This excerpt is taken from Sheikh Irshad-ul-Haq Asri's book Islam and Music: A Review of Ishraq's Objections.
It is said that he mentioned that: 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.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.33 January 2004)
What are these "some traditions," and what is their nature of reasoning? We have already discussed this earlier and will, God willing, present our observations on Ishraq's criticisms to the esteemed readers in the future. 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 Makkah, and I said to him: Tonight you watch the goats, and I will join the gathering of young men in Makkah who tell stories. He agreed. After that, I left from there and had just reached near the first house of Makkah when I heard the sounds of singing and musical instruments. 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 I woke up only from the heat of the sun, and I returned to my companion. After that, one night I said the same thing again and, as before, reached Makkah. That night, the same incident occurred as before; I slept until sunrise, then 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
Reference: Sahih Ibn Hibban Al-Ihsan: p. 56 vol. 8
, [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[/ref]. 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 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
Reference: (Al-Majma': p. 226 vol. 8)
.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 Mutasil 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
Reference: Al-Khasais Al-Kubra: p. 219 vol. 1
, and Allama Muhammad Yusuf Al-Shami, may Allah have mercy on him, has also quoted this praise in
Reference: Sabil Al-Huda: p. 148 vol. 2
. Allama Al-Busiri, may Allah have mercy on him, has also expressed the same words as Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, in
Reference: It'haf Al-Khairah: p. 75 vol. 7
. This narration has also been mentioned by Imam Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari, may Allah have mercy on him, in
Reference: Al-Tarikh: p. 196 vol. 2
and Imam Abu Nu'aym, may Allah have mercy on him, in
Reference: Dala'il Al-Nubuwwah: p. 143
. Allama Al-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 quoted in Al-Tahdheeb. Therefore, the apparent contradiction some have perceived in his remarks 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 again. But Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and the scholars of Ishraq 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 Ishraq to the esteemed readers.
Under the same topic, Ishraq argued from
Reference: Bukhari: 952
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 time, 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 busy with other matters, Sayyida (may Allah be pleased with her) signaled the singing girls to leave, and they left.Ishraq's argument was 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 singer.
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 they were not both 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.
Reference: (Ishraq: p. 30, March 2006)
For this claim, they benefited from the research of their assistant, editor of Shariah, and source Mr. Ammar Khan Nasir, and what he has written can be summarized as follows: 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 one of his students, 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.
Reference: (Ishraq: pp. 30, 31, March 2006)
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 they were not professional singers. However, the scholars of Ishraq perhaps did not see the word __ARABIC_8, just as earlier they did not see this sentence at all and instead saw the word ARABIC_9__. 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 Usama erred in saying "qalat" (she said), and that this was their own statement 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, which is why they have taken upon themselves the task of denying their authenticity. Before them, no scholar had 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 will certainly increase our knowledge. It is not at all unexpected from those who hold the opinion of completely changing the sources of Shariah contrary to the Muslim Ummah, and such a self-made objection to the agreed-upon hadith of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim is absolutely impossible.
The misconception in which the scholars of insight are entangled is that "this is the conjecture of a later narrator." To dispel this misconception, the narrator explicitly stated beforehand that this is not the statement of any narrator but the own saying of Hazrat Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her). The narrator saved us from this misconception, and all the scholars 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 cautious 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 own words to Sayyida Aisha Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her).
No one among the narrators could criticize his integrity in this regard except the scholars of Ishraq, but regarding Tazhib (refinement), it was said that after Hisham went to Iraq, he became careless. Imam Hakim has also quoted his own admission in
Reference: (Ma'rifat Uloom al-Hadith: p. 105)
that he heard only one narration from his father; he 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 are from the people of Iraq.
Reference: (Ishraq: p. 20, 21. April 2006)
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?
Reference: (Tahdheeb: p. 50, vol. 11)
contains the detail that Hisham came to Kufa three times, and Mu'tannin began to narrate 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.
Reference: (Bukhari: 3753)
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 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 whole 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,
Reference: (Ma'rifat 'Uloom al-Hadith by Al-Hakim: p. 105)
quotes 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.
