Ibn Hazm al Zahiri (d. 456AH) gathered the hadiths used for forbidding singing and maʿazif (musical instruments), and he graded them weak. After that, he relied on the original rule that things are lawful unless Allah has clearly forbidden them. He used the Qur’an verses:

فَصَّلَ لَكُمْ مَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ

“He has clearly explained to you what He has forbidden for you.” (al Anʿam: 119)

هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مَا فِي الْأَرْضِ جَمِيعاً

“He is the One who created for you all that is on the earth.” (al Baqarah: 29)

He also used the hadith of Saʿd ibn Abi Waqqas رضي الله عنه, in which the Messenger ﷺ said:

“Among the people who commit the greatest crime in Islam is a man who asks about something that was not forbidden, then it becomes forbidden because of his asking.” (Sahih Al Bukhari. Sahih Muslim. al Silsilah al Sahihah, 3276)

Al Albani accepted that the original principle is sound when there is no established proof of prohibition. However, the whole issue rests on Ibn Hazm’s premise, namely his grading weak of all the hadiths forbidding maʿazif (musical instruments). Al Albani’s answer is that this premise is not sound.

Some of those hadiths are authentic in themselves. Others are authentic because of supporting reports, shawahid (supporting narrations), mutabaʿat (follow ups), and the well known rule among the ulama of hadith that a weak report may rise in strength when its routes are many and its weakness is not severe.

The Hadith Evidence Is Not Limited to One Report

The proof against Ibn Hazm does not stand on a single narration. The hadiths concerning maʿazif (musical instruments), mizmar (flute), kubah (drum), qiyan (singing slave girls), and musical amusement are many. Their combined meaning points to prohibition. Al Albani explains that even if someone assumed weakness in individual chains, the agreement of their meanings through many routes strengthens the ruling.

He supported this with the rule used by the huffaz of hadith. Ibn Hajar (d. 852AH), for example, strengthened the hadith “The ears are part of the head” through several routes, even though each route had weakness. Ibn Hajar said that when a fair person looks at all the routes together, he knows the hadith has a basis and should not be discarded. (al Nukat ʿala Ibn al Salah by Ibn Hajar, 1/410–415)

The same method applies here. Musical instruments are not forbidden through one isolated proof. Rather, several hadiths and reports come together. Some are authentic in themselves, and some are strengthened by others. This directly refutes Ibn Hazm’s claim that nothing authentic exists on the subject.

The Hadith of Al Bukhari Is Authentic and Not Disconnected

The main hadith is the report of Abu Amir or Abu Malik al Ashʿari رضي الله عنه, in which the Prophet ﷺ said:

“There will surely be among my Ummah people who will regard unlawful sexual relations, silk, wine, and maʿazif as lawful.” (Sahih Al Bukhari 5590. Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar, 10/51)

Ibn Hazm criticised this hadith by claiming that al Bukhari did not connect it, since he narrated it with the wording: “Hisham ibn Ammar said.” He treated this as a disconnected chain. Al Albani answers that this criticism is not accepted. Hisham ibn Ammar was one of al Bukhari’s shaykhs, and al Bukhari is not known for tadlis (concealing a narrator). When al Bukhari uses firm wording from one of his shaykhs, it has the ruling of connection, not disconnection.

Ibn al Salah (d. 643AH) said that its apparent appears disconnected, but its ruling is not the ruling of disconnection, and it does not leave the level of authentic. (Muqaddimah ʿUlum al Hadith by Ibn al Salah, pg 72)

Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) said that the report concerning instruments of amusement is authentic, narrated by al Bukhari in his Sahih in a suspended form with certainty, and it enters under his condition. (al Istiqamah by Ibn Taymiyyah, 1/294)

Ibn Hajar gave the most detailed answer. He explained that al Bukhari’s suspended reports with firm wording are authentic up to the one from whom he suspended them. He then connected this hadith through several routes in Taghliq al Taʿliq and said:

“This is an authentic hadith. It has no defect and no criticism against it.” (Taghliq al Taʿliq by Ibn Hajar, 5/21–22)

This means Ibn Hazm’s first criticism fails. The hadith is not weak due to disconnection. It is connected through other reliable routes as well.

The Hadith Was Narrated Through Several Connected Routes

Even if the wording of al Bukhari were assumed to be disconnected, this would not harm the hadith, because other huffaz narrated it with a connected chain from Hisham ibn Ammar.

Ibn Hibban narrated it through al Husayn ibn Abdullah al Qattan from Hisham ibn Ammar. (al Ihsan, 8/265/6719)

Al Tabarani narrated it through Musa ibn Sahl al Juni from Hisham ibn Ammar. (al Muʿjam al Kabir by al Tabarani, 3/319/3417)

Al Ismaʿili narrated it through al Hasan ibn Sufyan from Hisham ibn Ammar, and al Bayhaqi transmitted it through al Ismaʿili’s route. (al Sunan by al Bayhaqi, 10/221)

Abu Dawud also narrated a connected route from Bishr ibn Bakr from Abd al Rahman ibn Yazid ibn Jabir. (Sunan Abu Dawud 4039)

The wording of maʿazif (musical instruments) appears clearly in connected narrations through reliable huffaz, including the narration of Duhaym from Bishr ibn Bakr. (Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar, 10/56. Taghliq al Taʿliq by Ibn Hajar, 5/19)

So the claim that the hadith is disconnected is not only weak. It is also made pointless by the existence of connected routes.

The Doubt Over Abu Amir or Abu Malik Does Not Harm the Hadith

Ibn Hazm also objected because the Companion is mentioned with some uncertainty: Abu Amir or Abu Malik al Ashʿari. Al Albani answers that doubt over the exact name of a Companion does not weaken a hadith, because all the Companions are upright.

Ibn Hajar said:

“Doubt concerning the name of the Companion does not harm. Ibn Hazm criticised it with this, and it is rejected.” (Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar, 10/24)

The narrator Abd al Rahman ibn Ghanm was reliable and from the major Tabiʿin. He said about the Companion who narrated to him: “By Allah, he did not lie to me.” This makes the report even stronger, because he was reporting from someone he knew to have heard the Prophet ﷺ.

Al Bukhari himself preferred that the Companion was Abu Malik al Ashʿari, who is a known Companion. Ibn Hajar also leaned towards this. (Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar, 10/55)

So the second criticism also fails.

Ibn Hazm’s Own Principle Undermines His Objection

Al Albani then points out that Ibn Hazm himself stated a principle in al Ihkam which supports accepting the kind of narration he rejected here.

Ibn Hazm said that if an upright hafiz sometimes reports with full chain and sometimes mentions a report with shortened wording, this does not harm his narrations unless it is known with certainty that the specific hadith is disconnected. He said that whether the narrator says “informed us,” “from,” or “so and so from so and so,” it is accepted unless disconnection is known with certainty. (al Ihkam fi Usul al Ahkam by Ibn Hazm, 1/141)

According to this principle, al Bukhari’s wording “Hisham said” should be accepted, because al Bukhari heard from Hisham and was not known for concealing narrators. Thus, Ibn Hazm’s own rule weakens his criticism of this hadith.

Major Huffadh Graded the Hadith Authentic

Al Albani lists many imams who accepted the hadith of maʿazif (musical instruments) and graded it authentic or used it as proof.

Among them are al Bukhari, Ibn Hibban, al Ismaʿili, Ibn al Salah, al Nawawi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hajar, Ibn al Wazir, al Sakhawi, and al Amir al Sanʿani. (Daʿif al Adab al Mufrad by al Albani, introduction)

This makes Ibn Hazm’s view very weak in comparison. He was a great imam, but he was not from the leading specialists of hadith verification. Al Albani quotes Ibn Abd al Hadi (d. 744AH), who said that Ibn Hazm made many mistakes in authenticating hadiths, weakening them, and speaking about narrators.

This is why Al Albani says Ibn Hazm’s gradings are only accepted when they agree with the earlier imams, or at least when they do not oppose them.

Ibn Hazm Missed Other Authentic Reports

Ibn Hazm did not only misgrade some reports. He also missed other reports completely, or did not gather all their routes. This is an important part of the refutation.

The hadith of Anas ibn Malik رضي الله عنه says:

“Two sounds are cursed in this life and the Hereafter: a mizmar at a blessing, and wailing at a calamity.” (Kashf al Astar, 1/377/795. al Ahadith al Mukhtarah, 6/188/2200–2201)

Ibn Hazm said about this report: “It is not known who narrated it.” Al Albani answers that this is incorrect, because many imams narrated it from Anas and Abd al Rahman ibn Awf رضي الله عنهما. Al Tirmidhi graded the supporting narration good, and al Zaylaʿi and Ibn al Qayyim agreed with its strengthening. (Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 1005. Nasb al Rayah by al Zaylaʿi, 4/84. Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim, 1/254)

Ibn Taymiyyah described this hadith as one of the strongest proofs for forbidding singing, because it forbids the sound made at a blessing, just as it forbids wailing at calamity. (al Istiqamah by Ibn Taymiyyah, 1/292–293)

Another report is the hadith of Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما:

“Indeed Allah has forbidden for me, or He has forbidden, wine, gambling, and the kubah.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 3696. Musnad Ahmad, 1/274. Sahih Ibn Hibban, 5341)

The kubah (drum) was explained in the narration itself as “the drum.” Its chain is authentic through two routes from Qays ibn Hibter. Ibn Hazm called Qays unknown, but Al Albani answers that this was a mistake. Abu Zurʿah, Yaʿqub al Fashawi, Ibn Hibban, al Nasai, and Ibn Hajar declared him reliable. Shaykh Ahmad Shakir also graded the hadith authentic. (al Maʿrifah by al Fashawi, 3/194. al Thiqat by Ibn Hibban, 5/308. al Taqrib by Ibn Hajar. Musnad Ahmad with the checking of Ahmad Shakir, 4/158 and 4/218)

There is also the hadith of Abdullah ibn Amr رضي الله عنهما:

“Indeed Allah, Mighty and Majestic, forbade wine, gambling, the kubah, and al ghubayra. Every intoxicant is forbidden.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 3685. Musnad Ahmad, 2/158 and 2/170. al Tamhid by Ibn Abd al Barr, 5/167)

The hadith of Qays ibn Saʿd رضي الله عنه also supports the prohibition of the kubah and related instruments. (al Sunan by al Bayhaqi, 10/222. al Muʿjam al Kabir by al Tabarani, 13/15/20)

The hadith of Imran ibn Husayn رضي الله عنه mentions punishment in the Ummah when musical instruments appear, singing women become many, and wine is drunk. (Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 2213. Dhamm al Malahi by Ibn Abi al Dunya, leaf 1/2)

Al Albani also brings supporting reports from Rabiʿah al Jurashi, Abu Saʿid al Khudri, Abu Hurayrah, Ali, Abu Umamah, and Anas رضي الله عنهم. Some are weak individually, but together they strengthen the meaning that maʿazif (musical instruments), qiyan (singing women), and wine are causes of punishment, corruption, and religious decline.

Why Weak Routes Can Strengthen Each Other

A major part of the answer to Ibn Hazm is the hadith principle that weak reports are not all the same. A report with severe weakness is not like a report with light weakness. If several routes contain mild weakness and they are independent from one another, they can strengthen each other.

Ibn Taymiyyah explained that weak reports among the hadith scholars are of two types. One type is not so weak that it must be abandoned, and it resembles what al Tirmidhi calls hasan (good).

The other type is very weak and must be left. He also explained that many routes can strengthen one another until knowledge may be gained from them, especially when the narrators are not accused of lying. (Majmuʿ al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah, 18/25–26)

He also said that when mursal reports come through multiple routes and are safe from deliberate agreement or accidental agreement, they become authentic in meaning. (Majmuʿ al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah, 13/347)

Al Alai said that through combined strength, such narrations rise to hasan (good), because the fear caused by weak memory is removed when each route supports the other. (Jamiʿ al Tahsil by al Alai, pg 38)

This principle is important because Ibn Hazm treated many reports as though each weak chain must be thrown away on its own. Al Albani answers that this is not the way of the huffaz. The early imams preserved chains so that later scholars could compare, strengthen, and distinguish reports through iʿtibar (comparison), shawahid (supporting reports), and mutabaʿat (follow ups).

The Meaning of Maʿazif Covers Musical Instruments

The word maʿazif (musical instruments) is central to the proof. It is not restricted to one instrument. The books of language explain that maʿazif refers to instruments of amusement, such as the lute, tanbur, duff, and other instruments that are struck or played.

Ibn al Qayyim said:

“They are all instruments of amusement. There is no disagreement among the people of language on this.” (Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim)

Al Dhahabi (d. 748AH) said:

“Maʿazif is a name for all instruments of amusement that are played, such as the mizmar, tanbur, shabbabah, and cymbals.” (Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala by al Dhahabi, 21/158. Tadhkirat al Huffaz by al Dhahabi, 2/1337)

This shows that the hadith of al Bukhari is not speaking about one narrow musical case. It speaks about the category of maʿazif (musical instruments) generally.

The Wording “They Will Regard as Lawful” Proves Prohibition

The Prophet ﷺ said that some people from the Ummah will “regard as lawful” unlawful sexual relations, silk, wine, and maʿazif (musical instruments). This wording only makes sense if maʿazif are originally forbidden. If they were lawful, there would be no blame in regarding them as lawful.

Ibn al Qayyim explained that if maʿazif were lawful, the Prophet ﷺ would not have blamed people for regarding them as lawful, nor would he have joined them with wine, silk, and unlawful sexual relations. He also mentioned that the threat of sinking into the earth and transformation into apes and pigs applies to those actions, and each action has its share of blame. (Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim, 1/260–261)

Al Albani also answers the claim that the hadith only condemns gatherings where all the sins are combined together. This interpretation is false. If joining several sins in one hadith meant that each one is only forbidden when joined with the others, then unlawful sexual relations would only be forbidden when joined with wine and instruments. That is invalid by consensus.

Al Shawkani (d. 1250AH) answered in the same way. He said that joining several matters together does not mean that the prohibition applies only when they are all combined. Otherwise, one would have to say that lack of iman in Allah is only forbidden when joined with not urging the feeding of the poor, based on the Qur’an verses:

إِنَّهُ كَانَ لا يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ الْعَظِيمِ ۝ وَلا يَحُضُّ عَلَى طَعَامِ الْمِسْكِينِ

“Indeed, he did not believe in Allah, the Magnificent. And he did not urge the feeding of the poor.” (al Haqqah: 33–34)

(Nayl al Awtar by al Shawkani, 8/85)

The Meaning of Istihlal in the Hadith

Ibn Taymiyyah explained that istihlal (regarding something forbidden as lawful) in the hadith may happen through corrupt interpretations. If someone believes the Messenger ﷺ forbade something and still believes it is lawful, this is disbelief. However, some people regard things as lawful by changing names, making false distinctions, or using weak interpretations.

He said that their regarding wine as lawful resembles calling it by another name. Their regarding maʿazif as lawful may happen by claiming that instruments are only pleasant sounds like the melodies of birds. Their regarding silk as lawful may happen by wrongly extending the concession of silk in battle to all situations. (Ibtal al Tahlil by Ibn Taymiyyah, pg 20–21)

This is an important answer to those who try to escape the wording of the hadith through wordplay or narrow distinctions.

