This excerpt is taken from Sheikh Irshad-ul-Haq Asri's book Islam and Music: A Review of Ishraq's Objections.
First Hadith
The scholars of the Salaf have used certain hadiths as evidence for the prohibition of music. The details of these hadiths can be found in Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf's book __ARABIC_0, Allama Albani's ARABIC_1__, and Mufti Muhammad Shafi's deceased's Ahkam al-Quran. Among these hadiths is one narrated from Hazrat Abu Malik Al-Ash'ari (may Allah be pleased with him)
Reference: Sahih Bukhari (No: 5590, Vol. 10, p. 51 with Fath)
which states that there will be people in my Ummah who will make lawful fornication, silk, alcohol, and musical instruments.We have discussed both the traditional and rational aspects of this hadith in detail and, by the grace of Allah, have provided a sufficient and satisfactory response to all the sharp objections of the Ahl al-Ishraq. The Ahl al-Ishraq did try to obscure the signs of embarrassment in this regard, but they could not say anything new, and if they did say something, it clearly indicates their ignorance. We had mentioned that observe the cleverness of Ghamidi Sahib: on one hand, he cites the hadith from Sahih Bukhari under authentic or good narrations, but in the margin he writes: "There are also some objections regarding the authenticity of the mentioned narration of Bukhari; Ibn Hazm al-Muhalli considers it disconnected."
Our statement was very unpleasant for the Ahl al-Ishraq, so to lighten their mental burden, they write with great regret:
We seek Allah's protection from the 'honesty' that Al-I'tisam has shown towards our 'wisdom.' If we have quoted the criticism of one scholar, we have also presented the support of three scholars and have classified it under authentic narrations, clearly stating our position on it.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.42)
Whereas, when we have clarified that Mr. Ghamidi counts it among authentic or good narrations, then what is the meaning of criticizing 'honesty'? Then, when according to Mr. Ghamidi it is authentic or good, why create doubt by saying in the margin that there are some objections regarding its authenticity? Why try to create suspicion? So that along with the argumentative aspect, its traditional aspect is also made doubtful in the minds of the readers, that if some consider it authentic, then some also consider it weak. And this is exactly what the people of Ishraq have done, in fact, they have played the same role in their recent commentary as well. Thus, they write:
There is still disagreement among scholars regarding this hadith. In the contemporary era, the well-known Islamic scholar Allama Yusuf al-Qaradawi writes: Although this hadith is recorded in Sahih Bukhari, it is not among the continuous (mutasil) narrations but rather one of the disconnected (munqati) narrations. For this reason, Ibn Hazm rejected this narration, stating that both the chain of transmission (isnad) and the text (matn) of this narration are not free from defects (disturbances). Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, made tireless efforts to prove this narration as continuous, but in all these chains, there is a narrator about whom the scholars of criticism and authentication (ilm al-jarh wa al-ta'dil) have spoken, and that is Hisham ibn Ammar. Among the scholars who criticized him are Imam Abu Dawood, Imam Ahmad, Imam Nasai, Ibn Sayyar, and Hafiz Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on them all. Therefore, in such disputed matters, this hadith cannot be accepted.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.42)
Tell me, is there still any doubt in creating skepticism? Al-I'tisam, having sensed this weakness, has pointed it out, so why are the people of Ishraq passionate about it? What Allama Ibn Hazm said has been refuted by many scholars, as we have mentioned before. Despite this, criticizing it in the name of Allama Ibn Hazm is a very childish act. However, Allama Al-Qaradawi, while reluctantly accepting the continuity of this narration, stated that all these connected narrations depend on Hisham bin Ammar, and the hadith scholars including Imam Abu Dawood, Imam Ahmad, Imam Nasa'i, Ibn Sayyar, and Hafiz Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on them) have criticized him.
First: Let us consider the criticism of these hadith scholars. Hafiz Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: صدوق مكثر له ما ينكر
Reference: (Mizan: p302 vol4)
He also said: ثقة مكثر له ما ينكر (meaning) He is truthful, trustworthy, and prolific in hadith, but some of his hadith are rejected.
Reference: (Al-Mughni: p711 vol2)
Similarly, من تکلم فیہ وهو موثق
Reference: (p.459)
also mentioned him, in whose introduction he stated: the hadiths of the narrators of this book are not of a lesser grade than Hasan.
Reference: Seer A'lam al-Nubala (p.420 vol.11)
refers to them with the exalted titles of الامام الحافظ العلامہ المقرئ عالم اہل الشام. After the authentication by Allama Zahabi, to say that Hafiz Zahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, criticized them is evidence of ignorance of Ilm al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil. As for the weak narrations he pointed to, they are those which Hisham narrated in the later period in the form of Talqin, as he himself clarified in Mizan. Rather, he stated regarding the narrators of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, from whom the two Sheikhs took narrations as a form of protest, that none of their narrations are weak; rather, they are Hasan or Sahih. His words are: [فما في الكتابين بحمد الله رجل احتج به البخاري أو مسلم في الأصول، ورواياته ضعيفة بل حسنة أو صحيحة] (الموقظة:ص80)Therefore, considering Allama Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, among the critics of Hisham bin Ammar is a misconception of Allama Al-Qaradawi, just as he counted Imam Nasai, may Allah have mercy on him, among his critics. Whereas it is narrated in the books of Jarh wa Ta'dil such as
Reference: Al-Tahdheeb (p.52 vol.11), Al-Tadhhib (p.295 vol.9), Al-Tahdheeb by Al-Mizzi (p.273 vol.19), Seer A'lam al-Nubala (p.424 vol.11), Al-Mizan (p.302)
that Imam Nasai spoke favorably about Hisham to some extent. And he has authenticated his narrations in the Sunan. It is regrettable that the people of Ishraq blindly imitated Allama Al-Qaradawi, quarreling over trivial matters, from which the correctness of their reasoning in this discussion can be judged.Similarly, their statement that Ibn Sayyar also criticized is not correct, because he only said that Hisham accepted the prompting, meaning that he heard from Hisham in the later period when, due to confusion, he began to accept the prompting, as is explicitly stated in Al-Mizan and others. The scholars of the field have written about Imam Bukhari that he takes narration from such a narrator before the confusion or in the condition when his following, etc., is established. Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, took narrations from Hisham as a form of protest
Reference: (Muqaddimah Fath al-Bari: p. 449)
, therefore these narrations of Hisham are authentic. Probably this is the reason that Allama Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, ruled discontinuity on this but did not declare it weak because of Hisham.As for the criticism of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, it is not due to weakness in hadith but because of his statement regarding the Holy Quran that Gabriel, peace be upon him, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ are creations of the Quran. Similarly, during the sermon, Hisham said a sentence related to belief, and for these reasons, Imam Ahmad called him reckless and weak-minded. Hafiz Al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, in
Reference: Siyar A'lam al-Nubala (pp. 431-437, vol. 11)
, interpreted Imam Ahmad’s words in this sense and classified it as the speech of the Quran, deciding to remain silent about such speech. Consider that Allama Al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, defends Imam Ahmad’s words, but the people of Ishraq, following Allama Al-Qaradawi, consider it an injury to Hisham and even count Allama Al-Dhahabi among Hisham’s aggressors. سبحان اللہSimilarly, the words of Imam Abu Dawood, may Allah have mercy on him, are also about the later years of Hisham, when he was afflicted with the ailment of confusion. If, in their view, he was absolutely rejected as a narrator, then
Reference: Sunan ma'a al-Awn (p.388 vol.3)
کتاب الأشربة باب في النبيذ إذا غلا would not have remained silent on his narration. Rather, he narrates from Imam Yahya bin Ma'in, may Allah have mercy on him, who said: Hisham is a very intelligent case, counted among the trustworthy narrators. Therefore, it is not correct to categorically declare Hisham weak based on Abu Dawood's statement.For the reassurance of the people of Ishraq, it is stated that
Reference: Ibn Majah (number:1899)
itself contains a hadith from Hazrat Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, mentioned under the title of the celebration of music, that when the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ came to Medina, the slave girls were singing: "Nahnu jawar min Bani al-Najjar." Regarding this narration, it is mentioned that the muhaddithin have declared this narration authentic.