Reference: (Ishraq: p. 61, April 2006)
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 the narrator 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
Reference: (Taqreeb: p.260)
. In the margin of Ma'rifat 'Uloom al-Hadith, it is quoted from some manuscripts that this is Ali bin Abdullah bin Ali al-Madini, but who are this Ali bin Abdullah bin Ali and his father, and who has called them trustworthy? One possibility is that it is actually 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,
Reference: (Al-Arwa: p.93 vol.6), (Mu'jam Asami al-Ruwat: p.241 vol.2)
. 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 also a conclusive proof that this narration is from Bukhari and Muslim, rather the two Sheikhs have mentioned nearly three hundred narrations with the chain of Hisham bin Urwah. Should it be assumed on the basis of this statement that all these narrations are certainly not connected? In Sahihayn, the tradition of mudallis (one who conceals the source) is considered as based on hearing. But this narration of Hisham is disconnected, سبحان اللہ. What stronger evidence can there be for the incorrectness of this statement than the fact that in Sahih Bukhari there are narrations with the chain of ہشام أخبرنی أبی، ہشام حدثنی أبی، ہشام سمعت أبی in which there is explicit mention of hearing. Consider,
Reference: Hadith 43, 293, 325, 347, 584, 951, 890, 998, 1148, 1786, 1727, 1928, 1942, 1954, 1996
, etc., these are fourteen hadiths among the first two thousand hadiths in which Hisham explicitly mentions 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 taken the support of such a statement for its incorrect position, which itself has a questionable chain, and its conclusion is completely wrong and contrary to facts.Furthermore, also 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:
Reference: Tuhfat al-Ashraf (pp. 129-135, vol. 14)
The Idara-e-Ishraq, under its reckless boldness, may say that all these are certainly not continuous, and also that these are narrated from Hammad bin Usama Abu Usama, a student of Iraqi Kufi, therefore they are not all 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 is the evidence that this narration was narrated by Hisham in that same careless period? The reference to Hisham’s careless period is mentioned by the authorities of Ishraq from Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, but in the same Tahdhib, it is explicitly stated that during this period, Waki’, Ibn Namir, and Muhadhir heard from Hisham. Its words are: [سمع منه بآخره وكيع وابن نمير ومحاضر]
Reference: (Tahdhib: p. 50, vol. 11)
Explain what kind of pinnacle of trustworthiness and honesty this is, that to support one's position, one weakens Hisham's narration by quoting one statement, while ignoring what removes its weakness. When this narration is reported in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim from Waki', Ibn Numayr, and Muhadhir, as well as other earlier students of Hisham, it is absolutely unfair to declare Hisham's narration disconnected on the basis of this objection.
Among the hadith scholars, it is almost settled that the broken (ma‘ann) narrations of the mudallisīn in the Sahihayn are to be understood as being based on hearing (sama‘), and the narrations of the mukhtalitin are narrated from before the mixing (ikhtilāṭ). 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 Idārah Ishrāq, which, except for one narration about Hisham ‘an ‘Urwah, declares the rest of the narrations as disconnected and states that after going to Iraq, the senior hadith scholars do not accept Hisham’s narrations.
Reference: (Ishrāq: p.60, April 2006)
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 are to be told who those senior hadith scholars are who have declared the narrations of Hisham ‘an ‘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 the Iraqis from Hisham.
Reference: (Al-Siyar: p.46, vol.6)
Therefore, it is absolutely incorrect to discuss the traditions of the Iraqis through Hisham.
In the context of this discussion, 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.
Reference: (Ishraq: pp. 61-62)
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 respected writer of Ishraq, Mr. Ammar Khan, who participates in this discussion, would have inquired from his elder brother about the ruling on the excess of trustworthy narrators, and he would not have wasted his time in such lengthy explanations or unnecessary details. Accordingly, Maulana Sarfaraz Sahab Safdar narrates that the excess of trustworthy narrators is unanimously considered authentic and reliable by all hadith scholars.
Reference: (Ahsan al-Kalam: p.194 vol.1)
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.
Reference: (Faiz al-Bari: p.455 vol.3)
Hammad bin Usama Abu Usama are unanimously trustworthy and reliable; the statement they narrated is not contrary to the tradition. Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim mentioning it in their Sahihs is an additional confirmation. In fact, all scholars of the Ummah except Idarah Ishraq agree on its authenticity. No objection has been reported from any earlier scholar of knowledge regarding it. Idarah 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 __ARABIC_22, this phrase, especially the words of ARABIC_23__, are undoubtedly the focus of attention, because Ishaq bin Rashid is indeed trustworthy, but he has some conjectures in narrating from Imam Zahri. Thus, the words of Hafiz Ibn Hajar are: [ثقة في حديثه عن الزهري بعض الوهم]
Reference: (التقريب: p. 35)
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 matter that the stronger text is the one narrated by Abu Al-Aswad, and from him Amr bin Harith narrates, and from Amr only one student, Ibn Wahb, narrates, and there is no suspicion of alteration in its text by the narrator, in our view, the text narrated by Abu Al-Aswad or Hisham or Zahri, which is 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, the connected subsequent words are also: 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 from Hisham's narration is 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 based on 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 included 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].
Reference: (Bukhari: Book of Jihad, Chapter on the Shield: 2907)
, in both places this statement is from Lady Aisha Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her), whereas in
Reference: Bukhari:
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.