The Four Imams and the Majority Forbade Musical Instruments

After establishing the hadith evidence, Al Albani turns to the fiqh position of the ulama. Al Shawkani said that the majority forbade singing with instruments, using the hadiths as proof. (Nayl al Awtar by al Shawkani, 8/83)

Al Albani explains that the majority here means the four imams and those who followed the Salaf. Ibn Taymiyyah said that attributing permissibility of musical instruments to Ahl al Sunnah is a lie against the four imams. He said:

“They agree on the prohibition of maʿazif, which are instruments of amusement, such as the lute and similar things. If someone destroyed them according to them, he would not have to compensate the form of the destroyed item. Rather, possessing them is forbidden according to them.” (Minhaj al Sunnah by Ibn Taymiyyah, 3/439)

The claim that the people of Madinah were generally lenient does not include Imam Malik (d. 179AH). Malik was asked about what some people of Madinah permitted regarding singing. He said:

“Only the sinners among us do it.” (al Amr bil Maʿruf by al Khallal, pg 32. Talbis Iblis by Ibn al Jawzi, pg 244)

Ibrahim ibn al Mundhir, a Madani shaykh of al Bukhari, was asked whether singing was permissible. He said:

“Allah forbid. None does this among us except the sinners.” (al Amr bil Maʿruf by al Khallal, pg 32)

The reports from Shurayh, Said ibn al Musayyib, al Shaʿbi, Malik, and others show that the Salaf did not view musical instruments as harmless entertainment. They saw them as rejected and blameworthy.

Reports Used for Permission Are Either Weak, Unclear, or Answered

Some reports are quoted from certain imams or people of Madinah to suggest permissibility. Al Albani answers that even if some reports were authentic, they cannot oppose authentic hadiths. In many cases, their chains are unclear, their wording is doubtful, or opposite reports are authentic from the same people.

The story of Abdullah ibn Jaʿfar رضي الله عنه and the slave girl is not a clear proof for the lute. In one version, the instrument is called a duff, and in another it is called a lute. Ayyub al Sakhtiyani reported “duff,” while Hisham ibn Hassan reported “lute.” Al Albani prefers the narration of Ayyub because he was stronger and more precise in narrating from Ibn Sirin. (al Muhalla by Ibn Hazm, 9/62–63. Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala by al Dhahabi, 6/20)

The report about Shuʿbah hearing the tanbur in the house of al Minhal ibn Amr also does not prove permission. Shuʿbah rejected what he heard and left. The sound may have been without al Minhal’s knowledge. Al Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar both said that this does not require criticism of al Minhal. (al Duʿafa by al Uqayli, 4/237. al Mizan by al Dhahabi. Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar, introduction, pg 446)

So these reports do not overturn the hadith evidence or the position of the majority.

The Hadith of Aʿishah Does Not Prove General Permission

Ibn Hazm used the hadith of Aʿishah رضي الله عنها as proof that singing with the duff is permissible in an unrestricted way. In that hadith, two young girls were with Aʿishah on the day of Eid, singing about the day of Buʿath and playing the duff. Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه entered and said:

“The flute of Satan in the house of the Messenger ﷺ?”

The Prophet ﷺ said:

“Leave them, O Abu Bakr, for every people have an Eid, and this is our Eid.” (Sahih Al Bukhari 949. Sahih Muslim 892)

Al Albani answers that this hadith does not prove unrestricted permissibility. It is restricted by several matters. The singers were two young girls. The instrument was the duff. The occasion was Eid. The words were about courage and events of the Ansar, not love, lust, wine, or immoral themes.

The Prophet ﷺ did not reject Abu Bakr’s statement that it was the “flute of Satan.” Rather, he corrected Abu Bakr’s application of the rule in that specific situation. The original rule remained accepted, but Eid was an exception.

Abu al Tayyib al Tabari (d. 450AH) said that the hadith is proof for prohibition, because Abu Bakr called it the flute of Satan and the Prophet ﷺ did not reject that wording. He only stopped him from being harsh in rejection because it was Eid and Aʿishah was young. (Talbis Iblis by Ibn al Jawzi, 1/253–254)

Ibn Taymiyyah said that this was not the normal practice of the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions. Abu Bakr called it the flute of Satan, and the Prophet ﷺ gave the reason for the concession: it was Eid. (Risalat al Samaʿ wa al Raqs, within Majmuʿat al Rasail al Kubra, 2/285)

Ibn al Qayyim said that the Prophet ﷺ approved the two girls because they were young, not legally responsible, singing the song of the Bedouins about courage and war, and the day was Eid. (Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim, 1/257)

Ibn Hajar said that Abu Bakr acted upon what had been established with him concerning the prohibition of singing and amusement. The Prophet ﷺ then clarified that this specific situation was not to be rejected because it was a day of legislated joy. (Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar, 2/442)

So the hadith of Aʿishah is proof for a limited concession, not proof for the permissibility of music in general.

The Hadith of Ibn Umar Is About Hearing, Not Intentional Listening

Ibn Hazm also used the hadith of Ibn Umar رضي الله عنهما, where Ibn Umar heard a shepherd’s flute, placed his fingers in his ears, turned away from the road, and said that he had seen the Messenger ﷺ do the same. (Sunan Abu Dawud 4924–4926. Musnad Ahmad, 2/8 and 2/38. Sahih Ibn Hibban, 2013)

Ibn Hazm argued that if the flute were forbidden, the Prophet ﷺ would not have permitted Ibn Umar to hear it, and Ibn Umar would not have permitted Nafi to hear it.

Al Albani answers that Ibn Hazm missed the difference between samaʿ (unintentional hearing) and istimaʿ (intentional listening). The Sharia ruling relates to intentional listening, not a sound that reaches a person without choice.

Ibn Taymiyyah explained that command and prohibition relate to what a person intends and chooses. If a person passes by people speaking forbidden words and hears them without choice, there is no sin in the mere hearing. Blocking the ears is better, but the sin is in intentional listening. (Risalat al Samaʿ wa al Raqs, within Majmuʿat al Rasail al Kubra)

Al Albani also says that the shepherd may have been far away, unseen, unreachable, or not legally responsible. So the Prophet ﷺ not commanding him directly does not prove permissibility. At most, the hadith proves that the Prophet ﷺ disliked the sound and turned away from it. Ibn Umar followed him in that.

Ibn al Jawzi said:

“If this was their action regarding a sound that does not go beyond balance, then what about the singing and flutes of the people of this time?” (Talbis Iblis by Ibn al Jawzi, pg 247)

This is a strong answer. The hadith of Ibn Umar is not proof for permission. It is closer to proof that avoiding such sounds is better and more in line with following the Prophet ﷺ.

The Duff Has Specific Exceptions

Al Albani concludes that all musical instruments are forbidden except where a specific proof gives a concession. The clearest exception is the duff at weddings and Eid. The duff is different from other instruments, and the concession is not unrestricted.

Imam Ahmad distinguished between the duff and other instruments because reports came concerning its use in marriage. He did not treat the lute, tanbur, drum, and similar instruments like the duff. (al Amr bil Maʿruf by al Khallal, pg 28)

There is also the hadith of the black slave woman who vowed to beat the duff before the Prophet ﷺ if Allah returned him safely. The Prophet ﷺ said:

“If you had vowed, then do it. If you had not vowed, then do not do it.” (Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 3690. al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 1609 and 2261)

Al Albani does not take this as a general proof for all occasions of joy. He says it appears specific to the Prophet ﷺ, because the joy was over his safe return, and no one’s arrival is like his arrival. (al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 4/142 and 5/332–333)

Al Khattabi said that beating the duff is not an act of obedience by itself. But when it was joined to showing happiness at the safe return of the Messenger ﷺ, and that contained grief for the disbelievers and humiliation for the hypocrites, it took on a special meaning in that situation. (Maʿalim al Sunan by al Khattabi, 4/382)

So the concession remains restricted. It cannot be used to permit musical instruments generally.

Singing Without Instruments Has Its Own Ruling

Al Albani separates singing without instruments from singing with instruments. It is not correct to say that every form of singing without instruments is forbidden, because poetry itself is not forbidden. The Prophet ﷺ said:

“Indeed, some poetry contains wisdom.” (Sahih Al Bukhari 6145. al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 2851)

He ﷺ also said about poetry:

“It is speech. Its good is good, and its bad is bad.” (al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 447)

The Companions recited poetry, sang simple nasb poetry, chanted on journeys, and used poetry to encourage themselves during travel and battle. Examples are reported from Bilal, al Bara, Usamah ibn Zayd, Abdullah ibn al Zubayr, Abd al Rahman ibn Awf, and others. (Sahih Al Bukhari 3926. Sahih Muslim 1376. al Mustadrak by al Hakim, 3/291. Musannaf Abd al Razzaq, 19739–19743. al Sunan by al Bayhaqi, 10/224 and 10/230)

This kind of singing was simple, natural, and free from instruments, professional performance, immoral themes, swaying, and behaviour that removes dignity.

Aʿishah رضي الله عنها once saw a singer moving his head in an exaggerated way and said:

“Uff! A devil. Throw him out. Throw him out.” (al Adab al Mufrad by al Bukhari, 1247. al Sunan by al Bayhaqi, 10/223–224. Sahih al Adab al Mufrad by al Albani, 945)

This shows the difference between simple permitted chanting and the kind of singing that stirs desire, amusement, and loss of dignity.

Ibn al Jawzi explains that singing differs according to its content and effect. Chanting by pilgrims, fighters, travellers, camel drivers, and people of zuhd may be permissible when it does not stir unlawful desire or take the person out of balance. But professional singing that describes women, wine, lust, and amusement, especially with instruments, is blameworthy and forbidden. (Talbis Iblis by Ibn al Jawzi, pg 237–245)

Al Shatibi also explained that the early Arabs did not use refined musical systems like later singers. Their chanting was simple and natural, not the crafted musical singing that distracts hearts. (al Iʿtisam by al Shatibi, 1/368–370)

The Qur’an Verse on Distracting Speech and the Reports of the Salaf

A major proof for the wisdom behind the prohibition is the saying of Allah:

وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَشْتَرِي لَهْوَ الْحَدِيثِ لِيُضِلَّ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ وَيَتَّخِذَهَا هُزُواً أُولَئِكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ مُهِينٌ

“Among the people is one who buys distracting speech so that he may mislead from the path of Allah without knowledge, and takes it in mockery. For such people there is a humiliating punishment.” (Luqman: 6)

Several Salaf explained lahw al hadith (distracting speech) as singing and what resembles it.

Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما said:

“It came down concerning singing and what resembles it.” (al Adab al Mufrad by al Bukhari, 1265. Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, 6/310. Tafsir Ibn Jarir, 21/40. al Sunan by al Bayhaqi, 10/221 and 10/223)

Ibn Masʿud رضي الله عنه was asked about the verse and said:

“It is singing, by the One besides whom there is no deity.” He repeated it three times. (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah. Tafsir Ibn Jarir. al Mustadrak by al Hakim, 2/411. Shuʿab al Iman by al Bayhaqi, 4/278/5096. Talbis Iblis by Ibn al Jawzi, pg 246)

Al Hakim graded its chain authentic, and al Dhahabi agreed. Ibn al Qayyim also graded it authentic.

Ikrimah said that lahw al hadith means singing. (al Tarikh by al Bukhari, 2/2/217. Tafsir Ibn Jarir. Dhamm al Malahi by Ibn Abi al Dunya)

Mujahid also explained it as singing, and in one narration he said that amusement here means the drum. (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, 1167 and 1179. Tafsir Ibn Jarir. Dhamm al Malahi by Ibn Abi al Dunya. Hilyat al Awliya by Abu Nuʿaym, 3/286)

Al Wahidi said that most of the mufassirun are upon the view that distracting speech here means singing. (al Wasit by al Wahidi, 3/441)

These reports show that the Salaf understood singing and musical amusement as something that can distract from the path of Allah and the Qur’an.

Ibn Hazm’s Objection to the Verse Is Answered

Ibn Hazm argued that the verse only applies to someone who misleads from Allah’s path and takes Allah’s verses in mockery. He said such a person is a disbeliever by agreement. Al Albani answers that this is too narrow.

The blame in the verse has levels. The complete description applies to the worst case, but whoever takes a share of distracting speech and turns away from the Qur’an takes a share of the blame according to his level.

Ibn al Qayyim explained that the people of singing and its listeners have a share of this blame according to their being busy with singing away from the Qur’an, even if they do not receive all of it. If a person prefers singing to Qur’an, finds Qur’an heavy, asks the singer for more, and tires of recitation, then he has clearly taken a portion of this blame. (Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim, 1/240)

Ibn Atiyyah al Andalusi (d. 541AH) gave a similar answer. He said the verse remains relevant in the Ummah of Muhammad ﷺ, not necessarily as disbelief or mockery, but as wasting worship, cutting time with what is disliked, becoming disobedient, and having a deficient inner self. (al Muharrar al Wajiz by Ibn Atiyyah, 13/19)

This refutes Ibn Hazm’s claim that the verse has no proof against singing.

Singing Grows Hypocrisy in the Heart

Ibn Masʿud رضي الله عنه said:

“Singing grows hypocrisy in the heart.” (Dhamm al Malahi by Ibn Abi al Dunya, leaf 4/2. al Sunan by al Bayhaqi, 10/223. Shuʿab al Iman by al Bayhaqi, 4/278/5098–5099)

Al Albani explains that although the report comes through Ibrahim al Nakhaʿi from Ibn Masʿud, this form is accepted because Ibrahim said that when he says “Abdullah said,” he is narrating from more than one person from Abdullah ibn Masʿud. The unknown status of the intermediaries is repaired by their number, especially because they are from the shaykhs of Ibrahim and the Tabiʿin.

A similar meaning is reported from al Shaʿbi:

“Singing grows hypocrisy in the heart as water grows crops, and remembrance grows iman in the heart as water grows crops.” (Qadr al Salah by Ibn Nasr, pg 151/2–152/1)

Ibn al Qayyim explains that this shows the deep fiqh of the Companions regarding the illnesses of hearts. Singing affects the heart by turning it away from understanding the Qur’an, reflecting upon it, and acting upon it. The Qur’an calls to chastity, obedience, and avoiding desires. Singing calls to the opposite when it is connected to desire, amusement, and corrupt gatherings. (Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim, 1/248)

The Wisdom Behind the Prohibition

The wisdom behind forbidding maʿazif (musical instruments) and corrupt singing is that they distract from the remembrance of Allah, weaken attachment to the Qur’an, stir desires, and lead to sins. They take time, attention, and love away from worship and obedience.

The servant’s duty is to submit to Allah and His Messenger ﷺ whether the wisdom is known or not. Allah says:

فَلا وَرَبِّكَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجاً مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيماً

“No, by your Lord, they will not truly believe until they make you judge in what arises between them, then find within themselves no unease over what you have decided, and submit fully.” (al Nisa: 65)

The Companions lived upon this submission. When the Messenger ﷺ forbade something that appeared beneficial to them, they still obeyed. Zuhayr ibn Rafiʿ رضي الله عنه said:

“The Messenger ﷺ forbade us from something that was beneficial to us, but obedience to Allah and His Messenger is more beneficial to us.” (Sahih Muslim 1548. Irwa al Ghalil by al Albani, 5/299)

So the first wisdom is submission. The second wisdom is protection of the heart and religion. The third wisdom is preventing the means that lead to haram.