Reference: (Ishraq: pp.24-25 March 2004)
It is also written: Our fundamental argument is based on the authentic narration of Ibn Majah.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.46 March 2006)
Although this authentic hadith of Ibn Majah is also transmitted from Hisham bin Ammar, justice demands that if the narration of Hisham bin Ammar in Ibn Majah aligns with the people of Ishraq, then it is authentic, but if it opposes them, then despite Hisham's narration being in Bukhari, it is considered doubtful and Hisham is regarded as weak. Even selfishness has its limits.
Here, avoiding detailed words of authentication about Hisham, we suffice with the statement of Hafiz al-Khalili, may Allah have mercy on him, from which the status and rank of Hisham can be understood. [ثقة كبير روى عنه البخاري في الصحيح وسمع منه الأئمة والقدماء رضيه الحفاظ. الخ ] He is very trustworthy; Imam Bukhari narrated from him in Sahih, the imams and early scholars of hadith heard from him, and the memorizers have considered him preferable.
Reference: (Al-Irshad: p. 445 vol. 1)
Hisham is not unique in this
We acknowledge the knowledge and scholarship of Allama Al-Qaradawi, but we were extremely surprised to see that regarding Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, he writes that he made tireless efforts to establish the continuity of this narration and practically proved it with nine chains of transmission. However, in all these chains, there is a narrator about whom the scholars of criticism and authentication have spoken, and that is Hisham bin Ammar, but he does not even mention that Hisham is not unique in this; Hafiz Ibn Hajar himself mentioned his following. Accordingly,
Reference: Taghleeq al-Ta'leeq (p.19 vol.5)
discusses this narration عبد الرحمن بن إبراهيم هو دحيم ثنا ابن بكر ثنا ابن جابر عن عطية بن قيس in detail, and
Reference: Fath al-Bari (p.54 vol.10)
mentions it briefly with the same chain. Imam Bayhaqi, may Allah have mercy on him, also transmitted it in
Reference: Sunan (p.272 vol.3)
. In fact, this narration is also reported with some brevity in
Reference: Sunan Abi Dawood (No. 4039)
with the chain عبد الوہاب بن نجدة حدثنا بشر بن بكر عن عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن جابر, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar referred to it in Fath al-Bari, about which Hafiz Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said that it is authentic and continuous.
Reference: Ighathat al-Lahfan (p.278 vol.1)
. Now, what kind of pinnacle of trustworthiness and honesty is this that the continuous chains of Hisham are cited with reference to Hafiz Ibn Hajar, but what he mentioned about Hisham’s following is completely ignored as if closing one’s eyes like a pigeon? No matter how much regret is expressed over the actions and character of those who justify music, it is insufficient. From this discussion, our point becomes an established fact that: the scholars have already answered Ibn Hazm’s objection. This narration is proven to be continuous in its chain, and the objection of weakness against the narrator is at best weak and is the result of closing one’s eyes to the truth.The Argumentative Aspect of the Hadith
From this hadith, the prohibition of four things is established: adultery, alcohol, silk, and musical instruments. The style of expression is such that it states: there will be some people in my Ummah who will make these things permissible. The conclusion is very clear that these things are forbidden, but some members of the Ummah will make them lawful and permissible. We have already discussed this in detail and have also presented before the esteemed readers the removal of the concerns and misconceptions of the Ahl al-Ishraq, for which no reasonable defense has been made by the Ahl al-Ishraq; they have only repeated their previous statements, summarized as follows: in some hadiths, the reason for the prohibition of silk is mentioned, and in some narrations, the reasons related to extravagance and resemblance to women have also been stated in the context of prohibition. Therefore, their prohibition will apply to specific cases, and the general ruling will be permissibility.
Reference: (Ishraq: pp. 42-43)
We are surprised that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ took silk in his right hand and gold in his left hand and said:
[إن هذين حرام على ذكور أمتي]that these two are forbidden for the men of my Ummah.
Reference: (Abu Dawood:4057), (Nasa'i:5147)
Hazrat Abu Umamah (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
[من كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر فلا يلبس حريرا ولا ذهبا]that whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not wear silk and gold.
Reference: (Musnad Ahmad:22248)
Nevertheless, the people of Ashraq categorically state that there are also narrations permitting silk. In which narrations is it stated that silk clothing is permissible for men? Its permissibility is only for women, or on the excuse of illness, or just two fingers' width. The general permissibility of silk for men is a fatwa resulting from the innovation of the people of Ashraq. Allama Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) states: [لا نعلم في تحريم لبس ذلك على الرجال اختلافا إلا لعارض أو عذر]We find no difference regarding the prohibition of silk for men except in cases of excuse or necessity.
Reference: (Al-Mughni: p.626 vol.1)
But the people of Ishraq, like the Orientalists, are concerned with introducing the Ummah to the new Islam, so they do not hesitate to differ on the collective issues of the Ummah. Whether the reason for prohibition is pride and ostentation or resemblance to women, silk is forbidden in any case. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ cursed those who imitate women, explicitly declared the prohibition with the word "haram," and warned against those who make it permissible through trickery and excuses with the word "yastahilloon," and also condemned them. Therefore, the attempt by the people of Ishraq to make it "halal" is an example of this very hadith. أعاذنا الله منه
Second Hadith
Regarding the prohibition of music, we have mentioned another hadith from Hazrat Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) referenced in Musnad al-Bazzar, in which it is stated that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: There are two sounds that are cursed in this world and the Hereafter. One is the sound of singing during times of blessing, and the other is the sound of screaming and shouting during times of calamity. This narration is also evidence for the prohibition of music. Obviously, if the sound is cursed, then the one who produces it cannot be free from curse. The people of Ishraq, on the contrary, consider music inherently permissible by nature and seek to declare this sound and its producer as "beloved" instead of cursed.
The readers will be aware that Ghamidi Sahib did not mention this authentic hadith in his discussion, the details of which we have already presented. Now, the excuse presented by the Ahl-e-Ishraq in defense of this hadith falls under the category of a sin worse than sin. The Ahl-e-Ishraq could not object to the chain of narration of this hadith, but to ease their conscience, they said, "Imam Bazzar himself said that we do not find this hadith anywhere except with this chain of narration."
Reference: (Ishraq: p.54)
Although we have already dispelled this misunderstanding. Imam Bazzar (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned this narration with the chain of Shabib bin Bashir Al-Bajali from Anas, this was the chain known to him. We have briefly mentioned with reference to Allama Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) that Imam Ibn Al-Sammak narrated this hadith with another chain. "Despite this clarification, it is not understood on what 'wisdom and insight' the people of Ishraq mentioned its uniqueness?" After mentioning the narration from Musnad Bazzar, Allama Albani writes: [وتابعه عيسى بن طهمان عن أنس أخرجه ابن السماك، وعيسى هذا ثقة من رجال البخاري كما في مغنى الذهبي، وقال العسقلاني صدوق أفرط فيه ابن حبان والذنب فيما استنكره من غيره، فصح الحديث والحمدلله]
And Isa bin Tahman followed Shabib bin Bashir in narrating from Anas. Its authentication was done by Ibn Al-Sammak, and Isa is trustworthy, among the narrators of Bukhari, as mentioned in Allama Al-Dhahabi’s Al-Mughni. And Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani said that he is truthful. Ibn Hibban was excessive in his praise of him. The fault in the weak narration is not his but of another narrator. Therefore, this narration is authentic. والحمد لله
Reference: (Tahrim Aalat Al-Tarab: p. 52)
We have previously mentioned Allama Albani's detailed explanation briefly, yet the role played by the Ahl-e-Ishraq in casting doubt on the narration is entirely in line with their nature. As we have already indicated in the discussion on the first hadith.
