran was music and singing, to which the people of Ishraq wrote in reply that when the Quran uses the term negligence or any other word of similar meaning regarding its audience, it means extreme carelessness and indifference. When a person, afflicted with arrogance, enmity, and other such despicable traits, becomes indifferent to monotheism, prophethood, and the hereafter, what could be greater negligence than that? Al-Kh
Reference: (Ishraq: p.36)
Dear readers, consider carefully what we have stated and what the people of Ishraq have said, and whether any answer to our question has been found? When the people of Ishraq interpret the meaning of "Samad" as heedlessness, then what was the reason for this heedlessness? And what were they engrossed in that caused them to disregard the Quran? It is clear that the reason is "لہو الحدیث" as is evident from the verse of Surah Luqman. The meaning of Samad was also interpreted as "Lahu" (self-sufficient), and even if some have interpreted it as heedlessness, there is no contradiction because all these elements are found in richness. But unfortunately, the people of Ishraq could not understand this simple matter, so they explained at length based on a few verses related to 'heedlessness' in the beauty of their wording and expression, thinking that an answer had been given. It was said that "whether arrogant or hostile, he is afflicted with heedlessness." But they did not consider that whether one is arrogant or hostile, the one against whom he is hostile and before whom he is arrogant is not the one he is heedless of; rather, he may be heedless of other matters. The disbelievers were afflicted with arrogance and hostility against the Quran and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and devised every trick and excuse to oppose them, but in terms of their end, they were heedless. And sometimes this very arrogance and hostility prevented them from pondering over the Quran, and in this respect, they were called heedless. If the people of Ishraq had considered both these aspects, they would not have felt the need for such a lengthy explanation.
The summary of the discussion is that in this verse, 'Samad' refers to the one who sings. The meanings of 'Samad' also include frivolity, heedlessness, and forgetfulness, but these are different terms for the same reality in terms of outcome. Similarly, 'Samad' is also used for the arrogant and the bewildered. However, here the meaning of 'Samad' as singing and making music is preferred because this verse perfectly aligns with the interpretation of [لہو الحدیث] in Surah Luqman, where frivolity and music are mentioned in contrast to the Quran, and the same is here. Therefore, to think that singing is not meant here just because it brings out the aspect of condemnation of singing is incorrect.
Third Verse
The scholars have also argued for the prohibition and abhorrence of music from
Reference: Surah Bani Isra'il, verse (64)
, in which it is mentioned: O rejected Satan! Whoever among them you can influence, lead them astray with your voice. What is meant by the satanic voice in this verse? Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), Imam Mujahid (may Allah have mercy on him), and Imam Dhahhak (may Allah have mercy on him) say that it refers to singing, melodies, amusement, and play, but Ghamidi Sahib and others believe that limiting the "voice of Satan" to singing is not correct in any way.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.67 March 2004, also: p.37 April 2006)
Firstly: The question is whether music and singing are included in the voice of Satan or not?
Secondly: If the voice of Satan is not limited to singing, does music then fall outside of it?
Thirdly: Is music the voice of Satan or the voice of the Merciful? The false deity worshipped in opposition to Allah is Satan; disbelief in opposition to faith; innovation in opposition to the Sunnah; misguidance and error in opposition to the straight path—all are satanic tactics. Similarly, the voice that opposes the voice of the Merciful is the voice of Satan, whether it is music, speech, or any teaching; in any case, it is a satanic voice. Dear readers, consider that although the voice of Satan is not exclusively defined as music, when music is included in the satanic voice, then to say that Al-I'tisam's stance "fully supports us" is sheer foolishness. When they admit the fact that "everything that teaches a person rebellion or distance from his Lord, whether it is speech, teaching, poetry, or music, is undoubtedly the voice of Satan."
Reference: (Ishraq: p.37)
After this admission of the truth, excluding music from the voice of Satan is nothing but pleasing Satan. What else could it be?
We had stated that music is a formal art. Simply reciting poetry with a beautiful voice in a simple manner is not music. Our suggestion was very unpleasant to the people of Ishraq, and the reality of their rhetoric on this matter has already been explained by us under the title "Singing and the Arabs." The people of Ishraq should try to understand that this issue is clear: reciting the Holy Quran with a beautiful voice is commendable and praiseworthy, but if it is sung in the style of music, it is not permissible. Every listener with understanding realizes that it is being recited in the manner of singing. The same applies to reciting Naats and poetry; music is undoubtedly an art. If Naat recitation is done with a beautiful voice, then it is fine, but if there is an element of singing in the style of music, that is also not correct, whether the Naat reciter has learned this art or not.