False Comparisons Do Not Make Music Lawful

Some compared music to the sounds of birds or the natural beauty of pleasing voices. Al Albani answers, following Ibn al Qayyim, that this is a false qiyas (analogy), because there is no qiyas when a text exists.

Ibn al Qayyim explains that two things may be lawful separately but become harmful when joined together. Water and dates are lawful, but when they become intoxicating nabidh, the ruling changes. Likewise, poetry alone may be lawful, and a pleasant voice alone may be lawful, but when arranged with musical rhythm, crafted melodies, and instruments, it can produce a new effect that intoxicates the heart and turns it away from Allah. (Masalat al Samaʿ by Ibn al Qayyim, pg 270–271)

This answers the claim that music is only sound. The Sharia looks at causes, effects, and what things lead to. Musical instruments and crafted singing do not have the same effect as birdsong or ordinary speech.

Preventing the Means to Harm

Ibn al Qayyim applies the principle of sadd al dhara’iʿ (preventing the means to harm). Some things are forbidden because they are harmful in themselves. Other things are forbidden because they lead to harm.

He explains that looking at unrelated women without need and listening to their voices with desire are forbidden because they lead to greater harms. The same applies to musical listening when it leads to desire, heedlessness, and the weakening of religion.

He says that a person who only looks at the outer form of the matter may ask: what harm is there in a pleasant sound or a beautiful image? But the wise Lawgiver forbids not only harms, but also the means that lead to harms. If the Lawgiver forbade the harm but left all its causes open, this would not be wisdom. Allah’s Sharia is far above contradiction. (Masalat al Samaʿ by Ibn al Qayyim, pg 167–168)

Ibn al Qayyim concludes that musical listening can be more harmful than wine in some cases. The intoxication of wine may leave quickly, but the intoxication of musical listening may remain in the heart and continue pulling it away from Allah. (Masalat al Samaʿ by Ibn al Qayyim, pg 168)

How Music Turns People Away From the Qur’an

Al Albani gives a practical example. He saw a young man sitting in the masjid during the Jumuʿah khutbah, tapping his fingers on the ground as though listening to a song. Al Albani signalled to him to stop and listen. This showed how musical habits can remain in a person even during worship and distract him from remembrance.

Allah says:

وَإِذَا قُرِئَ الْقُرْآنُ فَاسْتَمِعُوا لَهُ وَأَنْصِتُوا لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ

“When the Qur’an is recited, listen to it and remain silent so that you may receive mercy.” (al Aʿraf: 204)

Al Albani says that music and musical habits turn people away from the Qur’an and from listening to it properly. This is part of the meaning of lahw al hadith (distracting speech).

Conclusion

Ibn Hazm’s ruling depended on his claim that no authentic hadith exists forbidding maʿazif (musical instruments). Al Albani’s answer is that this claim is not correct.

The hadith of al Bukhari is authentic. Its routes are connected. Its wording clearly mentions maʿazif. The uncertainty over Abu Amir or Abu Malik does not harm it. The hadith has been accepted by major huffaz. Other hadiths also forbid the mizmar (flute), kubah (drum), qiyan (singing women), and other instruments. Ibn Hazm either misgraded some of them, missed some of them, or did not gather their routes.

The hadiths point to prohibition.

The language of maʿazif includes musical instruments generally. The wording “they will regard as lawful” shows that they are originally forbidden. The four imams and the majority of the ulama held the prohibition of instruments. The reports used for permission are either restricted, unclear, weak, or misunderstood.

The hadith of Aʿishah رضي الله عنها proves a specific concession for young girls with the duff on Eid. It does not prove general permission. The hadith of Ibn Umar رضي الله عنهما concerns unintentional hearing, not intentional listening. It does not prove permission either.

Singing without instruments is not all one ruling. Simple poetry, camel driving chants, battle chants, travel chants, and zuhd poetry may be permissible when they remain within proper limits. But professional singing that stirs desire, corrupts dignity, distracts from Allah, and is joined with instruments is forbidden.

The wisdom behind the prohibition is clear. Music and corrupt singing distract the heart from the Qur’an, remembrance, salah, obedience, and modesty. They stir desire and heedlessness. They grow hypocrisy in the heart, as Ibn Masʿud رضي الله عنه said. They are a means to further harm, and the Sharia prevents harmful means before they lead to greater corruption.

The proper path is submission to the proof, following the Sunnah, and not replacing the guidance of the Prophet ﷺ with weak interpretations, selective reports, or false comparisons.

End of Summary.

Taḥrīm Ālāt al Ṭarab by al Albānī_removed

The Response to Ibn Hazm’s Treatise and the Reason for the Response

I had come across a treatise on distracting singing, asking whether it is permissible or forbidden, by Imam Ibn Hazm al Zahiri (d. 456AH), among a group of his treatises edited by Dr Ihsan Rashid Abbas (d. 1424AH), printed by Dar al Hana in Bulaq, Egypt. In it, the imam brought the hadiths that prohibit singing and musical instruments, and they are more than ten. He graded all of them weak, then concluded after them, on page 97, by saying:

فَصَّلَ لَكُمْ مَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ ۝ هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مَا فِي الْأَرْضِ جَمِيعاً

“He has clearly explained to you what He has forbidden for you.” (al Anʿam 119)

“He is the One who created for you all that is on the earth.” (al Baqarah 29)

The Messenger ﷺ said, through the route of Saʿd ibn Abi Waqqas, and its route is established:

“Among the people who commit the greatest crime in Islam is a man who asks about something that was not forbidden, then it becomes forbidden because of his asking.” (The word “Abi” is omitted from the original. Reported by the two Shaykhs and others with similar wording. Al Albani referenced it in al Silsilah al Sahihah, 3276.)

So it is correct that everything Allah Most High has forbidden for us, He has clearly explained it to us. Whatever He has not clearly explained as forbidden is lawful.

Al Albani said: This conclusion is something a scholar has no room except to accept, if the premise is sound. The premise is his grading weak all the hadiths that prohibit it. Far from it. Far from it. Some of what he graded weak from them is authentic according to all the scholars, and they agreed upon rejecting his view, as was already pointed to. Some other reports were hidden from him in chain and wording, or in chain only, while they are also authentic. One of them was mentioned earlier during the response to Shaykh Abu Zahrah (d. 1394AH), on page 12, and Shaykh al Ghazali (d. 1416AH), and his following Ibn Hazm, on page 29.

To make these scholarly realities clear, which were hidden from many callers, I wrote this treatise, hoping from Allah, Blessed and Most High, that He will benefit by it everyone who hopes for the Hereafter and strives for it with its proper striving. I have made it into eight chapters:

Chapter 1: Mentioning the authentic hadiths on the prohibition of singing instruments and musical instruments. Page 36.
Chapter 2: Explaining the words used in the hadiths. Page 75.
Chapter 3: Responding to Ibn Hazm and others who criticised any of them. Page 80.
Chapter 4: The indication of the hadiths that musical instruments are forbidden in all their forms. Page 92.
Chapter 5: The madhhahib of the scholars on the prohibition of instruments. Page 98.
Chapter 6: The doubts of those who permit them and the answer to them. Page 106.
Chapter 7: Singing without an instrument. Page 126.
Chapter 8: The wisdom behind the prohibition of singing. Page 137.

Once this is clear, let us now begin, with the guidance and help of Allah Most High, to explain the chapters mentioned. Al Albani said:

Mentioning the Authentic Hadiths on the Prohibition of Singing Instruments and Musical Instruments

Know, my Muslim brother, that the hadiths reported on this are very many. Their number passed ten according to Ibn Hazm and Ibn al Qayyim (d. 751AH). They are so many that whoever looks at them as a whole will know that the meaning upon which their wordings agree, namely prohibition, is established from him ﷺ with certainty, even if it were assumed that the chain of every single one of them has a hidden weakness, as Ibn Hazm claimed.

This is because of the agreed rule among the hadith scholars and the ulama: a weak hadith is strengthened by many routes, as is explained in the science of hadith terminology. By this rule, al Hafiz Ibn Hajar (d. 852AH) and others strengthened the hadith:

“The ears are part of the head.”

He did this in his valuable book al Nukat ʿala Ibn al Salah by Ibn Hajar. He brought it there from four Companions and explained its weaknesses (al Nukat ʿala Ibn al Salah by Ibn Hajar, 1/410–415). He then ended it by saying:

“When the fair person looks at all these routes together, he knows that the hadith has a basis, and that it is not something to be discarded. They have graded many hadiths as good through routes weaker than these. And Allah knows best.”

I had already referenced these routes and more in the first volume of Silsilat al Ahadith al Sahihah, number 56. One of our noble brothers, may Allah reward him with good, followed up some of them. Even so, I kept the hadith in this series because of its routes. See the second correction at the end of the volume in its new printing.

I had decided to bring all of them, hadith by hadith, to reference them with exact scholarly hadith work, speak about their chains, and distinguish what is authentic from what is not authentic, according to the principles of this noble science. I also intended to mention their wordings that indicate what we have mentioned. Then it became clear to me that doing that would make the speech very long, and that the treatise would become large and exceed the size I wanted for it. So I limited myself from those hadiths to six of them, because they are authentic according to the principles already mentioned. Most of them are authentic in themselves, and some have more than one route.

As for the other hadiths, whoever wishes to look into them will find them with Ibn al Qayyim al Jawziyyah in his valuable book Ighathat al Lahfan min Masayid al Shaytan by Ibn al Qayyim, in the following pages of the first volume: 239, 248, 251, 254, 256, and 261–265.

(Then, while I was about to finish making a clean copy of this treatise, one of the brothers gave me a book titled Ahadith Dhamm al Ghina wa al Maʿazif fi al Mizan by the brother Abdullah ibn Yusuf al Judayʿ. I found it to be a valuable book that gathers the hadiths and reports of this subject in a way that, as far as I know, no one had done before, along with scholarly hadith criticism of each report. This is something rarely found even in earlier books of hadith referencing, while he also remained committed to the principles of this noble science. It is enough proof for the reader of what I have said that the total number of his hadiths and reports is close to one hundred. Eight of them are authentic hadiths. Seventy are weak hadiths, most of them very weak. Eighteen are stopped reports, some of which are authentic. By this, the noble brother carried out what I had decided to do, namely speaking on all the hadiths of this subject, and more. May Allah reward him with good.

However, I had hoped that he would be precise in grading them weak, and that he would mix the hadiths of permission with the hadiths of prohibition to make it easier for readers to understand them and distinguish one from the other, especially since he did not speak about them from the fiqh side and did not explain their indications, such as the hadith of Aʿishah and the hadith of Ibn Umar, which Ibn Hazm used as proof for permission. The answer to them will come, if Allah Most High wills, on pages 106, 115, 116, and 119.

Also, I wished that he had included among the hadiths he regarded as authentic, number 7, which will come here on page 51 as the second hadith. Even though he graded its chain and the chain of its supporting report mentioned there as weak, and it is with him as number 6, their weakness is not severe. So it falls under the rule of weak reports being strengthened by supporting reports, as is established among the scholars. He pointed to this rule in the introduction to his book, page 17, especially since he said at the end of his referencing: “I had previously graded this hadith of his as good,” meaning the hadith of Shabib from Anas, “before I looked carefully at its matter, being taken in by the saying of some people of knowledge.”

Al Albani said: At the very least, he should grade it good because of the supporting report mentioned, even if he does not grade it authentic. Rather, that is required of him after he mentioned a reliable narrator who followed it from Anas, and al Bukhari used him as proof, even if the one pointed to accused him of tadlis (concealing a narrator) following Ibn Hibban. Al Hafiz rejected that and a group of huffaz strengthened the hadith, as you will see there. Also, he included among his authentic hadiths, page 50, number 6: “He forbade the earning of the zammarah,” through the narration of Abu Ubaydah in Gharib al Hadith. What he missed at the end of it is the saying of Hajjaj, one of its narrators: “The zammarah means the adulteress.” Al Albani said: This prevents it from being placed among the hadiths on singing, even if the wording zammarah could mean that linguistically, because it is the feminine of zammar, meaning one who plays the mizmar (flute). However, I notice that there is a close connection between adultery and wind instruments. For this reason it was said: “Singing is the charm of adultery.” But this is not necessarily the case. And Allah knows best. The hadith is in al Silsilah al Sahihah, 3275.)

The First Hadith

From Abu Amir or Abu Malik al Ashʿari, who said:

“There will surely be among my Ummah people who will regard unlawful sexual relations, silk, wine, and maʿazif (musical instruments) as lawful.

Some people will surely settle beside a mountain. Their shepherd will go out to them in the evening with their flock. A person will come to them for a need, and they will say: ‘Come back to us tomorrow.’ Allah will cause them to be destroyed at night and will bring the mountain down. He will transform others into apes and pigs until the Day of Resurrection.” (Meaning, someone seeking a need, as in the narration of al Ismaʿili in his Mustakhraj.)

Al Bukhari (d. 256AH) mentioned it in his Sahih in a suspended form, with wording of certainty, using it as proof. He said in the Book of Drinks (Sahih Al Bukhari 5590. Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar, 10/51):

Hisham ibn Ammar said: Sadaqah ibn Khalid narrated to us. Abd al Rahman ibn Yazid ibn Jabir narrated to us. Atiyyah ibn Qays al Kilabi narrated to us. Abd al Rahman ibn Ghanm al Ashʿari narrated to me. He said: Abu Amir or Abu Malik al Ashʿari narrated to me, and by Allah, he did not lie to me, that he heard the Prophet ﷺ say it. Then he mentioned it.

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) said in al Istiqamah by Ibn Taymiyyah (1/294):

“The instruments of entertainment have an authentic report concerning them, which al Bukhari narrated in his Sahih in a suspended form, with certainty, and it enters under his condition.”

Al Albani said: This type of suspended narration has the outer appearance of suspension, as al Hafiz al Iraqi (d. 806AH) said in his referencing of this hadith in al Mughni ʿan Haml al Asfar by al Iraqi (2/271). This is because the usual case with suspended hadiths is that they are cut off between the author who suspends them and the one he mentions. Suspended narrations have many known forms. This narration is not from those forms, because Hisham ibn Ammar is one of al Bukhari’s shaykhs whom he used as proof in his Sahih in more than one hadith, as al Hafiz explained in his biography in the introduction to Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar. Since al Bukhari is not known for tadlis (concealing narrators), his wording in this hadith, “he said,” has the ruling of his saying, “from,” or “he narrated to me,” or “he said to me,” contrary to what the weakener of authentic hadiths, Ibn Abd al Mannan, said, as will come.

Similar to the wording of al Iraqi mentioned is the saying of Ibn al Salah (d. 643AH) in Muqaddimah ʿUlum al Hadith by Ibn al Salah (page 72):

“Its outer appearance is the appearance of disconnection, but its ruling is not the ruling of disconnection, and it does not leave the level of authentic into weak.”

Then he responded to Ibn Hazm’s criticism of it as disconnected.

The point is that the hadith is not disconnected between al Bukhari and his shaykh Hisham, as Ibn Hazm claimed, and as some contemporaries who followed him claimed. Its explanation will come in the mentioned chapter, if Allah Most High wills.