The second point made about this is that: if the prohibition of music or musical instruments is derived on the occasion of happiness, then it contradicts the narrations that indicate the permissibility of music and musical instruments on Eid and wedding occasions.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.54)
First: It is requested that this narration mentions the curse on two voices; do the people of Ishraq also consider the same ruling applicable to the second voice, the shouting and wailing during times of distress? If, according to them, lamentation at such times is forbidden, then why is the second voice, singing, excluded from this ruling? Both have been declared cursed together. As for the narrations used to justify music on the occasion of Eid or weddings, we have already clarified the weakness of such arguments.
Secondly: This narration supports other narrations in which music and musical instruments are explicitly declared forbidden. Even if there is some aspect of permissibility, where there is an aspect of prohibition and permissibility, preference is given to prohibition. Even something that is doubtful between Sunnah and innovation, the jurists command to leave it, as Allama Shami (may Allah have mercy on him) has written in
Reference: Radd al-Muhtar (p.441 vol.2, p.642 vol.1)
. The current state of music and musical instruments demands that, as a means of blocking the source, the narrations of prohibition should be preferred.Instead of the narration of Hazrat Anas رضي الله عنه, Ghamidi Sahib mentioned under the title "Weak Narrations" the narration of Hazrat Abdul Rahman bin Awf رضي الله عنه from Al-Mustadrak Al-Hakim regarding the "prohibition of foolish sounds of singing," in which it is mentioned that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ became tearful upon the demise of his son Hazrat Ibrahim. Hazrat Abdul Rahman رضي الله عنه said: "Sir, you are crying while you have forbidden crying." The Prophet ﷺ replied: "I have not forbidden crying, but I have prohibited two foolish and wicked sounds: one is the sound of play and amusement and satanic calls on occasions of happiness, and the other is the sound of beating the face and tearing the collar in times of calamity." This narration is indeed weak due to Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman bin Abi Layla, as Ghamidi Sahib mentioned. However, he also stated that "its version, which Tirmidhi has narrated in his Sahih, is reliable. That on the death of Hazrat Ibrahim, you said: I had forbidden two foolish and wicked sounds: one is the sound of beating the face and tearing the collar in times of calamity, and the other is the sound of wailing and screaming like Satan. In this version, there is no mention of singing or play in any way." Albani رحمه الله has declared this version as Hasan.
Reference: (Ishraq: pp. 102-103, March 2004)
The observations we presented in this regard and the way the distortion in Ghamidi Sahib's references and reasoning was explained have already been discussed in detail, the summary of which is as follows:
[1] The narration from Jami' Tirmidhi, which has been declared 'reliable,' is also transmitted through the chain of Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman bin Abi Layla. What merit is there that due to Ibn Abi Layla, the narration in Al-Mustadrak is considered weak, but the narration in Tirmidhi, despite Ibn Abi Layla, is considered reliable or even good?
[2] The narration in Tirmidhi is concise, as Imam Tirmidhi himself and the commentator of Tirmidhi have mentioned. Tirmidhi's narration mentions only one voice, not two, as Ghamidi Sahib has understood, and the mention of the second voice is in the narration of Bayhaqi, which is detailed.
[3] Allama Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) considered the narration of Tirmidhi as Hasan based on other evidences and described it as a brief narration. Therefore, according to Allama Albani, if it is Hasan, then it is Hasan in complete wording, not that only the brief narration of Tirmidhi is Hasan. What Ahl al-Ishraq said in response to our objections is very strange. Firstly, it was said that "The mentioned narration of Tirmidhi is also weak, so this supports us because we have listed these narrations under the category of weak narrations."
Reference: (Ishraq: p.53)
In other words, by declaring the narration of Tirmidhi as Hasan according to Allama Albani’s ruling, which was considered reliable, Ahl al-Ishraq have withdrawn from that and accepted the validity of our commentary that if, in your view, the narration in Al-Mustadrak is weak due to Ibn Abi Layla, then the narration of Tirmidhi is also weak because it also contains the same defective Ibn Abi Layla. As for reasoning from this, some clarification is forthcoming.
Secondly: It has been stated that if we consider the narration of Tirmidhi to be reliable, it is not because it does not mention singing, but because Allama Albani has classified it as Hasan.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.53)
This is the fundamental mistake of the Ahl al-Ishraq that they could not understand Allama Albani’s (may Allah have mercy on him) classification of this hadith as Hasan in Sahih al-Tirmidhi. We have already clarified that Allama Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) issues rulings on these books based on a collection of chains and evidences. The ruling is not made solely on the basis of this particular chain. If the Ahl al-Ishraq admit this misunderstanding of theirs, then their entire argument collapses. Therefore, they only focus on the hadith in Tirmidhi, whereas Allama Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) calls the Tirmidhi hadith brief, and the hadiths in Al-Mustadrak and others detailed, and based on all the evidences, he classifies the entire hadith as Hasan, meaning Hasan Laghirah. Accordingly, he first narrated the hadith of Hazrat Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), which we mentioned earlier, citing Musnad Bazzar and Ibn al-Sammak, and declared it Sahih, then he said: [له شاهد يزداد به قوة من حديث جابر بن عبد الله عن عبد الرحمن بن عوف قال: قال رسول الله ﷺ إني لم أنه عن البكاء ولكني نهيت عن صوتين أحمقين فاجرين ......... أخرجه الحاكم والبيهقي ......... من طرق عن محمد بن عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى عن عطاء عن جابر ومنهم من لم يذكر عبد الرحمن وفيه قصة، ورواه الترمذي عن جابر مختصراً وقال حديث حسن يعني لغيره لحال ابن أبي ليلى إلخ]
And the evidence for this (Hadith of Hazrat Anas رضي الله عنه), which strengthens its authenticity, is the Hadith of Jabir bin Abdullah from Abdur Rahman bin Awf that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: I did not forbid crying, rather I forbade two foolish and wicked sounds. It has been narrated by Hakim and Bayhaqi, etc., through multiple chains from Muhammad bin Abdur Rahman bin Abi Layla from Ata from Jabir. Some narrators do not mention Abdur Rahman in it, and the incident is described in it. Tirmidhi has also narrated it briefly from Hazrat Jabir رضي الله عنه and said that this Hadith is Hasan, meaning Hasan Lighairihi. Due to the condition of Ibn Abi Layla, approximately the same has been stated by them in
Reference: Al-Silsilah Al-Saheehah (428)
that the narration of Ibn Abi Layla is accepted as evidence and support.
Reference: (Tahrim Aalaat al-Tarab: pp. 52-53)
Allama Albani’s detailed statement is clear evidence that he did not only consider the brief narration of Tirmidhi as Hasan (good), but also regarded the detailed narration as Hasan. Therefore, if this narration is reliable, then the entire detailed narration is reliable, not just the brief narration of Tirmidhi. We had mentioned this point briefly before, but unfortunately, the Ahl-e-Ishraq paid no attention to it.