Fourth Verse
The scholars of the Ummah have also argued against the vileness and prohibition of music from
Reference: Surah Al-Furqan, verse 75
, in which Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, mentions the characteristics of the servants of the Most Merciful and says: [وَالَّذِينَ لَا يَشْهَدُونَ الزُّورَ ] "They do not partake in falsehood." The word "falsehood" means lies and falsehood, and Imam Mujahid, Imam Muhammad bin Hanfiya, and Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on them, have said that it refers to singing, but it is not only singing that is meant by falsehood; singing is also included in the meaning of falsehood.The people of Ishraq have said regarding the scholars' argument that Al-I'tisam contradicted the statements of Imam Mujahid, Imam Abu Hanifa, and others by saying that "falsehood" does not mean "only singing." Because from these scholars, the meaning conveyed is not "also singing" but "only singing."
Reference: (Ishraq: p.39)
If this matter is considered under the concern of Ghamaadi, then we, the people of Ishraq, find ourselves compelled to say such things. However, among the scholars of the Ummah, there is no contradiction between the two statements; the application of force is directed against every falsehood and lie. And in singing (ghina) as well, since this element is predominantly found, Hafiz Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said: الغنا من أعظم الزور that singing is the greatest lie.
Reference: (Aghathat al-Lahfan: p.261 vol.1)
We have already stated that the Holy Prophet ﷺ attributed poetry to Satan and sought refuge in Allah from it by saying [أعوذ بالله من الشيطان الرجيم من همزه ونفخه ونفثه]. The Holy Quran has stated that following poets leads to misguidance. We have also written about the leader of the Ghamidi group, Maulana Islah, who ultimately wrote about the "services" of poets that "even if there is some benefit in their speech, it is lost in their contradictory thoughts. Even if good plants are planted in a jungle of thorns and bushes, they do not bear fruit. Justice demands that if the jungle of thorns and bushes is not called 'Zor' (force), then what else should it be called? Therefore, if Imam Mujahid and others have interpreted 'Zor' as singing and music, this is exactly in accordance with the Quranic stance. It is just like in the interpretation of 'Sirat al-Mustaqim' (the Straight Path), where Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) interpret it as the Holy Quran. Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), and Muhammad bin Hanfiya (may Allah have mercy on him) interpret it as the religion of Islam. Abu Al-Aaliyah (may Allah have mercy on him) and Hasan Basri (may Allah have mercy on him) interpret it as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) states that although these interpretations appear different, they are not different but in agreement. Because the religion of Islam is another name for following the Quran. The Holy Prophet ﷺ and the two Caliphs were also followers of this Quran and Islam.
Reference: (Summary of the Principles of Tafsir)
In exactly the same way, if 'Zor' is taken to mean singing, then there is no contradiction between the two. Because the element of falsehood and invalidity is also found in singing and music, or it can be understood that it is a type of 'Zor'. Scholars of the Ummah consider this type of interpretation as a difference in variety. However, the Ahl-e-Ishraq are not willing to accept this reality. They have stated this with great pomp: that if there is no evidence in the context of the speech, the idiom of the Quran, and linguistic parallels to determine its meaning, then trying to specify it is actually exceeding the purpose of the Quran and inserting one's own words into its mouth.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.34)
Dear readers! Take a look at their previous column where ’Al-I'tisam‘, by saying that ’Zawr‘ does not only mean singing by force, has itself contradicted the statements of Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Mujahid, and Hazrat Muhammad bin Hanifa. However, Al-I'tisam did not define any specific meaning but stated that one example of Zawr is singing. According to the people of Ishraq, the meaning is specifically ’singing‘, but Imam Mujahid, Hazrat Muhammad bin Hanifa, and Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on them), and even Imam Dhahak took it to mean shirk (polytheism). The scholarly status and rank of these personalities is not hidden from any sect, yet the impression that their stated meaning exceeds the intent of the Quran and imposes their own interpretation into it is a great audacity of the people of Ishraq and based on suspicion about the Salaf. We have stated that the meaning of "Zawr" as singing and music is not at all contrary to the usage of the Quran, so if they took "Zawr" to mean singing, they did no wrong. Similarly, their statement that "as far as ’singing also‘ is concerned, where have we said that any manifestation of singing can in any way be included in falsehood? We have repeatedly stated that the singing which promotes any falsehood is in every case reprehensible."
Reference: (Ishraq: p.39)
But this matter is actually the result of overlooking the true meaning of singing and music. We have repeatedly stated that reciting poetry in a high and pleasant voice is not included in the known singing. Music and the known singing, which are recognized as an art form, are in every way wrong and forbidden. The people of enlightenment did not consider this fundamental difference, so such matters are, in our view, completely outside the main subject. When the people of enlightenment have already declared music fundamentally permissible, then who will decide the promotion of falsehood from it, and what will be its measure? Even in the current prevailing situation, music gatherings are, in any case, a manifestation of the promotion of falsehood. In these circumstances, declaring music fundamentally permissible is an attempt to please the people of music.