Even if it were assumed that it is disconnected, then that would be a relative weakness and it is not permissible to hold on to it, because it has come connected through the routes of a group of reliable huffaz who heard it from Hisham ibn Ammar. Whoever clings to disconnection in this situation is clearly being stubborn, like someone who grades a hadith weak although it has an authentic chain, because he clings to another weak chain for it.

So let us mention what I found from those reliable narrators in the original sources available to us, then we will refer regarding the others to the commentaries and other works.

First: Ibn Hibban (d. 354AH) said in his Sahih (al Ihsan, 8/265/6719): Al Husayn ibn Abdullah al Qattan narrated to us. He said: Hisham ibn Ammar narrated to us with it until the words “musical instruments.”

This al Qattan is a reliable hafiz, given a biography in Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala by al Dhahabi (d. 748AH) (14/287).

Second: Al Tabarani (d. 360AH) said in al Muʿjam al Kabir (3/319/3417), and Daʿlaj (d. 351AH) said in Musnad al Muqillin, in the selected part of it narrated by al Dhahabi (1–2/1): Musa ibn Sahl al Juni al Basri narrated to us. Hisham ibn Ammar narrated to us with it, like the narration of al Bukhari.

Through the route of al Tabarani, al Diya al Maqdisi (d. 643AH) narrated it in Muwafaqat Hisham ibn Ammar by al Diya al Maqdisi (leaf 37/1–2).

This Musa is also a reliable hafiz. He is given a biography in Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala by al Dhahabi (14/261). Daʿlaj also paired with him Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Mihran al Ismaʿili, and he is a reliable, firm hafiz. He is not al Ismaʿili (d. 371AH), the author of the Mustakhraj.

Third: Al Tabarani said in Musnad al Shamiyyin (1/334/588): Muhammad ibn Yazid ibn al Asl narrated to us, from Abd al Samad al Dimashqi: Hisham ibn Ammar narrated to us with it.

This Muhammad ibn Yazid is given a biography in Tarikh Dimashq by Ibn Asakir (d. 571AH) (16/124), with a group narrating from him, and he mentioned that he died in the year 269.

Fourth: Al Ismaʿili said in al Mustakhraj ʿala al Sahih, and through his route al Bayhaqi (d. 458AH) narrated it in his Sunan (10/221): Al Hasan ibn Sufyan narrated to us. Hisham ibn Ammar narrated to us with it.

Al Hasan ibn Sufyan, the Khurasani, Naysaburi, was a firm hafiz from the shaykhs of Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311AH), Ibn Hibban, and other huffaz. He is given a biography in Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala by al Dhahabi (14/157–162) and in Tadhkirat al Huffaz by al Dhahabi.

There are four others who heard it from Hisham. Al Hafiz referenced them in Taghliq al Taʿliq by Ibn Hajar (5/17–19), and al Dhahabi narrated from some of them in Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala by al Dhahabi (21/157 and 23/7).

Then Hisham was not alone in narrating it. Neither was his shaykh Sadaqah ibn Khalid alone. Rather, both were followed by others. Abu Dawud (d. 275AH) said in his Sunan (Sunan Abu Dawud 4039): Abd al Wahhab ibn Najdah narrated to us. Bishr ibn Bakr narrated to us, from Abd al Rahman ibn Yazid ibn Jabir, with the previous chain from Abu Amir or Abu Malik, raised to the Prophet ﷺ, with the wording:

“There will surely be among my Ummah people who regard khazz and silk as lawful.” He mentioned some words and then said: “Some of them will be transformed into apes and pigs until the Day of Resurrection.”

Al Albani said: This is an authentic connected chain, as Ibn al Qayyim said in Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim (1/260), following his shaykh in Ibtal al Tahlil by Ibn Taymiyyah (page 27). However, it does not include the explicit wording of the point of proof. Rather, he pointed to it with his saying, “and he mentioned some words.” It came explicitly in the narration of two other reliable huffaz.

One of them is Abd al Rahman ibn Ibrahim, nicknamed Duhaym (d. 245AH). He said: Bishr narrated to us with the earlier wording of al Bukhari:

“They regard unlawful sexual relations, silk, wine, and musical instruments as lawful.”

He then mentioned the hadith.

Abu Bakr al Ismaʿili narrated it in al Mustakhraj ʿala al Sahih, as in Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar (10/56) and Taghliq al Taʿliq by Ibn Hajar (5/19). Through the route of al Ismaʿili, al Bayhaqi narrated it in al Sunan by al Bayhaqi (3/272).

The other is Isa ibn Ahmad al Asqalani. He said: Bishr ibn Bakr narrated to us with it, except that he said “khazz” with the dotted letters. The stronger wording is with the undotted letters, as in the narration of al Bukhari and others. See Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar (10/55).

Ibn Asakir narrated it in Tarikh Dimashq by Ibn Asakir (19/152) through the route of al Hafiz Abu Said al Haytham ibn Kulayb al Shashi: Isa ibn Ahmad al Asqalani narrated to us with it in a lengthy form. (He has a good biography in al Tahdhib, and a group of earlier and later scholars declared him reliable, among them al Nasai, al Khalili, and al Hafiz.)

This route is something al Hafiz missed, so he did not mention it in Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar, nor even in Taghliq al Taʿliq by Ibn Hajar. Praise belongs to Allah for His guidance, and I ask Him for more from His bounty.

On this occasion, Al Albani said:

The weakener of authentic hadiths, whom I pointed to a short while ago, exposed himself when he tried to grade this hadith of al Bukhari weak from all its routes and follow ups, using strange twisted ways that do not come from someone who fears Allah, or at least feels shame before people. His deception, concealment, opposition to scholarly principles and the gradings of the critics from the huffaz of the Ummah, and his preferring his own ignorance over their knowledge, became clear in an article he published in the Jordanian newspaper al Ribat. (1/369–370. Then he repeated that in his commentary, by which he ruined the book Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim.)

I answered him in detail at the end of the first volume of Silsilat al Ahadith al Sahihah, in the new printing, in correction number 3. It has been published, and to Allah Most High belongs praise and favour. I had pointed to some of that in the introduction to my new book Daʿif al Adab al Mufrad by al Albani (pages 14–16). I therefore think it is necessary here to summarise some important points, so that it may be a lesson for whoever wishes to take a lesson. Perhaps he may be one of them.

He followed Ibn Hazm in criticising the hadith as disconnected between al Bukhari and his shaykh Hisham. He turned away from the correct response of the huffaz against him out of arrogance and pride. He even added to him by inventing a weakness from himself that not even Ibn Hazm, whom he followed, had mentioned. He claimed that the narration of Atiyyah ibn Qays is unknown, opposing by this all the huffaz who gave him a biography and declared him reliable. He also opposed more than ten huffaz who clearly said that the hadith is authentic and that its chain is strong. The majority of them responded to Ibn Hazm, whom this follower then followed, while he knew all of that, according to the proverb: “A goat, even if it flies.”

He claimed that al Bukhari’s wording, “So and so said to me,” is like his wording, “So and so said,” and that both have the ruling of disconnection. So he attributed clear tadlis to al Bukhari, something no sensible person would accept for himself, not even this offender against himself by himself. Otherwise, it would be binding upon him that he himself should not be believed when he says in his own speech, “So and so said to me.” We seek refuge in Allah from ignorance, self admiration, delusion, and abandonment.

Among that is that he clearly denied the presence of the word “musical instruments” in the narration of al Bayhaqi and Ibn Hajar in the hadith of Bishr ibn Bakr, while it is there, as you have seen. (Al Albani said: And he insisted on that in the commentary I pointed to a short while ago, without the slightest shame or embarrassment.) He also ignored the earlier narration of Ibn Asakir, which contains the mentioned wording. He did not mention it at all, although he knew about it, because he saw it in Silsilat al Ahadith al Sahihah, upon which he poured his response while grading this hadith weak. There are other unfortunate matters and shameful acts. We ask Allah for safety.

Furthermore, Atiyyah ibn Qays, who is reliable despite the stubborn weakener, was not alone in narrating it. Rather, two others followed him.

The first of them is Malik ibn Abi Maryam. He said, from Abd al Rahman ibn Ghanm, that he heard Abu Malik al Ashʿari narrating from the Prophet ﷺ, who said:

“People from my Ummah will surely drink wine, calling it by another name. Musical instruments and singing girls will be played over their heads. Allah will cause the earth to swallow them, and He will make some of them apes and pigs.”

Al Bukhari narrated it in al Tarikh (1/1/305). He said: Abdullah ibn Salih narrated to us. He said: Muawiyah ibn Salih narrated to me, from Hatim ibn Hurayth, from Malik ibn Abi Maryam with it.

He also said in the biography of Kaʿb ibn Asim al Ashʿari: His kunyah is Abu Malik, and it is said that the name of Abu Malik is also Amr. He has companionship. He said: Abu Salih said to me, from Muawiyah ibn Salih with it in summary form.

Ibn Majah narrated it in full (Sunan Ibn Majah 4020), as did Ibn Hibban (Mawarid al Zaman, 1384), al Bayhaqi (8/295 and 10/231), Ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235AH) in al Musannaf (8/107/3810), Ahmad (Musnad Ahmad, 5/342), al Mahamili in al Amali (101/611), Ibn al Arabi in his Muʿjam (leaf 182/1), al Tabarani in al Muʿjam al Kabir (3/320–321), Ibn Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq (16/229–230), and al Hafiz in Taghliq al Taʿliq by Ibn Hajar (5/20–21), through routes from Muawiyah ibn Salih with it.

Al Albani said: The men of this chain are reliable apart from Malik, for he is not known except through the narration of Hatim from him. So he is unknown. For this reason al Hafiz said about him: “Acceptable,” meaning when he has follow up, as here. Even so, Ibn Hibban mentioned him in al Thiqat by Ibn Hibban (5/386). Perhaps this is the basis for al Mundhiri’s silence in al Targhib by al Mundhiri (3/187) over Ibn Hibban’s grading it authentic. That is why he introduced it with “from.” Likewise, Ibn al Qayyim said in two places in Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim (1/347 and 1/361):

“This chain is authentic.”

Ibn Taymiyyah graded it good, as will come.

Yes, the hadith is authentic by what has preceded, and by the following follow up. The sentence about transformation has many supporting reports in al Silsilah al Sahihah, 1887.

As for the saying of the deluded weakener, who was not satisfied in weakening this chain with the unknown narrator mentioned, which I had clearly said in al Sahihah, 90, but added to that doubt about the reliability of Hatim ibn Hurayth, saying at the end of his article which was already pointed to:

“Hatim has weakness, and there is a matter to look into concerning him, namely his unknown status.”

Al Albani said: Let the reader reflect on this showy wording or philosophising. The last sentence, “unknown status,” is what some imams said, and it is not relied upon, as its explanation will come. As for what came before it, it is empty talk, sophistry, or concealment, because not one of the imams graded him weak or said, “There is a matter to look into concerning him.” The most that was mentioned about him is the saying of Ibn Maʿin (d. 233AH): “I do not know him.”

Even so, his student Uthman ibn Said al Darimi (d. 280AH), the imam and hafiz, rejected that and said in his Tarikh from Ibn Maʿin (101/287):

I said: How is Hatim ibn Hurayth al Tai? He said: “I do not know him.”

Uthman then said after it: “He is a reliable Shami.”

Al Albani said: It is established among the scholars that whoever knows is proof over whoever does not know. Ibn Adi (d. 365AH) said in al Kamil by Ibn Adi (2/439) about him:

“Because of the fewness of his hadiths, Yahya did not know him. I hope there is no harm in him.”

So these two imams knew the man and declared him reliable. Added to them is Ibn Hibban’s declaring him reliable (al Thiqat by Ibn Hibban, 4/178), and the saying of Ibn Saʿd (d. 230AH): “He was known,” meaning known for uprightness, as I verified in the correction that was pointed to earlier.

So what made this deluded person, whom love of fame has destroyed, even if through criticising the hadiths of the Messenger ﷺ, oppose the scholarly and logical rule: “Whoever knows is proof over whoever does not know”?

Part of his complete concealment and his attack against me is his saying after what was quoted from him earlier:

“One whose matter is improved is not like one about whom speech has been made.”

He is pointing to my declaring him reliable through my general wording in the place referred to in al Sahihah:

Al Albani said: Its men are reliable, apart from Malik ibn Abi Maryam.

Once this is known, his saying reminded me of the famous proverb:

“She accused me of her disease and slipped away.”

That is because the phrase “his matter is improved” means declaring reliable. However, he turned away from saying this, because if he had been clear and said, “One who is declared reliable is not like one about whom speech has been made,” that would have fallen upon al Darimi and Ibn Adi, because they are the ones who declared him reliable, as already mentioned. So he turned away from it to that phrase out of scheming and concealment, making the readers think that I was alone in improving his matter. The reality, as you have seen, is that I am following, while he is innovating.

His phrase, “one about whom speech has been made,” only means the earlier saying of Ibn Maʿin: “I do not know him.” It only means that he did not know him with criticism or uprightness. This is not criticism and not weakening. It is not correct to say about it, in the terminology of the scholars, “speech has been made about him.”

So the earlier saying of the innovator, “he has weakness,” opposes this saying of Ibn Maʿin, let alone the saying of those who declared him reliable. Therefore, he opposes all the sayings of the imams concerning him. So the mentioned proverb is true about him, and so is its like:

“Whoever digs a well for his brother falls into it.”

I apologise to the noble readers for this length and similar matters, although we have no need of them, were it not for responding to the enemies of the authentic Sunnah, and uncovering their falsehood and the ways of their concealment.

As for the other follow up, it is Ibrahim ibn Abd al Hamid ibn Dhi Himayah, from someone who informed him, from Abu Malik al Ashʿari or Abu Amir:

“I heard the Prophet ﷺ regarding wine and musical instruments.”

This is how al Bukhari narrated it in the biography of this Ibrahim in al Tarikh al Kabir. He said (1/1/304–305): Sulayman ibn Abd al Rahman said it to me. He said: al Jarrah ibn Malih al Himsi narrated to us. He said: Ibrahim narrated to us.

Al Albani said: This is a strong follow up to Malik ibn Abi Maryam and Atiyyah ibn Qays, because he is from their level. If the one who informed him is Abd al Rahman ibn Ghanm, then he is following them, as is apparent. If he is someone else, then he is a hidden Tabiʿi (Follower) who follows Ibn Ghanm. Whether it is this or that, it is a strong chain in supporting reports and follow ups. Its men are all reliable, except for the one who informed him. They are all given biographies in al Tahdhib, apart from Ibrahim ibn Abd al Hamid, and he is reliable and known through the narration of a group of reliable narrators from him in Tarikh Ibn Asakir by Ibn Asakir (1/454–455) and elsewhere, and through the declaring of him reliable by a group of huffaz.

Abu Zurʿah al Razi (d. 264AH) said:

“There is no harm in him.”

Al Tabarani said in al Muʿjam al Saghir:

“He was among the reliable Muslims.”

Ibn Hibban knew him well, so he mentioned him in al Thiqat, gave him the kunyah Abu Ishaq, and said (6/13):

“He was from the fuqaha (jurists) of the people of al Sham. He served as judge of Hims. He narrates from Ibn al Munkadir and Humayd al Tawil. Al Jarrah ibn Malih and the people of his city narrated from him. At the end of his life, he moved to Antarsus and died there while stationed in ribat (guarding the frontier).”