There is something that is being concealed.
And now it has been said very simply: express your disagreement with Allama Albani; if we are convinced, we will certainly accept it. Whereas our disagreement is with Ahl-e-Ishraq, not at all with Allama Albani, who considers the detailed narration in Al-Mustadrak weak due to Ibn Abi Layla, and yet considers the brief narration of Tirmidhi reliable despite Ibn Abi Layla, and due to ignorance of Allama Albani’s position, they attribute the narration’s Hasan status to him, while Allama Albani declared the entire narration Hasan, that is Hasan Laghirah, and based on his evidence, it is undoubtedly Hasan.
Regarding the narration of Tirmidhi, which Mr. Ghamidi understood to mention both "صوتان" voices, it has been pointed out that this is also his misunderstanding. Here, only one voice is mentioned, and the narration is brief; there is no mention of the second voice. The mention of the second voice is found in the detailed narrations of Al-Mustadrak and Al-Bayhaqi, etc. This fact has been acknowledged by the Ahl al-Ishraq, who said: This is absolutely correct; indeed, it is proper to understand only one voice here.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.53)
It is submitted that once you have accepted this fact, justice demands that the entire narration be accepted. Allama Albani has classified the entire narration as Hasan based on Shahid, but this is not expected from the Ahl al-Ishraq.
Thirdly: The Ahl al-Ishraq have stated that our primary argument is not based on narration but on reasoning. According to us, in the light of context, the most probable inference is that on this occasion the Prophet ﷺ only forbade lamentation. We have expressed this with the words "most probable inference," which makes it clear that we do not consider it definitive and acknowledge the possibility of the validity of differing opinions.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.53-54)
If the people of Ishraq have also accepted our commentary regarding the context, then what rationality is there in the statement that our argument is not based on narration but on understanding? Is this "understanding" without narration? You may call it the narrational aspect of understanding; when you do not have narration, what is the point of discussing its narrational aspect? Then, since you have accepted this, and at this occasion you warned not only against lamentation but also against singing, what else is denying the entire narration if not mere argumentation? Our clarification clearly exposes the weakness of the people of Ishraq's stance regarding the second narration. The narration of Hazrat Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) and Hazrat Abdul Rahman (may Allah be pleased with him) about the prohibition of singing and music is very clear that they described it as cursed, sinful, and immoral sound. If music were inherently permissible, they would not have called it cursed and made people detest it by labeling it sinful and immoral.
Third Hadith
The scholars of the Ummah have also argued the prohibition of music and musical instruments from the hadith of Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ declared wine, gambling, and الکوبۃ as forbidden, and every intoxicating thing is forbidden. This narration is transmitted with an authentic chain in books such as
Reference: Abu Dawood (p. 382, vol. 3, with Al-Awn)
. Among the items whose prohibition is mentioned in this narration is , which refers to the drum, as clarified by the narrators of the hadith. Indeed, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) and others state that it refers to every kind of entertainment in which a person becomes fully engrossed. Whether it is a drum, dice, chess, lute, or small drum. We have previously exposed the sophistries of Ghamidi Sahib regarding this hadith. The defensive position adopted by the Ahl al-Ishraq in this regard and the cleverness they demonstrated has also been understood; accordingly, they wrote that the discussion in Al-I'tisam is a detailed explanation of the points we have stated. We wrote that the meaning of Kubbah is explained as a drum.
Reference: (Ishraq: p. 88, March 2004)
Al-I'tisam states: The narrators of hadith interpret الکوبۃ as a drum.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.47-48)
Believe me, if the people of Ishraq had quoted their complete words, they would not have deceived the readers into thinking that the details of our points were explained by Al-I'tisam. Their complete words are: The word "kubah" in this narration is interpreted as a drum, and on this basis, an argument is made regarding the prohibition of music.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.88 March 2004)
Al-I'tisam took the meaning of "kubah" as a drum according to the explanation of the narrators of hadith, and from this, argued for the prohibition of the drum. If this is also the position of Ishraq, then why do they not agree with the prohibition of the drum? Rather, Ishraq has clearly written: In our view, this meaning (drum) is not preferable.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.89 March 2004)
Tell me, did Ishraq accept the meaning of کوبہ as a drum? But alas, despite this, how boldly they write that Al-I'tisam has explained the details of our points.
They have not seen selfish forms, mostly
If they look into the mirror, then we will show them.
Similarly, it has also been stated that we have quoted from Lisan al-Arab that the meaning of "Kubah" is drum and dice. In Al-I'tisam, it is mentioned: Allama Al-Khattabi says: الکوبۃ has been interpreted as drum, and it is said that it means dice. الکوبۃ is generally interpreted this way by the linguists. It includes drum, dice, chess, rabab, and dugdugi.
Reference: (Ishraq:48)
The fundamental difference between the two, which we have just pointed out, is that in Al-I'tisam, the meaning of "Al-Kubah" is drum, and Allama Khattabi and others have quoted that this word includes dice, chess, rabab, dugdugi, and all musical instruments. However, the people of Ishraq, despite quoting the meaning of "Al-Kubah" as drum from Arabic lexicons, say: In our view, this meaning is not preferable; according to the indications of reason and narration, the meaning of dice seems more plausible.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.89 March 2004)
Therefore, when in this hadith the meaning of "Al-Kubah" as drum is rejected by them and considered inappropriate according to reason and narration, then why has Al-I'tisam accepted their points?
Similarly, Ashraq states that we have explained that in the mentioned narration, since the word Qubah comes connected with Maysar (gambling), the most reasonable inference is that here its meaning should be taken as dice instead of drum, because the game of dice was specifically associated with gambling at that time. Al-I'tisam says: Let us accept that 'dice' was played as gambling, therefore its prohibition was mentioned along with Maysar.
Reference: (Ashraq: p.48)
If only Al-I'tisam had also quoted what he wrote afterwards, the people of Ashraq, then no kind of confusion would remain. The full statement of Al-I'tisam is as follows.
Let us accept that 'Nard' was played as a form of gambling. Therefore, its prohibition was mentioned along with 'Maisar' (gambling), but was only 'Nard' played in those gatherings of alcohol and gambling, or was there something else as well? Ghazmadi himself has admitted that "it cannot be denied that 'Kubah' might refer to a drum, because in those gatherings of alcohol and gambling, to enhance the mood and excitement, singers and along with them daff, drum, and other musical instruments were also provided." Therefore, when in gatherings of alcohol and gambling not only the game of Nard was played but the presence of drums and musical instruments was also not impossible, then what rationality remains in considering 'Kubah' to mean only Nard by way of conjecture?
Reference: (الاعتصام)
The difference is quite clear that the Ahl al-Ishraq consider the term "alkubah" to mean 'dice' based on analogy, while Al-I'tisam has written that when there is a possibility of drums and other musical instruments in wine gatherings, how is it just to say that dice is the analogy? But unfortunately, the Ahl al-Ishraq, in their crooked thinking, consider this also as their agreement.
See their final masterpiece of honesty on this matter, they write: We have written that although taking "kubah" to mean dice is more probable by analogy, the possibility cannot be denied that here "kubah" means drum; it is quite possible that due to its association with gambling and wine gatherings, the Prophet ﷺ ordered its prohibition. On this, Al-I'tisam has written: When this narration is established among them, denying the prohibition of "kubah" (i.e., drum) and taking "kubah" to mean only dice is in any case baseless.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.48)
Dear readers, please pay attention: when there is a possibility that the word "Kubah" here refers to a drum, are the Ahl al-Ishraq, like the dice, believers in the prohibition of the 'drum'? Absolutely not. Their reasoning for this is that "if the permissibility of the daf (tambourine), which is a musical instrument similar to the drum, exists, then the drum cannot be declared absolutely forbidden."