These are the sayings of our imams about this Ibrahim, in approving him and declaring him reliable. So what was the position of the weakener of authentic hadiths towards them? He turned blind to all of them and gave them no value, as is his habit. He innovated from himself a view concerning him which no one before him had said. He said at the end of his article pointed to earlier:

“There is a matter to look into concerning Ibrahim. He is given a biography by al Bukhari, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Ibn Hibban.” (He also said the same in his commentary which I pointed to a short while ago. May Allah guide him.)

The summary of speech about this first hadith is that its route revolves around Abd al Rahman ibn Ghanm, and he is reliable by agreement. Qays ibn Atiyyah, who is reliable, narrated it from him, and the chain to him is authentic, as has preceded. Malik ibn Abi Maryam and Ibrahim ibn Abd al Hamid also narrated it, and he is reliable. All three of them mentioned maʿazif (musical instruments) among the forbidden matters whose prohibition is certain.

So whoever insists after this on grading the hadith weak is arrogant and stubborn. The saying of the Prophet ﷺ applies to him:

“No one will enter Paradise who has a mustard seed’s weight of arrogance in his heart.”

The hadith contains:

“Arrogance is rejecting the truth and looking down on people.”

It was reported by Muslim and others, and it is referenced in Ghayat al Maram by al Albani (98/114. Sahih Muslim 91).

The Second Hadith

From Anas ibn Malik رضي الله عنه, who said: The Messenger ﷺ said:

“Two sounds are cursed in this life and the Hereafter: a mizmar (flute) at a blessing, and wailing at a calamity.”

Al Bazzar narrated it in his Musnad (Kashf al Astar, 1/377/795). He said: Amr ibn Ali narrated to us. Abu Asim narrated to us. Shabib ibn Bishr al Bajali narrated to us. He said: I heard Anas ibn Malik say it.

Through the route of Abu Asim, whose name is al Dahhak ibn Makhlad (d. 212AH), Abu Bakr al Shafiʿi narrated it in al Rubaʿiyyat (2/22/1, manuscript of al Zahiriyyah), and al Diya al Maqdisi in al Ahadith al Mukhtarah (6/188/2200 and 2201).

Al Bazzar said:

“We do not know it from Anas except through this chain.”

It was also narrated by al Ajurri (d. 360AH) in Tahrim al Nard (201/63), al Baghawi (d. 516AH) in Sharh al Sunnah (5/430–431), al Tayalisi (d. 204AH) in his Musnad (1683), Ibn Saʿd in al Tabaqat (1/138), Ibn Abi Shaybah in al Musannaf (3/393), and Abd ibn Humayd (d. 249AH) in al Muntakhab min al Musnad (3/8/1044), through routes from Muhammad ibn Abd al Rahman ibn Abi Layla, from Ata, from Jabir. Some of them did not mention Abd al Rahman. It contains a story. Al Tirmidhi narrated it (Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 1005) from Jabir in summary form and said:

“The hadith is good.”

Meaning, because of other supporting reports, due to the condition of Ibn Abi Layla. Al Zaylaʿi (d. 762AH) agreed with him in Nasb al Rayah by al Zaylaʿi (4/84), as did Ibn al Qayyim in Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim (1/254). Al Hafiz remained silent over it in Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar (3/173 and 3/174), pointing to its being strengthened, as is his principle. Al Haythami (d. 807AH) said in Majmaʿ al Zawaid by al Haythami (3/17):

“Abu Yaʿla and al Bazzar narrated it, and in it is Muhammad ibn Abd al Rahman ibn Abi Layla, and there is speech about him.”

As for the saying of al Hafiz in al Dirayah by Ibn Hajar (2/172), after attributing it to a group of those we mentioned:

“Al Bazzar and Abu Yaʿla narrated it from another route. They said: from Jabir, from Abd al Rahman ibn Awf. Al Hakim narrated it through another route from Abd al Rahman ibn Awf.”

This may give the impression that it is with them through a route other than Ibn Abi Layla, but that is not the case. All that happened is that some of them placed it in the Musnad of Jabir from the Prophet ﷺ and mentioned Abd al Rahman in the story, while others placed it in the Musnad of Abd al Rahman himself, as has preceded. And Allah, Glorified and Most High, knows best. (Ibn al Qayyim made a mistake in Masalat al Samaʿ by Ibn al Qayyim, page 115, when he attributed it to al Bukhari in his Sahih from the hadith of Abd al Rahman ibn Awf, and the editor did not point it out. Al Bukhari only narrated from the hadith of Anas, in the story of the death of his son Ibrahim, and it does not contain the point of proof.)

Note: You have seen, noble reader, the large number of imams who narrated the hadith, in many sources, from the two noble Companions, Anas and Abd al Rahman. There is also a third Companion with a similar wording and an addition in its text, but I turned away from mentioning it because of the severe weakness of its chain. I referenced it in al Silsilah al Daʿifah by al Albani, 4095.

Despite all of this, Ibn Hazm said in his treatise (page 97):

“It is not known who narrated it.”

He confirmed that in his al Muhalla by Ibn Hazm, saying (9/57–58):

“We do not know any route for it. They only mentioned it like this without restriction, and this is nothing.”

This is among the many proofs for the correctness of the saying of al Hafiz Ibn Abd al Hadi (d. 744AH) about Ibn Hazm:

“He makes many mistakes when speaking about authenticating hadith, weakening it, and the conditions of narrators.”

I had quoted this from him in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani when speaking about Ibn Hazm grading weak the earlier hadith of al Bukhari.

From this, the intelligent readers know the ignorance of Shaykh al Ghazali regarding the levels of the scholars and their differences in specialisation, or his following his desire, when he relies on Ibn Hazm in grading weak all the hadiths forbidding musical instruments, while this is his state in this science.

Al Ghazali was not satisfied with this reliance. Rather, through deep ignorance, or to confirm his desire, he changed Ibn Hazm’s saying, “And this is nothing,” into his own wording, “Its chain is nothing.” The explanation of that has already passed in the introduction, pages 29 and 30, so we will not repeat the speech about it.

Ibn Taymiyyah said in his valuable book al Istiqamah by Ibn Taymiyyah (1/292–293):

“This hadith is among the strongest proofs used for the prohibition of singing, as in the famous wording from Jabir ibn Abdullah: ‘A sound at a blessing: amusement, play, and the flutes of Satan.’ So he forbade the sound done at a blessing, just as he forbade the sound done at a calamity. The sound at a blessing is the sound of singing.”

The Third Hadith

From Abdullah ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما, who said: The Messenger ﷺ said:

“Indeed Allah has forbidden for me, or He has forbidden, wine, gambling, and the kubah (drum). Every intoxicant is forbidden.”

Qays ibn Hibter al Nahshali narrated it from him through two routes.

The first: from Ali ibn Badhimah, who said: Qays ibn Hibter al Nahshali narrated to me from him.

Abu Dawud narrated it (Sunan Abu Dawud 3696), as did al Bayhaqi (10/221), Ahmad in al Musnad (Musnad Ahmad, 1/274) and in al Ashribah (193), Abu Yaʿla in his Musnad (2729), and from him Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (5341), Abu al Hasan al Tusi in al Arbaʿin (leaf 13/1, al Zahiriyyah), and al Tabarani in al Muʿjam al Kabir (12/101/12598 and 12599), through the route of Sufyan from Ali ibn Badhimah.

Sufyan said: I said to Ali ibn Badhimah: What is the kubah? He said: “The drum.”

The second: from Abd al Karim al Jazari, from Qays ibn Hibter, with the wording:

“Indeed Allah has forbidden upon them wine, gambling, and the kubah.”

Meaning, the drum. And he said:

“Every intoxicant is forbidden.”

Ahmad narrated it (Musnad Ahmad, 1/289 and al Ashribah, 14), as did al Tabarani (12601) and al Bayhaqi (10/213–221).

This is an authentic chain through both routes from this Qays. Abu Zurʿah, Yaʿqub in al Maʿrifah by al Fashawi (3/194), Ibn Hibban (5/308), al Nasai (d. 303AH), and al Hafiz in al Taqrib declared him reliable. Al Dhahabi in al Kashif by al Dhahabi limited himself to mentioning al Nasai declaring him reliable, and he approved it. For this reason, Shaykh Ahmad Shakir (d. 1377AH) graded it authentic in his commentary on the Musnad in both places (4/158 and 4/218).

Ibn Hazm was alone in departing from this and said in al Muhalla by Ibn Hazm (7/485): “Unknown.” This is despite the fact that a group of reliable narrators narrated from him.

This is one of the hadiths he missed, so he did not list it among the hadiths which he graded weak concerning the prohibition of musical instruments. Similar to it is what will come.

The Fourth Hadith

From Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al As رضي الله عنهما, that the Messenger ﷺ said:

“Indeed Allah, Mighty and Majestic, forbade wine, gambling, the kubah, and al ghubayra. Every intoxicant is forbidden.”

It has three routes.

The first: from al Walid ibn Abdah, and it is said: Amr ibn al Walid ibn Abdah, with it.

Abu Dawud narrated it (Sunan Abu Dawud 3685), as did al Tahawi (d. 321AH) in Sharh al Maʿani (2/325), al Bayhaqi (10/221–222), Ahmad (Musnad Ahmad, 2/158 and 2/170, and al Ashribah, 207), Yaʿqub al Fashawi in al Maʿrifah (2/519), Ibn Abd al Barr (d. 463AH) in al Tamhid (5/167), and al Mizzi (d. 742AH) in al Tahdhib (31/45–46), through the route of Muhammad ibn Ishaq, Ibn Lahiʿah, and Abd al Hamid ibn Jaʿfar, all three of them from Yazid ibn Abi Habib, from him.

The first of them said: al Walid ibn Abdah. The other two said: Amr ibn al Walid ibn Abdah. This is the stronger wording, as Shaykh Ahmad Shakir, may Allah have mercy on him, verified in his commentary on the Musnad (9/241). He said:

“Two are closer to having preserved the name than one. So refer back to it.”

Also, if Muhammad ibn Ishaq had clearly said that he heard it, he would not be proof when opposing others. So what about when he narrated it with “from”?

If this is the case, then what is the state of Amr ibn al Walid? The apparent implication of al Dhahabi’s saying in al Mizan by al Dhahabi, “No one narrated from him except Yazid ibn Abi Habib,” is that he is unknown.

However, Yaʿqub ibn Sufyan mentioned him among the reliable Egyptians in al Maʿrifah (2/519). Likewise, Ibn Hibban mentioned him among the reliable Tabiʿin (al Thiqat by Ibn Hibban, 5/184). For this reason, al Hafiz said in al Taqrib: “Truthful.”

Based on this, the hadith is good in itself, or at the very least good because of other reports. Rather, it is authentic because of what has already come and what will come.

The second: from Ibn Wahb, who said: Ibn Lahiʿah informed me, from Abdullah ibn Hubayrah, from Abu Hurayrah or Hubayrah al Ajlani, from a freed slave of Abdullah ibn Amr, from Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al As, that the Messenger ﷺ came out to them one day while they were in the masjid and said:

“Indeed my Lord has forbidden upon me wine, gambling, the kubah, and al qinnin.”

The kubah is the drum.

Al Bayhaqi narrated it (10/222), as did Ahmad (Musnad Ahmad, 2/172). Ahmad said: Yahya narrated to us. Ibn Lahiʿah narrated to us with it, except that he said: from Abu Hubayrah al Kalaʿi, from Abdullah ibn Amr. He did not doubt, and he did not mention the freed slave.

Al Albani said: The men of al Bayhaqi are reliable, apart from the freed slave, for I did not know him. Perhaps he is Abu Hubayrah himself, and he is unknown, as in Taʿjil al Manfaʿah by Ibn Hajar. And Allah knows best.

The third: from Faraj ibn Fadalah, from Ibrahim ibn Abd al Rahman ibn Rafiʿ, from his father, from Abdullah ibn Amr, raised to the Prophet ﷺ, with the wording:

“Indeed Allah has forbidden wine, gambling, mizr, the kubah, and al qinnin upon my Ummah. And He increased me with the Witr prayer.”

Yazid ibn Harun said: al qinnin means stringed instruments.

Ahmad narrated it in al Musnad (Musnad Ahmad, 2/165 and 2/167) and al Ashribah (212 and 214), as did al Tabarani in al Muʿjam al Kabir (13/51–52/127).

Al Albani said: This is a weak chain because of the weakness of Abd al Rahman ibn Rafiʿ, who is al Tanukhi the judge, and Faraj ibn Fadalah. His shaykh Ibrahim ibn Abd al Rahman was mentioned among those who narrated from his father, but I did not find a biography for him. In what has preceded of routes and supporting reports there is good, blessing, and sufficiency.

The Fifth Hadith

From Qays ibn Saʿd رضي الله عنه, who was the flag bearer of the Prophet ﷺ, that the Messenger ﷺ said that, meaning the earlier hadith of the freed slave of Ibn Amr. He said:

“And al ghubayra. Every intoxicant is forbidden.”

Al Bayhaqi narrated it (10/222) through the route of Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al Hakam, who said: Ibn Wahb informed us. Al Layth ibn Saʿd and Ibn Lahiʿah informed me, from Yazid ibn Abi Habib, from Amr ibn al Walid ibn Abdah, from Qays ibn Saʿd with it. Amr ibn al Walid said: And it reached me from Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al As like it. Al Layth did not mention al qinnin.

Likewise, al Tabarani narrated it in al Kabir (13/15/20) through another route from Yazid.

Al Albani said: This chain is good. Its men are reliable according to what you have known about Yazid ibn Abi Habib being alone in narrating from Amr ibn al Walid. In this chain there is an indication that the chain between him and his earlier narration from Abdullah ibn Amr in the first route from him in the fourth hadith is disconnected.

However, I saw that this hadith of Qays was narrated by Abd al Rahman ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al Hakam in Futuh Misr (page 273). He narrated it from Ibn Lahiʿah, from Yazid ibn Abi Habib, from Amr ibn al Walid ibn Abdah, from Qays ibn Saʿd, that the Messenger ﷺ came out to them, and he mentioned the hadith. He said: My father, Abdullah ibn Abd al Hakam, narrated to me. Sometimes he would insert between Amr ibn al Walid and Qays the wording: “that it reached him.”

Al Albani said: Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al Hakam and Abd al Rahman ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al Hakam differed. They are two brothers, both truthful, but the first is more famous. He placed the disconnection between Amr ibn al Walid and Abdullah ibn Amr, while the other placed it between Amr ibn al Walid and Qays ibn Ubadah. Perhaps the first is stronger, because he paired al Layth ibn Saʿd with Ibn Lahiʿah, and this one is a reliable hafiz, while his brother did not mention anyone except Ibn Lahiʿah, and he has known weakness. And Allah knows best.

The hadith has another route, narrated by Ubaydullah ibn Zahr, from Bakr ibn Sawadah, from Qays ibn Saʿd, raised to the Prophet ﷺ, with the wording:

“Indeed my Lord, Blessed and Most High, has forbidden wine, the kubah, and al qinnin upon me. Beware of al ghubayra, for it is one third of the wine of the universe.”

Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated it in al Musannaf (8/197/4132), as did al Bayhaqi, Ahmad (Musnad Ahmad, 3/422 and al Ashribah, 27), Ibn Abd al Hakam in Futuh Misr (page 273), and al Tabarani in al Muʿjam al Kabir (18/352/897).

Al Albani said: This is a weak chain because of the weakness of Ubaydullah ibn Zahr. For this reason, al Hafiz al Iraqi graded it weak in Takhrij al Ihya by al Iraqi (2/272) and attributed it only to Ahmad. He missed the first route, just as he missed the second, third, and fourth hadiths with their multiple routes.

This is counted as serious shortcoming from a hafiz like this, especially while he was referencing the saying of al Ghazali after he mentioned that there is no disagreement about listening to the sound of the nightingale and other birds, then he made qiyas (analogy) upon that for the stick, drum, duff, and other things. Along with this qiyas going against the hadiths already mentioned, and against the principles that say, “There is no ijtihad (scholarly reasoning) where there is a text,” even with that, he did well and inclined towards what is correct when he followed it by saying:

“Nothing is excluded from this except instruments of amusement, strings, and flutes, concerning which the Sharia came with prevention.”

Al Albani said: This exception makes us feel that al Ghazali did not come across the Lawgiver’s prevention of the drum, for example. So I view that it was required of al Hafiz al Iraqi to mention in his referencing of this sentence of exception some of the earlier hadiths that are clear in forbidding the drum. He should not have limited himself to referencing some weak hadiths, such as this hadith of Ubaydullah ibn Zahr and similar reports, and then followed them by saying: “All of them are weak.”

This remains the case even if he had already referenced the hadith of al Bukhari about regarding musical instruments as lawful, and responded to Ibn Hazm’s weakening of it by mentioning that Abu Dawud and al Ismaʿili connected it. Referencing what I pointed to strengthens the indication of this hadith for prohibition, especially since Ibn Hazm and those who followed him interpreted it with an interpretation by which they invalidated its indication, as will come. So this authentic hadith stands in the way of their invalidating its indication, as will come, because hadiths explain and support one another, as is clear.

In any case, the referencing of al Hafiz was much better than what Abd al Wahhab al Subki (d. 771AH) did in the biography of Shaykh al Ghazali in his book Tabaqat al Shafiʿiyyah al Kubra by al Subki. In it, he wrote a chapter (4/145–182) gathering what occurred in the book al Ihya by al Ghazali from hadiths for which he could not find a chain. Under it, on page 158, he mentioned this exception with the wording:

“The hadith of prevention from instruments of amusement, strings, and flutes.”

This is very strange, that even the hadith of al Bukhari would be hidden from someone like him. He has similar hadiths with which he denied any basis for them, such as the hadith:

“No one raises his voice in singing except that Allah sends to him two devils upon his shoulders…”

The hadith has been narrated by al Tabarani and others. It is referenced in al Silsilah al Daʿifah by al Albani, 931, and will come on page 68.

Another is the hadith that he said to Aʿishah رضي الله عنها:

“Do you love to look at the dancing of the Abyssinians?”

It is authentic. Al Nasai and others narrated it. It is referenced in Adab al Zifaf by al Albani (272–275) within her hadith found with the two Shaykhs. I had joined to it many extra wordings established with others. Then I thought to separate it in al Silsilah al Sahihah because of al Subki’s denial of it and other reports mentioned there, number 3277.

It is fitting, at the end of referencing these hadiths forbidding the drum, to mention that Imam Ahmad (d. 241AH) pointed to their authenticity. Al Khallal (d. 311AH) narrated in al Amr bil Maʿruf by al Khallal (page 26) from him that he said:

“I dislike the drum, and it is the kubah. The Messenger ﷺ forbade it.”

Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar also pointed to its authenticity in al Talkhis (4/202) by referencing it from the mentioned Companions: Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, and Qays ibn Saʿd ibn Ubadah.

The Sixth Hadith

From Imran ibn Husayn, who said: The Messenger ﷺ said:

“There will be in my Ummah throwing, transformation, and sinking into the earth.”

It was said: O Messenger of Allah, when will that be?

He said:

“When musical instruments appear, singing women become many, and wine is drunk.”

Al Tirmidhi narrated it in the Book of Tribulations (Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 2213), as did Ibn Abi al Dunya (d. 281AH) in Dhamm al Malahi (leaf 1/2), Abu Amr al Dani (d. 444AH) in al Sunan al Waridah fi al Fitan (leaf 39/1 and 40/2), and Ibn al Najjar (d. 643AH) in Dhayl Tarikh Baghdad (18/252), through routes from Abdullah ibn Abd al Quddus, who said: al Aʿmash narrated to me, from Hilal ibn Yasaf, from him.

Al Tirmidhi said:

“This hadith has been narrated from al Aʿmash, from Abd al Rahman ibn Sabit, from the Prophet ﷺ, in mursal form. This hadith is strange.”

Al Albani said: Its men are reliable apart from Abdullah ibn Abd al Quddus. Al Hafiz said:

“Truthful. He was accused of Rafidah, and he also used to make mistakes.”

Al Albani said: His Rafidah does not harm his hadith, and his mistake is safe because of the follow ups or supporting reports which support his preserving it, as I will explain.

The mursal report of al Aʿmash, which al Tirmidhi mentioned in suspended wording, was connected by Abu Amr al Dani (leaf 40/2) through the route of Hammad ibn Amr, from al Aʿmash with it.

However, this Hammad is abandoned, so he does not outweigh Ibn Abd al Quddus. Still, al Aʿmash was followed by Layth ibn Abi Sulaym with al Dani (leaf 37/2 and 39/1).

Though Layth is known for weakness, he was also followed. Ibn Abi al Dunya said (leaf 2/2):

Ishaq ibn Ismail narrated to us. He said: Jarir narrated to us, from Aban ibn Taghlib, from Amr ibn Murrah, from Abd al Rahman ibn Sabit, who said: The Messenger ﷺ said. Then he mentioned it.

Al Albani said: This is an authentic mursal chain. All its men are reliable and among the men of Muslim, apart from Ishaq ibn Ismail, who is al Talaqani. He is from the shaykhs of Abu Dawud, and he said: “Reliable.”

Al Daraqutni (d. 385AH) said the same. Uthman ibn Kharrazadh said:

“Reliable, reliable.”

Then I found another follow up for it. Ibn Abi Shaybah said (15/164/19391): Wakiʿ, from Abdullah ibn Amr ibn Murrah, from his father with it.

Al Albani said: This is a good chain. Abdullah ibn Amr ibn Murrah is truthful and makes mistakes.

It has also come in mursal form from another route, and in connected form, and this is more authentic. Abu al Abbas al Hamadani narrated from Umarah ibn Rashid, from al Ghazi ibn Rabiʿah, raising the hadith:

“Some people will surely be transformed while they are on their couches into apes and pigs because of their drinking wine, striking stringed instruments, and singing women.”

Ibn Abi al Dunya narrated it (leaf 2/2), and through his route Ibn Asakir narrated it in Tarikh Dimashq (12/582). He said:

“Abu al Abbas is Utbah ibn Abi Hakim.”

Al Albani said: Al Hafiz said: “Truthful, he makes many mistakes.”

Hisham ibn al Ghaz opposed him and narrated from his father, from his grandfather Rabiʿah, who said: I heard the Messenger ﷺ say:

“There will be in the last part of my Ummah sinking into the earth, throwing, and transformation.”

They said: Because of what, O Messenger of Allah?

He said:

“Because they take singing women and drink wine.”

Al Dulabi (d. 310AH) narrated it in al Kuna (1/52), as did Ibn Asakir in al Tarikh (14/124–125), through the route of Ahmad ibn Zuhayr and others, from Ali ibn Bahr, from Qatadah ibn al Fudayl ibn Abdullah al Rahawi, who said: I heard Hisham ibn al Ghaz with it.

Ahmad ibn Zuhayr is Ahmad ibn Abi Khaythamah, the hafiz, son of the hafiz. Al Hafiz attributed it to him in the biography of Rabiʿah al Jurashi in al Isabah by Ibn Hajar. Likewise in Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar (8/292), he remained silent over it, pointing to its strength, as is his method there. It deserves that, because its men are reliable apart from al Ghaz ibn Rabiʿah. Ibn Hibban declared him reliable (al Thiqat by Ibn Hibban, 5/294), and Ibn Asakir gave him a biography through the narration of three people from him. Someone like him is good in hadith if he does not oppose, as here. So it is authentic by that, and it gains more strength through the supporting reports it has in the hadiths of tribulations and others.

From them is the hadith of Abu Saʿid al Khudri, raised to the Prophet ﷺ, with similar wording.

Al Tabarani narrated it in al Awsat (6901) and al Saghir (1004, al Rawd). In it is Ziyad ibn Abi Ziyad al Jassas, and he is weak, as in al Taqrib by Ibn Hajar.

From them is the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, raised to the Prophet ﷺ:

“When public wealth becomes circulated only among certain people.”

The hadith contains:

“Singing women and musical instruments appear, and wine is drunk.”

Al Tirmidhi narrated it (Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 2212), as did Ibn Abi al Dunya (leaf 2/2) through another route. I have spoken about the chain of al Tirmidhi in al Rawd al Nadir by al Albani under hadith 1004, and in al Mishkat by al Albani (5450), and al Daʿifah by al Albani (1727).

From them is the hadith of Ali رضي الله عنه, with the wording:

“When my Ummah does fifteen traits, tribulation will befall it.”

The hadith contains:

“Wine is drunk, silk is worn, and singing women and musical instruments are taken.”

Al Tirmidhi narrated it (Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 2211), as did Ibn Abi al Dunya (2/1). I spoke about it in al Mishkat by al Albani (5451), and also al Rawd al Nadir. It has another route with Ibn Abi al Dunya.

From Abu Umamah رضي الله عنه, raised to the Prophet ﷺ:

“People from this Ummah will spend the night over food and drink, then they will wake up having been transformed into apes and pigs.”

The hadith contains:

“Because of their drinking wine, consuming usury, taking singing women, wearing silk, and cutting ties of kinship.”

Al Hakim (d. 405AH) narrated it (4/515), as did al Bayhaqi in Shuʿab al Iman (5/16), Ahmad (Musnad Ahmad, 5/329), Ibn Abi al Dunya (1/2), al Asbahani (d. 535AH) in al Targhib (1/498–499), likewise al Tayalisi (155/1137), and from him Abu Nuʿaym (d. 430AH) in al Hilyah (6/295), and Ibn Asakir in al Tarikh (8/659), through the route of Farqad al Sabakhi, who said: Asim ibn Amr narrated to me from him.

Al Hakim and al Dhahabi graded it authentic, but there is an issue with that, which I explained in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 1604.

Yes, this amount from it is authentic without doubt because of these supporting reports. It has been narrated from Farqad in other ways which you can see there.

From Anas ibn Malik, who said: The Messenger ﷺ said:

“When my Ummah regards six matters as lawful, then destruction will be upon them: when cursing appears among them, they drink wine, they wear silk, they take singing women, men suffice with men, and women suffice with women.”

Al Tabarani narrated it in al Muʿjam al Awsat (1/59/1060 according to my numbering), as did al Bayhaqi in al Shuʿab (5/377–378), through two routes from him. Al Bayhaqi strengthened it through both. It has two other routes in Dhamm al Malahi from him with similar wording (leaf 2/1 and 3/1), but I turned away from mentioning them because they are not suitable as supporting reports.

The Seventh Hadith

From Abu Umamah, who said: The Messenger ﷺ said:

“It is not lawful to sell singing women, nor to buy them, nor to trade in them. Their price is forbidden.”

He said:

“This verse was only revealed concerning that.”

وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَشْتَرِي لَهْوَ الْحَدِيثِ

“Among the people is one who buys distracting speech.” (Luqman 6)

He continued until he finished the verse. Then he followed it by saying:

“By the One who sent me with the truth, no man raises his voice in singing except that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, sends at that moment two devils who climb upon his shoulders. They continue striking his chest with their feet, and he pointed to his own chest, until he is the one who becomes silent.”

Al Tabarani narrated it in al Muʿjam al Kabir (8/7749, 7805, 7825, 7855, 7861, and 7862) through two routes from al Qasim ibn Abd al Rahman from him.

Al Albani said: I had included it because of those two routes in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, number 2922. Then it became clear to me that one of them has severe weakness, so I changed from strengthening it, except for the point of the verse coming down. That has supporting reports from more than one Companion, and some of them will be mentioned in chapter 8, if Allah Most High wills, on page 142.

At the end of these authentic hadiths, with their two types, authentic in themselves and authentic because of other reports, an important matter must be mentioned so that the benefit is complete. Al Albani said:

The scholars of hadith, may Allah reward them with good, have followed very important scholarly principles in preserving the legacy of the Prophet of the Ummah, safe from addition and loss. Just as it is not permissible to say about him ﷺ what he did not say, likewise it is not permissible to waste what he said or turn away from it. The truth is between this and that, as Allah Most High said:

وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَاكُمْ أُمَّةً وَسَطاً

“And in this way We made you a middle nation.” (al Baqarah 143)

There is no doubt that achieving balance and moderation between excess and neglect, and distinguishing the authentic from the weak, cannot be through ignorance or desire. Rather, it is through knowledge and following. That cannot happen except through correct fiqh from the Messenger ﷺ, and this fiqh cannot exist except by knowing what the Messenger ﷺ was upon in saying, action, and approval.

Since the matter is like this, no one can rise to it except someone from the fuqaha who is also knowledgeable of hadith, its principles, or at least someone who follows them and is upon their way. Excellent is the saying of the one who said:

“The people of hadith are the people of the Prophet, even if they did not accompany his person, they accompanied his breaths.”

They are the ones meant by the famous hadith, although there is difference over its establishment:

“This knowledge will be carried from every later generation by its upright ones. They will remove from it the distortion of extremists, the false claim of false people, and the interpretation of ignorant people.” (See my commentary on Mishkat al Masabih by al Albani, 248.)

Rather, they are also meant by the authentic hadith:

“Allah does not take away knowledge by snatching it away from people. Rather, He takes away knowledge by taking away the scholars, until, when He leaves no scholar, people take ignorant leaders. They are asked, so they give fatwa without knowledge. Thus they go astray and lead others astray.”

It was reported by the two Shaykhs. (It is referenced by me in al Rawd al Nadir by al Albani, 579. Sahih Al Bukhari 100. Sahih Muslim 2673.)

For this reason, Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said in a section in Majmuʿ al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah (18/51):

“Just as the saying of one who does not know the evidences of rulings is not counted, likewise the saying of one who does not know the routes of knowing the authenticity of hadith is not counted. Rather, everyone who is not a scholar must follow the agreement of the people of knowledge.”

Al Albani said: It is not hidden from the scholars that among the bases of this agreement is the saying of Allah Most High:

فَاسْأَلوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ لا تَعْلَمُونَ

“So ask the people of knowledge, if you do not know.” (al Nahl 43)

Whoever is not knowledgeable of hadith and cannot distinguish its authentic from its weak, it is not permissible for him to use it as proof except after asking those who know it. This is the clear wording of the verse. Therefore, it is even more so not permissible for him to authenticate and weaken with his ignorance, as al Ghazali and others from the mutafaqqihah (those who claim fiqh) of the present age have done.