Reference: (Ishraq: p.92 March 2004)
We have already addressed the misconception of the people of Ishraq regarding this matter under the title "Qiyas of the Drum on the Daf." Repeating it here would cause unnecessary lengthening. By remaining silent on this, the people of Ishraq have seemingly accepted our objections. Observe the helplessness and then the bravado of the people of Ishraq: on one hand, they admit the possibility of the drum in gatherings of wine and gambling and say that the Prophet ﷺ forbade it on this very basis, yet they do not consider this prohibition as haram, while the Prophet ﷺ declared this "prohibition" as haram by saying إن الله حرم (that Allah has made wine, gambling, and the drum haram). Then the strange spectacle is that in the footnote of
Reference: Ishraq: p.92
, they also quote a hadith from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) via Tabarani Awsat that the Prophet ﷺ declared six things haram: wine, gambling, tambourines, flutes, daf, and the drum. Based on this very narration, we argued—which the people of Ishraq mistakenly consider as their agreement—that since this narration is accepted by them, and it mentions the prohibition of the drum (kubah), therefore denying the prohibition of the drum and interpreting kubah only as dice is completely wrong. In fact, based on this narration, even the "daf" is declared haram. We earnestly request the esteemed readers to review our previous objections on this matter, which will also dispel their recent doubts and reveal the truth behind the excuse made to exclude the drum from the ruling of prohibition by equating it with the daf. ان شاء اللہFourth Hadith
This narration is reported not only from Hazrat Abdullah bin Amr (may Allah be pleased with them) but also from Hazrat Qais bin Saad that my Lord has forbidden for me alcohol, gambling, singing women, and the (drum). This narration is mentioned in
Reference: Al-Sunan Al-Kubra (p.222 vol.10)
and others. Allama Albani has also classified it as Hasan (good). From this hadith, the prohibition of music and musical instruments is also established. The people of Ishraq (Illumination) probably did not object to this narration because they had already clarified their viewpoint regarding the based on the previous narration.Fifth Hadith
Regarding the prohibition of music, we have also argued from the hadith of Hazrat Imran bin Husain (may Allah be pleased with him) that my Ummah will experience incidents of slander , disfigurement , and sinking into the earth . It was asked, O Messenger of Allah ﷺ! When will these incidents occur? You ﷺ said: When musical instruments, singers, and alcohol become widespread. This hadith, along with its evidences, is Hasan Sahih (good and authentic). Allama Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) has declared this part authentic for the same reason
Reference: (Sahihah No:1604) and (Tahrim Aalat al-Tarab: p.68)
. Now every Muslim can understand, can matters that cause divine punishment be considered inherently permissible? And is there any justification left for their permissibility?Mr. Ghamidi mentioned a narration of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) from Tirmidhi under the category of "weak narrations" regarding the commonality of musical instruments and the descent of calamities, and we have explained in detail the manner in which he declared it weak. The Ahl-e-Ishraq, ignoring this, only said that: Al-I'tisam has agreed on the weakness of this narration. Therefore, it is not worthy of argument.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.55)
It is very strange that we called the complete narration of Tirmidhi weak, but the mention of the descent of calamities due to the commonality of alcohol, musical instruments, and singers was declared authentic based on evidence, and we quoted Allama Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) that [ھذا القدر منہ صحیح بلا ریب لھذہ الشواہد] this part is undoubtedly authentic based on its evidences. And the more interesting point is that the Ahl-e-Ishraq themselves quoted our position that 'Allama Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) considers the complete narration of Tirmidhi weak but considers this part of Tirmidhi authentic based on evidence.'
Reference: (Ishraq: p.55)
Nevertheless, the Ahl al-Ishraq write with great boldness:
Al-I'tisam has fundamentally agreed that this narration is weak. Tell me, should this be called misrepresentation or poor translation? Whatever it is, it is wrong in any case. This part of Tirmidhi is correct based on evidence, therefore the reasoning from it is also correct.
The Ahl al-Ishraq further stated that this narration carries the same meaning as the one mentioned in Bukhari. Accordingly, in the light of the hadith of Bukhari, its meaning will also be that musical instruments, if associated with wine drinking and other immoral vices, are detestable for a Muslim.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.54)
By the grace of Allah, under the first hadith, we have already commented on their perspective under the title "Strange Reasoning." The Ahl al-Ishraq refrained from saying anything further on it. Therefore, we also do not consider it appropriate to discuss it further.Sixth Hadith
The scholars have also cited the hadith of Hazrat Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the abhorrence and vileness of music, which Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) and others have narrated, in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: The bell is the musical instrument of Satan. This and other narrations on the same subject, which we have mentioned earlier, make it clear that the bell and anklet bells are satanic instruments. Wherever they are used, the mercy of Allah Almighty is not present. We have also presented an analysis of the thoughts of Mr. Ghamidi on this matter. The people of Ishraq are strongly upset with our objections. In fact, they say:
Thousands of words have been written on the page of paper, but not even two words among them criticize our argument. Our point was only that if knowledge of Arabic lexicon and Arab culture is available, then it is not correct to consider the bell as one of the musical instruments.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.44)
The fact is that those gentlemen who include "ancient scriptures" among the "sources of religion" can very well and correctly consider only "Arabic lexicon" and "Arab culture" for musical instruments. If they moved beyond this thinking, they would find the answer to their "two-word" question in our presentations. With apologies to the esteemed readers, I request them to read the section titled "Ghamidi Sahib's Misguided Thinking" under the same hadith and judge fairly whether the answer to their question exists or not? Accordingly, we had stated: Let us, for a moment, accept that bells or anklets were not counted among musical instruments, but were those the only musical instruments in Arabia, and was the Prophet ﷺ not authorized to count any other instruments as musical instruments and prohibit them? When it is established from the Prophet ﷺ that he declared the bell to be the instrument of Satan, then there remains no room for the Ummah to search whether it was counted among musical instruments in Arabia or not. It is surprising that the gentleman himself says: Regarding the order to cut off the anklets, it can be inferred that since professional female singers used them, Lady (Aisha) expressed dislike for them.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.78)
Therefore, when Mr. Ghamidi admits that the jingle (ghunghroo) was used by professional female singers, then not counting it among musical instruments is nothing but self-deception. In fact, it has already been mentioned earlier
Reference: Fath al-Bari (pp. 440-441, vol. 2)