The point is that people like these must not follow their own heads and weaken a type of hadith known among the scholars as hasan (good) hadith, or authentic because of other reports, like this sixth hadith and others. Among their principles and rules is that a weak hadith is strengthened by many routes. They took this from the like of the saying of Allah Most High concerning the testimony of a woman:

أَنْ تَضِلَّ إِحْدَاهُمَا فَتُذَكِّرَ إِحْدَاهُمَا الْأُخْرَى

“So if one of them forgets, the other can remind her.” (al Baqarah 282)

Applying this rule is something only a few of those engaged in this noble science can rise to, let alone others. That is because it requires wide knowledge of hadiths, their routes, their wordings, and the places of evidence within them. In many cases, assistance through indexes of hadith beginnings does not help with that. Rather, it is knowledge settled in the soul of one who has practised it for a long time.

The best person to speak about this rule and support it with the knowledge Allah Most High gave him is Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah Most High have mercy on him, in Majmuʿ al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah (18/25–26). He said, as in my book al Radd al Mufhim, may Allah make it easy for me to make a clean copy of it and publish it:

“The weak according to them is of two types.

A weak report that does not prevent acting upon it, and this resembles the hasan (good) in the terminology of al Tirmidhi.

And a weak report whose weakness requires leaving it, and that is the very weak report.

A man may be weak according to them because he makes many mistakes in his hadith, while what is dominant in his reports is correctness. So they view his hadith for the purpose of iʿtibar (comparison) and strengthening by it, because multiple routes and their abundance strengthen one another, until knowledge may come through them, even if the transmitters are wicked sinners. So what about when they are knowledgeable and upright, but mistakes became many in their hadith?

This is like Abdullah ibn Lahiʿah. He was one of the major ulama of the Muslims and was a judge in Egypt. He had much hadith, but his books were burnt, so he began narrating from his memory, and many mistakes entered his hadith, while what dominates his hadith is correctness. Ahmad said: ‘I may write the hadith of a man for the purpose of consideration, such as Ibn Lahiʿah.’”

Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, explained in another statement the reason a weak hadith is strengthened through routes, the condition for that, and the obligation to hold to this rule. He said in al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah (13/347):

“When mursal reports have multiple routes and are free from intentional agreement, or agreement without intention, they are certainly authentic. This is because transmission is either true and matches the report, or it is false, where its narrator deliberately lied, or he erred in it. So when it is safe from deliberate lying and error, it is true without doubt.

If a hadith comes from two routes or more, as is the case with this hadith of ours, and it is known that the reporters did not agree together to invent it, and it is known that agreement like this does not normally happen by coincidence without intention, it is known that it is authentic. This is like a person who narrates an event that happened and mentions the details of the sayings and actions in it, and then another person, who is known not to have agreed with the first, comes and mentions what the first mentioned of detailed sayings and actions. It is then known with certainty that this event is true in general. If each of them had lied about it deliberately or mistakenly, it would not normally happen that each of them came with those details whose agreement by two people is normally impossible without one of them agreeing with the other.”

He said:

“By this way, the truth of most reports whose different ways are many in this manner is known, even if none of them alone is enough, either because of being mursal or because of weakness in its narrator.”

He said:

“This principle should be known, because it is a beneficial principle in being certain about many transmitted matters in hadith, tafsir (explanation), maghazi (battles), and what is transmitted from the sayings and actions of people, and other than that.

For this reason, when the hadith that comes in this manner is narrated from the Prophet ﷺ through two routes, while knowing that one of them did not take it from the other, it is affirmed that it is true, especially if it is known that its transmitters are not among those who deliberately lie, and the only fear about one of them is forgetfulness and mistake.”

Al Hafiz al Alai (d. 761AH) mentioned something like this last part of his words, may Allah have mercy on him, in Jamiʿ al Tahsil by al Alai (page 38), and added:

“By their combined strength, it rises to the level of hasan (good), because what is feared from the poor memory of the narrators is then removed, and each of the two is supported by the other.”

Similar wording is in Muqaddimah Ibn al Salah by Ibn al Salah and its abridgement by Ibn Kathir (d. 774AH).

Then Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah Most High have mercy on him, said (page 352):

“In matters like this, benefit is taken from the narration of an unknown narrator, a poor memoriser, the mursal hadith, and similar reports. For this reason, the people of knowledge used to write such hadiths and say: What is suitable for shawahid (supporting reports) and iʿtibar (comparison) may not be suitable for other than that.”

Then he mentioned the earlier saying of Ahmad:

“I may write the hadith of a man for consideration.”

Al Albani said: From what has preceded, the student of knowledge becomes aware of one of the benefits of the earlier huffaz narrating hadiths with chains, even when some of those chains are weak, and then recording them in their books. It is that they are a main reference for iʿtibar (comparison), and for following up mutabaʿat (follow ups) and shawahid (supporting reports) which strengthen some of them. In addition, other correct educational and guiding benefits may be taken from some of them.

The meaning may be sound, even though this does not make it permissible for anyone to state with certainty that it is from the Prophet ﷺ, as is well known among the people of knowledge, contrary to some people of desires, past and present, as was already explained in the response to Shaykh al Ghazali (d. 1416AH) in the introduction to this treatise. For this reason, al Hafiz Ibn Abd al Barr (d. 463AH) said in al Tamhid by Ibn Abd al Barr (1/58):

“A weak hadith is not cast aside, meaning it is not neglected, even if it is not used as proof. Many a hadith may have a weak chain, while its meaning is sound.”

The summary is that a hadith weak in chain may be sound in meaning because its meaning agrees with the texts of the Sharia, such as the hadith:

“Glad tidings for the one whose own faults keep him busy from the faults of people.” (It is referenced in the eighth volume of al Silsilah al Daʿifah by al Albani, 3835.)

There are many similar examples. However, this does not make it permissible to attribute it to the Prophet ﷺ.

It may also be sound in both meaning and wording because of supporting reports that strengthen it, such as this sixth hadith and some before it. Keep this firmly in mind, and do not let the noise of the ignorant or the disturbance of troublemakers turn you away from it. We are in a time when its writers are many and its scholars are few. Complaint is made to Allah, and there is no power and no strength except through Allah.

Explaining the Unfamiliar Words in the Hadith

After finishing the mention of the hadiths that prohibit musical instruments, some of them contain varied words. Some have a broad meaning that covers all types of instruments, such as maʿazif (musical instruments). Others are specific to one type of them, such as barabit (stringed instruments), for example.

Other unfamiliar words also appear in some Qur’an verses and hadiths. I saw that full benefit required explaining them and making their meanings clear. I arranged them according to the letters, while pointing to their earlier places.

Arīkah, page 64.

In al Qamus: arikah, like safinah, means a bed inside a curtained chamber covered like a dome, or everything one leans on, such as a bed, raised seat, mattress, or a padded bed.

Awtar, pages 60 and 61.

The plural of watar. It means the string of a bow and what is attached to it. Here it means the strings that are tied and tightened onto musical instruments, such as the lute and the qanun.

Barabit, page 65.

The plural of barbat. It is an instrument of amusement resembling the lute. It is a Persian word that has been Arabised, and its original is barbat, because the one who plays it places it on his chest, and the chest is called bar. This is in al Nihayah by Ibn al Athir (d. 606AH).

Batar al haqq, page 51.

It means rejecting the truth and denying it after it has become clear.

Al harr, page 38.

It means the private part. Its original is harh, with kasrah on the letter ha and sukun on the letter ra. Its plural is ahrah. This is in al Nihayah by Ibn al Athir.

Al khazz, page 42.

Here it means what is woven from pure silk.

Duwal, page 66.

The plural of dawlah, with dammah. It means wealth that circulates and becomes for some people rather than others. This is in al Nihayah by Ibn al Athir.

Rannat al shaytan, page 52.

Here it means a sad sound.

Alam, page 38.

Meaning, a mountain.

Al ghubayra, pages 58 and 60.

An intoxicating drink made from corn.

Ghamt al nas, page 51.

It means looking down on them, belittling them, and attacking them without right. It is also ghamas, as in al Nihayah by Ibn al Athir.

Al qinnin, pages 57, 58, and 60.

It is the tanbur in Abyssinia, and taqnin means playing it. Ibn al Arabi said this. This is how it appears in Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim (d. 751AH).

In al Qamus: al taqnin, like sikkin, means the tanbur, and a Roman game by which people gamble.

Al Albani (d. 1420AH) said: The first is certainly what is meant here, because gambling is mentioned in the same hadith, and that is al maysir (gambling).

It is one of the stringed musical instruments. It has a long neck and a half oval sounding body, with two or three strings.

Qiyan, page 63.

The plural of qaynah, meaning a singing slave girl. It is also pluralised as qaynat.

Qaynat, pages 45, 65, and 66.

See the word before it.

Al kubah, pages 56, 57, 58, and 60.

It is the drum, as it came explained in the hadith of Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما and Ibn Umar رضي الله عنهما. Imam Ahmad (d. 241AH) affirmed this, and Ibn al Qayyim relied on it in Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim. He said: It was also said that it means the barbat. See entry 3.

Al Khattabi (d. 388AH) said in Maʿalim al Sunan by al Khattabi (5/268):

“Al kubah is explained as the drum. It is also said that it means dice. Included in its meaning is every stringed instrument, mizhar, and similar things from instruments of amusement and singing.”

There are other sayings about it which Shaykh Ahmad Shakir (d. 1377AH), may Allah have mercy on him, quoted in his commentary on al Musnad (10/76). He then said:

“Better than all of this, and broader in meaning, is the saying of Ahmad in al Ashribah, 84 and 214: He means by al kubah everything that is struck upon.”

Mazamīr, pages 51, 52, and 61.

The plural of mizmar. It is an instrument made from reed, or metal, whose tube ends with a small horn. This is how it appears in al Muʿjam al Wasit.

Al mizr, page 58.

With kasrah on the letter mim. It is a drink made from corn. It was also said that it is made from barley or wheat. This is in al Nihayah by Ibn al Athir.

Al maʿazif, pages 38, 45, and 51.

They are duffs and other things that are struck, as in al Nihayah by Ibn al Athir.

In al Qamus:

“They are instruments of amusement, such as the lute and tanbur. The singular is ʿazf or miʿzaf, like minbar and miknasah. The ʿazif is the one who plays them and the singer.”

For this reason, Ibn al Qayyim said in Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim:

“They are all instruments of amusement. There is no disagreement among the people of language on this.”

Clearer than this is the saying of al Dhahabi (d. 748AH) in Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala by al Dhahabi (21/158):

“Maʿazif is a name for all instruments of amusement that are played, such as the mizmar, tanbur, shabbabah, and cymbals.”

Similar wording appears in his book Tadhkirat al Huffaz by al Dhahabi (2/1337).

The Response to Ibn Hazm and Others Who Criticised Some of the Earlier Hadiths

Al Albani said: I have already responded to Ibn Hazm (d. 456AH) and others who criticised the authentic hadiths, in the introduction and during the referencing of the six authentic hadiths already mentioned. What I want to make clear now is that the hadiths of prohibition, in relation to Ibn Hazm and our view of them, fall into three categories.

The first: those he graded weak while he was mistaken.

The second: those he did not come across, or came across some of their routes but not others. Had he come across them and they had been established with him, he would have accepted them. He is excused in that, unlike those who follow him blindly, especially since he followed what he graded weak by saying, swearing without sin, if Allah wills (al Muhalla by Ibn Hazm, 9/59):

“By Allah, if all of it, or one of them or more, had a connected chain through reliable narrators to the Messenger ﷺ, we would not have hesitated to accept it.”

This is what we think of him, and Allah is his Reckoner. As for those who followed him blindly after proof was established against them and the clear path became plain to them, they have no excuse and no honour. Rather, their example is like people in Jahiliyyah who worshipped the jinn. Those jinn accepted Islam, while those people continued in their worship and misguidance, as Allah Most High said:

أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ يَبْتَغُونَ إِلَى رَبِّهِمُ الْوَسِيلَةَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ وَيَرْجُونَ رَحْمَتَهُ وَيَخَافُونَ عَذَابَهُ إِنَّ عَذَابَ رَبِّكَ كَانَ مَحْذُوراً

“Those whom they call upon are themselves seeking a means of nearness to their Lord, seeking which of them will be nearest. They hope for His mercy and fear His punishment. Surely, the punishment of your Lord is something to be feared.” (al Isra 57)

The third: those he graded weak, and no objection to his grading has become clear to us. We have nothing to say about that.

So my response to him will be regarding the first and second categories. Al Albani said, and success is from Allah:

The first category: Ibn Hazm criticised two of the six hadiths: the first and the third.

As for the first hadith, I have already mentioned two routes for it going to Abd al Rahman ibn Ghanm from Abu Amir or Abu Malik al Ashʿari.

The first route is through al Bukhari (d. 256AH): Hisham ibn Ammar said: Sadaqah ibn Khalid narrated to us, with his chain from Abd al Rahman ibn Ghanm al Ashʿari, who said: Abu Amir or Abu Malik al Ashʿari narrated to me, and by Allah, he did not lie to me, that he heard the Prophet ﷺ.

Ibn Hazm criticised it with two issues: the disconnection between al Bukhari and Hisham, and the unknown identity of the Ashʿari Companion. He said in al Muhalla by Ibn Hazm (9/59), and it is the last of the hadiths of the subject according to him:

“This is disconnected. It is not connected between al Bukhari and Sadaqah ibn Khalid. Nothing is authentic at all in this subject, and everything in it is fabricated.”

This is what he said. It is not hidden from students of knowledge, let alone scholars, how forced and exaggerated this is. Disconnection, even if sound, does not require grading the wording as fabricated, especially since it has come connected through another route with him, and a third route with us, as already passed and as will come. Despite all of this, al Qaradawi (d. 1444AH), al Ghazali, and those who followed them, closed their eyes to all of that and followed him blindly, as already passed. Was that out of ignorance from both of them, or out of desire? Refuge is sought with Allah Most High.

His wording, “and Sadaqah ibn Khalid,” is an error. Perhaps it was a slip of the pen from him. The correct wording is, “and Hisham ibn Ammar,” as already passed in the response to al Ghazali, pages 28 and 29.

He said in his treatise, page 97:

“Al Bukhari did not include it with a connected chain. Rather, he said in it: Hisham ibn Ammar said. Then it is to Abu Amir or Abu Malik, and it is not known who this Abu Amir is.”

As for the answer to the claim of disconnection, its detailed explanation has already passed on more than one occasion. See, for example, pages 28, 39, and 40. However, to complete the benefit, I will quote here some of what the huffaz and critics said in response to Ibn Hazm’s mentioned criticism, so that the readers may increase in knowledge of the extent of the misguidance of those who turn away from the path of the believers due to their insistence upon following him blindly, along with following desire. Al Albani said:

Ibn al Qayyim said in Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim (1/259–260) and in Tahdhib al Sunan by Ibn al Qayyim (5/271–272), with some combining and summary between the two:

“The one who attacked the authenticity of this hadith, such as Ibn Hazm, did not do anything of value. He did so in support of his false madhhab regarding the permissibility of instruments of amusement. He claimed that it is disconnected because al Bukhari did not connect its chain to him. This attack is false from several ways.