that the jingle was attached to the daf (frame drum), so in that case, the daf would also be considered a musical instrument. And everyone knows that the jingle is called a small bell (jaras-e-sagheer), so excluding the bell and the jingle from musical instruments is definitely wrong.Readers, judge fairly whether there is criticism of Ishraq's position or not? And in the Arabic lexicon, is الجلجل called الجرس الصغير or not? And did Jaljal use musical instruments or not? When the answer to all these is affirmative, then excluding Jaljal and Jarras from musical instruments is nothing but self-deception. Whether Jaljal is placed on the foot of a singer or a bell is hung around the neck of an animal according to size, both are wrong and are among musical instruments. We have already reviewed the interpretations made by Mr. Ghamidi to exclude them from musical instruments. In fact, the immoderations he displayed in this discussion have also been pointed out, and the silence of the people of Ishraq in this regard is a clear proof of their helplessness. However, he has sought clarification on two points with great emotion. The first of these is that Mr. Ghamidi said that the sound of bells around animals' necks alerts the enemy, and therefore the Prophet ﷺ forbade it. We have already explained the weakness of his position under the titles "Another Excuse" and "A Meaningless Interpretation." The people of Ishraq have said nothing on this matter, but they have repeated that: Let us accept the interpretation of Al-I'tisam for a while that bells and dogs were prohibited because the angels who bring revelation felt disgust from them, but the question is, what damage does accepting this cause to our argument? Does it result in bells being included in the category of musical instruments? If not, then these narrations cannot be made the basis for the prohibition of music at all.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.45)
Firstly: It is stated that this is not the "interpretation of Al-I'tisam." The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ explicitly said لا تصحب الملائكة رفقة فيها كلب أو جرس
Reference: (Muslim 202/2, Abu Dawood: 330/2 with Al-Awn and others authentic, number 1873)
That angels do not accompany a caravan in which there is a dog or a bell. May Allah's countless blessings be upon the noble hadith scholars, they avoid conjectures as much as possible even in the interpretation of hadith. Regarding the command to remove the bell from the necks of animals,
Reference: Al-Ihsan in the order of Sahih Ibn Hibban (p.101 vol.7)
contains [ذكر العلة التي من أجلها أمر المصطفى ﷺ بهذا الأمر] under which the same hadith is mentioned that we have cited from Sahih Muslim and Abu Dawood, stating: The reason for being deprived of the company of Allah's angels is this prohibition. Whether the angels are of mercy, those who seek forgiveness, or the angel Jibreel who brings revelation. Therefore, when deprivation of the company of angels is the cause, the dislike and repugnance of the bell becomes self-evident. Whether or not any literary person or historian has called the bell a musical instrument, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has in any case declared it an instrument of Satan. That is why angels detest it wherever it is ringing, whether it is around the necks of animals or on the feet of a female singer. When the people of illumination admit this reality that professional female singers used ghunghroos, then not accepting them as musical instruments in singing and playing is merely a dispute. Bells are also a type of ghunghroo; the only difference is in size. In fact, both are still used in singing and dancing.The second point that the Ahl-e-Ishraq made in response to our objections was that Mr. Ghamidi had said that the word "Mazameer" regarding the bell was not used in its literal sense, but rather as a simile, metaphor, and exaggeration. Regarding this, the summary of what was presented in Al-I'tisam is that in explaining the rulings and issues of religion, the possibility of exaggeration and excess or deficiency exists among other people, but such a notion about the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is a result of unfamiliarity with the status of prophethood. Our point was very unpleasant to the Ahl-e-Ishraq, but before looking at the examples they presented to accuse us of being linguistically ignorant, let us first take a look at them. They say:
Regarding the arrival of Sayyiduna Hamza, Sayyiduna Ali, and Sayyiduna Khalid bin Walid on the battlefield, if someone says, "Which lion is coming that the battlefield is trembling," even the simplest person, upon hearing this, will not take the words "lion" and "trembling" in the literal sense as written in the dictionary.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.46)
Consider this: Does this style of expression about a personality appear in any legitimate or illegitimate, or halal and haram, Islamic legal issue? Removing a bell and calling it the "psalms of Satan" is a legal issue and relates to the permissibility or impermissibility of the bell. The people of Ishraq admit that "from these narrations, indeed some ruling regarding the bell can be derived."
Reference: (Ishraq: p.44)
So from these narrations, the ruling of the impermissibility of the bell is established. If they do not consider the bell as a musical instrument, then do they consider the bell permissible? It is hoped that they will not dare to say so. We had spoken regarding 'Religious Rulings and Issues'; if the people of Ishraq had reflected on these words, they would have refrained from presenting this example.
Following the Footsteps of Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah
In this regard, they gave another example that Al-I'tisam himself quoted these words of the Prophet ﷺ: "By the One in Whose hand is my soul," if someone reads this and concludes that, like humans, God also has limbs and organs (معاذ اللہ) and that the soul is some corporeal entity, then what can be said about the intellect of such a person?
Reference: (Ishraq: p. 46)
It is stated that this lamentation would be done by a Jahmi, Mu'tazili, or innovator; no one among the Salaf denies the 'Essence' of Allah, nor do they deny the 'Hands' of Allah Almighty. Nor do they consider them like humans. In the noble Hadith, the words "والذي نفسي بيده" are used, and the application of "Nafs" (self) and "Yad" (hand) to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala appears in the Holy Quran and numerous Hadiths. The Imams of the Salaf accept these divine attributes in summary form without comparison and without allegorical interpretation. Imam Ibn Khuzaymah (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned these attributes of Allah under باب ذکر البیان من خبر النبي ﷺ في إثبات النفس لله الخ in
Reference: Kitab al-Iman (p.6)
and under باب ذکر إثبات اليد in
Reference: (pp. 53 to 74)
. Imam al-Muhaddithin Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned them in Sahih Bukhari under __ARABIC_34: and thereafter, by ARABIC_35__, he referred to these two attributes of Allah. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) and his righteous student, Allama Ibn Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), have discussed this in great detail in their numerous works. Allama Ibn Abi al-Izz (may Allah have mercy on him) gave a refined discourse on this in the commentary of Aqeedah al-Tahawiyyah, and Allama al-Safarini (may Allah have mercy on him) in Lawaami' al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah. If the people of Ishraq have followed the path of the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah, then who can stop them from this? واللہ یہدی السبیلPerhaps the result of the dominance of Jahmiyyah is that they wrote without reflection, "Is the soul really a tangible thing?" whereas in Al-I'tisam, the term "soul" is applied in reference to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Read the words again: "By the One in Whose hand is my soul," here "my" soul refers to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. The "soul" can also mean the spirit, and the spirit also has a body. Hafiz Ibn Qayyim رحمه الله has made a subtle discussion on this in
Reference: Kitab al-Ruh (pp. 54-55)
. This denial is in the same style as the Mu'tazilah, who consider deeds as mere acts of turning away and thus deny the weighing of deeds. Further regarding the Divine Essence of Allah, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله wrote that in the Book and Sunnah, the word "body" is neither used affirmatively nor negatively about Allah سبحانه وتعالى. And those few who have used this word say: [إنه جسم لا كالأجسام كما يقال ذات لا كالذوات وموصوف لا كالموصوفات وقائم بنفسه لا كالقائمات وشيء لا كالأشياء] It is a body, but not like the bodies of humans; it is a Being, but not like human beings; it is described, but not like other descriptions; it subsists by itself, but not like other self-subsisting beings; it is a thing, but not like other things.
Reference: (Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah: pp. 50-54 vol. 1)
In the well-known book Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa (RA), it is stated: [وله يد ووجه ونفس فما ذكره الله تعالى في القرآن من ذكر الوجه واليد والنفس فهو له صفات بلا كيف]
That Allah Almighty has a hand, a face, and a self; just as Allah Almighty mentioned face, hand, and self in the Qur'an, these are attributes of Allah and are without modality.
Reference: (Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar: p.36)
Allama Ibn Abi Al-Izz (RA) also quoted this passage from Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar in
Reference: Sharh Al-Aqeedah At-Tahawiyyah (p.219)
and gave detailed confirmation of it. Therefore, in this hadith: "By the One in Whose hand is my soul," among the Salaf, it is understood in its literal meaning, and there is no metaphorical interpretation in it. The Jahmiyyah or Mu'tazilah and their followers do not comprehend this, which is merely the result of their rationalism. The issue of the attributes of the Creator is a well-known disputed matter between the Muhaddithin and the innovators. Like many other issues, it appears that the people of illumination (Ahl al-Ishraq) are aligned with the innovators, Jahmiyyah, and Mu'tazilah on this issue. أعاذنا اللہ منہمIn this regard, regarding the use of words for simile and resemblance, another excerpt presented by the Ahl al-Ishraq states that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, upon hearing the recitation of Hazrat Abu Musa Ash'ari رضي الله عنه, said: O Abu Musa! You have been given an instrument from the instruments of the people of Dawud. Here, Al-I'tisam also took "instrument" to mean beautiful voice. Hafiz Ibn Hajar رضي الله عنه writes: Mizmar is an instrument; its application to voice is due to the resemblance to its beauty.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.46)
But here the people of Ishraq did not take into account the fundamental difference to which we have already pointed. There is a great difference between using a word as a simile or analogy and explaining something in terms of its religious permissibility or impermissibility, halal or haram. We admit that you ﷺ, upon hearing the beautiful voice of Hazrat Abu Musa, likened it to the "Psalms of the family of David" and praised it, and commanded the beautiful recitation of the Holy Quran. In contrast, in the hadith under discussion, the command was given to throw away bells and anklets, and it was informed that these are "satanic instruments." The result is clear that here you expressed dislike for them and declared them satanic instruments. Now, ignoring the command to throw both away and taking the narration "the bell is the musical instrument of Satan" merely in the sense of analogy is not wisdom. From our explanation, it becomes clear that the people of Ishraq fundamentally did not even try to understand our point. And the examples they have presented in this regard are also not at all contrary to our argument.
Seventh Hadith
Regarding the illegitimacy and prohibition of music, we have also mentioned the narration of Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) in which it is mentioned that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, upon hearing the sound of a shepherd's flute, placed his fingers in his ears. It has been mentioned that scholars have used this hadith to argue for the prohibition of musical instruments. In this context, the doubts of Mr. Ghamidi were also addressed, and the Ahl-e-Ishraq somewhat defended him. Dear readers can judge for themselves after reviewing our observations. Also, understand the reality of the way the Ahl-e-Ishraq have now displayed a kind of Mu'tazilite rationality to erase their embarrassment and satisfy their circle of influence.
Ghamidi Sahib narrated this hadith under 'Sahih and Hasan Narrations' with the title "The Prohibition of the Flute," and noted in the margin that 'Abu Dawood has declared it weak, but according to Allama Albani (may Allah have mercy on him), this narration is authentic.' The author of Atheem refuted Abu Dawood's statement with evidence without mentioning Ghamidi Sahib's name and stated that calling it weak is not correct. Unfortunately, even this clarification of ours was unpleasant to the Ahl-e-Ishraq, so to vent their frustration, they wrote:
Al-I'tisam has provided numerous references in great detail to prove its authenticity, despite the fact that we have accepted it as an authentic narration. The purpose of such detailed explanations is probably to demonstrate the ability to consult the books of hadith.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.49)
In Ishraq, undoubtedly, they mentioned this narration among the authentic and good narrations, but by presenting two different opinions in the footnotes, they paved the way for doubt for a skeptic. Even if this doubt has been removed, the people of Ishraq do not accept it. Let them fairly consider that not only were two different opinions quoted, but to prove disagreement and confusion in the text of the narration, it was also said that
Reference: Ibn Majah number (1901)
contains a narration of the same content from Sayyiduna Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both. In it, instead of the flute, the words "drum" and "dhol" appear.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.93 March 2004)
Can all their efforts for the lost path not cause further doubt? Even after this, should the meaning still be understood that all the words of the narration fall into the category that they want to "express their competence"? The amusing thing is that after mentioning this narration of Ibn Majah, Mr. Ghamidi and the people of Ishraq remained silent and did not bother to say whether it is authentic or weak. Now if we clarify it, according to their inner suspicion, they will say this too is their "expression of competence." Regarding this narration which they quoted from
Reference: Ibn Majah (No:1901)
, Allama Al-Busiri (may Allah have mercy on him) says: [وهذا إسناده فيه ليث وهو ابن أبي سليم وقد ضعفه الجمهور] Its chain includes Laith bin Abi Sulaym, whom the majority have declared weak.
Reference: (Misbah al-Zujajah: p.335 vol.1)
The same has been said by Allama Muhammad Fawad Abdul Baqi about Ibn Majah in their reference. Therefore, compared to an authentic narration, the mention of the drum is rejected and weak.
The second expression of Ahl al-Ishraq is that: accessing the meanings of Hadith is a completely different matter. The investigation, broad vision, and ijtihadi insight required for this are not considered worthy of attention by Ahl al-I'tisam and their counterparts, so it is not at all permissible to demand this from them.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.49-50)
By the grace of Allah Almighty, Ahl al-I'tisam strive as much as possible to understand the meanings and objectives of Hadith under the guidance of the Salaf, but they absolutely do not accept the Mu'tazilite interpretations and exegeses of Ahl al-Ishraq; rather, they consider them the worst distortion in religion. Following the footsteps of the Mu'tazila, the rationalism they exhibit and consider as the understanding and interpretation of religion is a matter of concern for Ahl al-I'tisam, who regard it as a deviation from the path of the believers. Regarding the narration under discussion, observe their rationalism; they write:
The prohibition, detestation, or dislike of the musical instrument flute does not at all result from the narration; a definitive judgment of hatred or dislike cannot be made solely on the basis of the act of putting fingers in the ears.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.50)
Although we have stated that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and in following him, Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar رضي الله عنهما did not just plug their ears upon hearing the sound of the flute, but they actually changed their path. What is the reason that despite blocking their ears, you ﷺ and Abdullah bin Umar left the path and endured hardship for themselves? It is because whether it is the flute or other musical instruments, all of these are satanic instruments and satanic devices. Wherever they are played, there is the influence of Satan, and Allah’s mercy is not present there. That is why you ﷺ changed your path, and in following you, Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar رضي الله عنهما also left his path. Denying the repulsiveness and vileness of the sound which the Prophet ﷺ covered his ears upon hearing and changed his straight path is a masterpiece of the "jurisprudence" and "ijtihadi insight" of the people of Ishraq. We have already quoted from Ibn Hajar Haithami that the scholars have used this hadith to argue for the prohibition of musical instruments. Imam Bayhaqi رحمه الله established [باب ما جاء في ذم الملاهي من المعازف والمزامير ونحوها] on this very hadith and described its vileness and repulsiveness. Imam Abu Dawood رحمه الله also established a chapter titled [كراهية الغناء والزمر] on it, pointing towards its repulsiveness. Imam Abu Bakr Al-Ajurri رحمه الله mentioned it under chapter [تنزيه العقلاء اسماعهم عن استماع الملاهي] in his
Reference: book Tahreem Al-Nard wal-Shatranj wal-Malahy (p.125)
. Similarly, Imam Ibn Abi Al-Dunya, in "Zamm Al-Malahy," explained the prohibition and vileness of musical instruments. If details from other books of the jurists are quoted, it will also be unpleasant for the delicate nature of the people of Ishraq, and they will also try to dismiss it under the pretense of "expression of competence." Therefore, we ignore all these references.Dear readers! Consider that all these gentlemen argue from this hadith in the same way regarding the prohibition and disgrace of musical instruments as the Ahl al-I'tisam did. The Ahl al-Ishraq may indeed accuse us poor ones of poverty and lack of investigation, but what is their opinion about these noble Imams? Were they also deprived of broad vision and ijtihadi insight? And in their view, were these matters not worthy of consideration? كَبُرَتْ كَلِمَةً تَخْرُجُ مِنْ أَفْوَاهِهِمْ
Read further about the Ahl al-Ishraq and then decide whether this is following or deviating from the Hadith! We had stated that Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) did exactly what he saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ doing. On this, the Ahl al-Ishraq write: If this principle of following is taken literally, then the ruling derived from it would be that if on the way you hear the sound of a flute, you should put your fingers in your ears and change your path. It is necessary that at this moment there should be a companion with you from whom you can ascertain whether the sound of the flute is indeed heard or not. It should also be ensured that this person has not yet reached the age of maturity (puberty), otherwise he himself would be obliged to put his fingers in his ears, and you would not be able to benefit from his service of informing you when the flute sound is heard and when it stops.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.50-51)
This is an example of the ijtihadi insight "Istinbat" of the Ahl-e-Ishraq, sir! This is not "Istinbat" but a mockery and ridicule of Hadith and the practice of Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). Although Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) only heard the sound of the flute, put his fingers in his ears, changed his path, and said that I did the same as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did. Why did you ﷺ and Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) change your path? We have already explained that it was because of hearing the sound of a musical instrument, as this musical instrument is a satanic device; wherever it is played, the influence of Satan is present, and Allah's mercy is not there.
The Holy Prophet ﷺ left the place where he had rested during the journey until the sun rose and the morning prayer was missed. The Prophet ﷺ said: [هذا منزل حضرنا فيه الشيطان] that Satan had come to that place.
Reference: Muslim:680
Where the flute was playing, you ﷺ also left that path because satanic music was playing there, and this is exactly what Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar رضی اللہ عنہما did. Even today, one should not go where this satanic practice is ongoing, but those whose destiny is to please Satan will arrange his gatherings and will not abandon that path. It is a matter of one's own destiny; some leave that path and follow the way of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, while others invite to arrange his gatherings and issue a "jurisprudential fatwa" not to leave it, thus walking the path of Satan. Preferences differ, destinies differ.
In the Holy Quran, Allah Almighty has not permitted sitting in places where the religion is being mocked. The beloved commentator of Ishraq writes: Wherever the Shariah is mocked, sitting there is a sign of shamelessness, and being content with it is hypocrisy and disbelief.
Reference: (Tadabbur al-Quran: p78 vol 3, Al-An'am:68)
Therefore, where there is open opposition to the Shariah, where satanic schemes are being played, not going there is exactly the purpose of the Shariah. Accordingly, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ acted, and his companion Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) followed this practice, and that too upon hearing the sound of a shepherd’s flute, let alone swaying to the tunes of musical instruments played by expert musicians. Allama Ibn Jauzi (may Allah have mercy on him) rightly said: [إذا كان هذا فعلهم في حق صوت لا يخرج عن الاعتدال فكيف بغناء الزمان وزمورهم] If this is their attitude towards an immoderate sound, then what ruling will there be on the singing and flutes of that era?
Reference: (Talbis Iblees: p203)
The Ahl al-Ishraq also stated in this context that: Following the actions of the Prophet ﷺ exactly as they appear outwardly is a particular disposition of Sayyiduna Ibn Umar رضي الله عنهما, and accordingly, scholars and jurists derive rulings taking this disposition into consideration from his narrations. After this, they mentioned some of his unique characteristics and also quoted a passage from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله’s
Reference: Iqtiḍāʼ (p. 387)
, giving the impression that following Ibn Umar رضي الله عنهما in such unique issues, in which he considered following the Messenger ﷺ, is not necessarily correct.
Reference: (Ishraq: p. 51)
We are astonished at what name we should give to the cunning and excuse-making of the people of Ishraq, and it is rather regrettable that this "ijtihad" is being done with "complete" "jurisprudential insight." Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) had a special disposition in following the Messenger ﷺ, and in this regard, he had some unique characteristics. However, the people of Ishraq did not consider that in this matter, Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar's following is not such that he is unique in it. The Imams of Hadith and the noble jurists have used his hadith to argue for the abhorrence and prohibition of the flute and musical instruments, as has been explained earlier with references. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), whom the people of Ishraq have referenced to give the impression, himself mentioned that the doctrine of the four Imams is that playing the flute is forbidden. He has also responded in detail to the objections raised by the critics regarding this matter. See:
Reference: (Majmoo' al-Fatawa: pp. 212-214, vol. 30)
Reference: In Majmu'at al-Rasa'il al-Kubra, Volume 1, his treatise Al-Sama' wal-Raqs (p.302, vol.1)
, also see
Reference: Kashf al-Ghita' min Hukm Sama' al-Ghina' (p.270)
Reference: Ibn Qayyim and Talbis Iblis
, etc. Therefore, counting this hadith and the practice of Hazrat Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) among their unique issues and giving the impression that it is no longer acted upon does not serve the cause of knowledge.Statement of Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him)
Besides the previous narrations about the prohibition and detestation of music and musical instruments, the traces of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) also support this. Thus, Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said: [الغناء ينبت النفاق في القلب] that singing creates hypocrisy in the heart.
Reference: (Bayhaqi: p.243, vol.10)
Regarding this, we have already explained the reality of Brother Ghamidi's point, about which the people of Ishraq have remained completely silent. However, in its defense, it is now said that: this is not a hadith but an athar (statement of a Companion). Therefore, it cannot be used as a basis for any definitive ruling in religion. Furthermore, its wording is not explicit in the meaning of prohibition.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.55)
Although this too is their weak and futile excuse, we have already quoted that it is suspended in meaning but grammatically it is in the nominative case. The commonality between hypocrisy and music has also been pointed out earlier. Whatever creates hypocrisy in opposition to faith cannot be considered human nature at all. If the people of illumination do not see explicit prohibition in this, then is it not explicit for the abhorrence and detestation of music?
The Statement of Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them)
Besides this, we have also mentioned the statement of Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that: The drum is forbidden, musical instruments are forbidden, the drum is forbidden, the flute is forbidden.
Reference: (Bayhaqi: p.222 vol.10)
So, the fatwa regarding the prohibition of musical instruments is from Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them. Does this not explicitly indicate prohibition? However, you have seen that the people of Ishraq (illumination) have considered mere disregard of it as sufficient. The purpose of presenting these two evidences was to show that even these noble personalities among the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, have stated the prohibition and abhorrence of musical instruments. The permissibility of it is not established from any one Companion with an authentic chain. Rather, Allama Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him, stated that singing was neither the habit of the Prophet ﷺ, nor was it done in his presence, nor were singers invited, nor was any arrangement made for it. Because singing is not the character of the Prophet ﷺ, nor was it the practice of his Caliphs after him, nor the method of other Companions, nor of his Ahl al-Bayt. Therefore, attributing singing to you (the Prophet ﷺ) is not correct, nor is it part of your Shariah.
Reference: (Kaf al-Ri'aa: p.280 vol.2)
We acknowledge that some individuals have issued fatwas permitting music, but the majority of jurists and eminent hadith scholars are nonetheless convinced of its prohibition. The explicit and correct prophetic command of "haram" and the fatwa of the Companions are clear evidence of its prohibition. Denying this is merely a dispute. On the contrary, there is no authentic narration from any one Companion proving the permissibility of music in word or deed, indicating that during the era of the Companions there was consensus on its prohibition and abhorrence. Its inception occurred during times of turmoil. Accordingly, Hazrat Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly stated: [إظهارك المعازف والمزامير بدعة في الإسلام] "Promoting your musical instruments and melodies is an innovation in Islam."
Reference: (Al-Nasa'i, No: 4140, Al-Hilyah: p270 vol 5)
Therefore, if some individuals in later centuries have issued fatwas permitting it, how can that be acceptable? May Allah, the Exalted, guide us on the straight path and protect us from choosing the path of "سبیل المؤمنین". Ameen, O Lord of the Worlds.