The first: al Bukhari met Hisham ibn Ammar and heard from him. So when he says, ‘Hisham said,’ it is at the level of his saying, ‘from Hisham,’ by agreement.

The second: even if he did not hear it from him, he would not make a firm attribution from him unless it was authentic from him that he narrated it. This often occurs because many people narrated it from that shaykh, and it became well known from him. Al Bukhari is the furthest of Allah’s creation from tadlis (concealing a narrator).

The third: he entered it into his book named al Sahih, using it as proof. If it were not authentic with him, he would not have done that. So the hadith is authentic without doubt.

The fourth: he suspended it with wording of certainty, not wording that suggests weakness. When he is unsure about a hadith, or it is not upon his condition, he says, ‘It is reported from the Messenger ﷺ,’ or ‘It is mentioned from him,’ and similar wording. But when he says, ‘The Messenger ﷺ said,’ or ‘So and so said,’ he has affirmed and firmly attached it to him. Here, he firmly attached the hadith to Hisham, so it is authentic with him.

The fifth: even if we turned away from all of this, the hadith is authentic and connected with others.”

Then he mentioned the hadith of Bishr ibn Bakr already mentioned on page 42, through the narration of al Ismaʿili, and it contains the word “maʿazif,” whose presence Hassan the weakener denied.

Ibn al Salah (d. 643AH) mentioned similar wording before him in Muqaddimah ʿUlum al Hadith by Ibn al Salah (pages 72–73) and said:

“The hadith is authentic and known to be connected according to the condition of the authentic.”

Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar (d. 852AH) followed him in Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar (10/52–53). He explained the reason that leads al Bukhari to make such a suspension, then said:

“It has been established among the huffaz that all suspended reports brought by al Bukhari with wording of certainty are authentic up to the one from whom he suspended them, even if that person is not one of his shaykhs. However, when the suspended hadith is found connected through the narration of some huffaz to the one from whom he suspended it, according to the condition of authenticity, the problem is removed. For this reason, I was concerned with this type at the beginning, and I authored the book Taghliq al Taʿliq. Our shaykh mentioned in his commentary on al Tirmidhi and in his words on the sciences of hadith that the hadith of Hisham ibn Ammar came from him connected in the Mustakhraj of al Ismaʿili. He said…”

Then he brought its chain, followed by the chain of Abu Dawud. Both have already been mentioned, along with other narrations from a group of reliable narrators who said: Hisham ibn Ammar narrated to us. See pages 40 and 41.

Then I came across a hadith principle of Ibn Hazm himself that agrees with what has already been mentioned from the imams of hadith, that the mentioned suspension of al Bukhari has the ruling of a connected chain between al Bukhari and his shaykh Hisham ibn Ammar. He said in al Ihkam fi Usul al Ahkam by Ibn Hazm (1/141):

“As for the mudallis (one who conceals), he is divided into two types.

The first is an upright hafiz who may sometimes report his hadith in mursal form, sometimes with a chain, sometimes in a setting of review, fatwa, or debate without mentioning its chain, and sometimes he may limit himself to mentioning some of its narrators and not others. This does not harm the rest of his narrations at all, because this is neither a flaw nor heedlessness. However, we leave from his hadith what we know with certainty that he narrated in mursal form, and what we know that he omitted some of those in its chain. We accept from his hadith what we are not certain of in that regard. It is the same whether he says, ‘So and so informed us,’ or says, ‘from so and so,’ or says, ‘so and so from so and so.’ All of that must be accepted, as long as it is not certain that he brought a specific hadith in a way that is not connected. If we are certain of that, we leave that hadith alone only, and we accept the rest of his narrations.”

Al Albani said: This is his clear wording concerning what has been mentioned. It requires accepting al Bukhari’s wording, “Hisham said,” and that it is like his saying, “Hisham informed us.” By this, his criticism of it as disconnected falls away, and it is therefore established that those who follow him blindly only follow assumption and what souls desire.

إِنْ يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى الْأَنْفُسُ

“They follow nothing but assumption and what souls desire.” (al Najm 23)

Allah’s help is sought.

With this, the answer to the first alleged weakness, namely the disconnection claimed by Ibn Hazm and those who followed him blindly, ends. It has become completely clear that it is a mirage.

The answer remains to the other alleged weakness, namely doubt over the name of the Companion. This doubt is even weaker according to the scholars. Al Hafiz said in Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar (10/24):

“Doubt concerning the name of the Companion does not harm. Ibn Hazm criticised it with this, and it is rejected.”

Al Albani said: This is because the narrator from him, who clearly said he heard from the Prophet ﷺ, is reliable and from the major Tabiʿin (Followers). It was even said that he was a Companion. So he is among those who know the companionship of the one who narrated to him from the Prophet ﷺ, especially since he confirmed that by saying, “By Allah, he did not lie to me.” After this, his doubt and hesitation does not harm us, as long as he told us of his companionship.

What supports this is Ibn Hazm’s saying in the section on the description of the one whose transmission of reports must be accepted, from his book al Ihkam fi Usul al Ahkam by Ibn Hazm (1/143):

“An upright faqih (jurist) is accepted in everything.”

Al Albani said: It is not hidden from anyone that included in this general wording is the saying of a reliable Tabiʿi: “Someone who heard the Prophet ﷺ narrated to me,” or similar wording, as here. Therefore, Ibn Hazm’s condition that the Companion be named, as indicated by this criticism of his, and as he stated clearly elsewhere in al Ihkam (2/3 and 2/83), opposes the general wording of his own statement, and the scholars of hadith are upon that. It is also something for which there is no evidence.

Moreover, Imam al Bukhari had preferred, as we mentioned earlier on page 50, that it is Abu Malik al Ashʿari, and he is a known Companion. Al Hafiz leaned towards this (10/55) and said after mentioning the imam’s preference:

“Doubt concerning the name of the Companion does not harm, as has been established in the sciences of hadith. So no attention is paid to the one who criticised the hadith because of hesitation. It has been preferred that it is from Abu Malik al Ashʿari, and he is a well known Companion.”

Al Albani said: Even according to Ibn Hazm. I saw that he used as proof in al Ihkam (4/31) a chain containing Muawiyah ibn Salih, already mentioned on pages 44 and 45, from Hatim ibn Hurayth, from Malik ibn Abi Maryam, who said: Abd al Rahman ibn Ghanm narrated to us. He said: Abu Malik al Ashʿari informed us. He said: I heard the Messenger ﷺ:

“People from my Ummah will surely drink wine, calling it by another name.”

This is inconsistency from him, because he graded Muawiyah weak and declared his shaykh unknown, as will come.

Al Hafiz also said in Taghliq al Taʿliq by Ibn Hajar (5/21–22), after bringing the three routes of the hadith from Abd al Rahman ibn Ghanm:

“This is an authentic hadith. It has no defect and no criticism against it. Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm criticised it because of disconnection between al Bukhari and Sadaqah ibn Khalid, and because of difference over the name of Abu Malik. This is as you see. I have brought it from the narration of nine people from Hisham in connected form, among them the likes of al Hasan ibn Sufyan, Abdan, and Jaʿfar al Firyabi. These are firm huffaz.

As for the difference concerning the kunyah of the Companion, all the Companions are upright.”

It appears to me that when the person obsessed with weakening authentic hadiths did not find any way to cling to this alleged weakness, because of how clearly false it is, he invented another weakness from himself. According to the scholars, it is even more false than the first. It is that Atiyyah ibn Qays, whom Muslim used as proof and whom others declared reliable, is unknown. This is a false claim that no one before him said, as its explanation already passed on pages 43 and 44, so there is no need to repeat it. However, pointing it out here contains benefit.

I had mentioned two other routes for the hadith from Abd al Rahman ibn Ghanm. One of them is the route of Muawiyah ibn Salih, which I mentioned a short while ago. Ibn Hazm criticised it by saying in his treatise, page 97:

“Muawiyah ibn Salih is weak, and Malik ibn Abi Maryam is not known.”

He criticised it in al Muhalla by Ibn Hazm (9/57) through Muawiyah only. This criticism is from the unfairness of Ibn Hazm. A group of earlier scholars declared him reliable, among them Imam Ahmad. None of the well known huffaz called him weak in an unrestricted way. Al Hafiz summarised the sayings of the imams about him by saying: “Truthful, he has mistakes.”

Al Dhahabi said in al Kashif by al Dhahabi:

“A truthful imam.”

He described him in Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala by al Dhahabi (7/158) as:

“The imam, the hafiz, the reliable one, the judge of al Andalus.”

He brought a hadith through his chain and said:

“This is a sound chain.”

Muslim used him as proof. So this hadith of maʿazif is sound, were it not for the unknown status of Malik ibn Abi Maryam. However, in follow up he is accepted, especially since al Bukhari preferred his narration over the narration of Hisham ibn Ammar, as already passed on page 51. Ibn Hazm used it as proof for the prohibition of wine, as I mentioned a short while ago. Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) said in Ibtal al Tahlil by Ibn Taymiyyah (page 27, al Kurdi printing):

“Its chain is good, for Hatim ibn Hurayth is a shaykh, and Malik ibn Abi Maryam is from the early people of al Sham.”

Before moving to the other hadith which Ibn Hazm graded weak from this first category, I think it is important to end the speech on this first hadith by reminding the reader of the imams and huffaz throughout the ages who graded it authentic:

Al Bukhari.
Ibn Hibban.
Al Ismaʿili.
Ibn al Salah.
Al Nawawi.
Ibn Taymiyyah.
Ibn al Qayyim.
Ibn Kathir.
Al Asqalani.
Ibn al Wazir al Sanʿani.
Al Sakhawi.
Al Amir al Sanʿani.

See my new book Daʿif al Adab al Mufrad by al Albani, during the response to Ibn Abd al Mannan in the introduction, along with others who do not come to mind now.

Can it enter the mind of a Muslim that the opponents, such as Ibn Hazm and those who followed behind him, none of whom are specialists in hadith, were correct, while those imams were mistaken?

هَلْ يَسْتَوِي الَّذِينَ يَعْلَمُونَ وَالَّذِينَ لا يَعْلَمُونَ

“Are those who know equal to those who do not know?” (al Zumar 9)

إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَذِكْرَى لِمَنْ كَانَ لَهُ قَلْبٌ أَوْ أَلْقَى السَّمْعَ وَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ

“Surely in that there is a reminder for whoever has a heart, or gives ear while present.” (Qaf 37)

As for the other hadith that Ibn Hazm graded weak from the six earlier hadiths, it is the third hadith among them, on page 55. He criticised it because its Tabiʿi, Qays ibn Hibter al Nahshali, was unknown. This is from his narrow range and limited knowledge, for a group of earlier and later scholars declared him reliable, and a group narrated from him, as I made clear there. Someone like him is not unknown.

There is nothing strange in Ibn Hazm not knowing him. He did not know a group of huffaz whose fame in reliability and memorisation is like the sun at midday. Among them is Imam al Tirmidhi (d. 279AH), the author of the Sunan. Al Hafiz said in his biography in al Tahdhib after quoting his reliability from Ibn Hibban and al Khalili:

“As for Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm, he exposed his own lack of reading when he said in Kitab al Faraid from al Isal: ‘Muhammad ibn Isa ibn Surah is unknown.’ Let no one say: perhaps he did not know al Tirmidhi, nor did he come across his memorisation or his books. This man used this wording about many famous reliable huffaz, such as Abu al Qasim al Baghawi, Ismail ibn Muhammad ibn al Saffar, Abu al Abbas al Asamm, and others. What is strange is that al Hafiz Ibn al Fardi mentioned him in his book al Mutalif wa al Mukhtalif and gave him his due status. So how did Ibn Hazm miss seeing him in it?”

Al Albani said: For this reason, his gradings are only accepted when they agree with the famous imams before him, or at least when he does not oppose them.

With this, the speech ends on the two hadiths that Ibn Hazm graded weak from the first category of the six authentic hadiths, with an explanation of his mistake in both.

Now we will speak about the second category, namely what he did not come across, or he came across some of its routes but not others. This includes all besides the two hadiths mentioned, with some detail. Al Albani said:

As for the second hadith, Ibn Hazm clearly said after it, as already passed:

“It is not known who narrated it.”

This is despite the fact that more than ten famous huffaz narrated it in their books from the hadith of Anas and Abd al Rahman ibn Awf, as its detailed referencing already passed. This makes Ibn Hazm declare against himself his limited reading of hadiths with chains. Despite that, Shaykh al Ghazali was deceived by him, followed him blindly, and then added to the matter by misunderstanding the words of Ibn Hazm, as has already passed, or by changing them.

As for the third hadith, he did not include it, although he included it elsewhere in al Muhalla and criticised it because Qays ibn Hibter was unknown. He is mistaken, as has already passed.

As for the fourth and fifth hadiths, he did not mention them at all. The same applies to the sixth hadith. He did not mention it with most of its supporting reports, among which is what is authentic in itself, such as the hadith of Rabiʿah al Jurashi رضي الله عنه. Among them is the hadith of Farqad, with its chain that is authentic because of other reports, from Abu Umamah. He did not mention any of its routes from him except the route of al Harith ibn Nabhan, who is abandoned. Likewise, he did not come across the third route in the first hadith, which was narrated by Ibn Dhi Himayah, who is reliable despite the weakener of authentic hadiths.

The Indication of the Hadiths That All Forms of Instruments of Amusement Are Forbidden

Know, my Muslim brother, that the earlier hadiths are clear in indicating the prohibition of musical instruments in all their forms and types. Some are named directly, such as the mizmar (flute), drum, and barbat. Others are attached to them by meaning. This is for two reasons.

The first: the wording maʿazif includes them all in language, as its explanation already passed in chapter 2, and as will also come from Ibn al Qayyim.

The second: they are like them in meaning, in terms of stirring musical pleasure and distracting. This is supported by the saying of Abdullah ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما:

“The duff is forbidden, maʿazif are forbidden, the kubah is forbidden, and the mizmar is forbidden.”

Al Bayhaqi narrated it (10/222) through the route of Abd al Karim al Jazari, from Abu Hashim al Kufi, from him.

Al Albani said: This chain is authentic if Abu Hashim al Kufi is Abu Hashim al Sanjari, named Saʿd, for he is Jazari like Abd al Karim, and they mentioned that he narrated from him. However, I did not see anyone mention that he was Kufi. In al Thiqat by Ibn Hibban (4/296), it says that he lived in Damascus. And Allah knows best.

However, the first hadith:

“They will regard unlawful sexual relations, silk, wine, and maʿazif as lawful.”

needs some explanation. Al Albani said:

First: His saying, “they will regard as lawful,” clearly indicates that the four things mentioned are not lawful in the Sharia, and among them are maʿazif. It appears in the books of language, including al Muʿjam al Wasit:

“He regarded the thing as lawful,” meaning he counted it lawful.

For this reason, the scholar Shaykh Ali al Qari (d. 1014AH) said in al Mirqat by Ali al Qari (5/106):

“The meaning is: they will count these things as lawful by bringing doubts and weak proofs. Among them is what some of our scholars, meaning the Hanafis, mentioned, that silk is only forbidden when it touches the body. As for when it is worn over clothes, there is no harm in it. This is restriction without transmitted or rational proof, due to the unrestricted wording of his ﷺ saying:

‘Whoever wears silk in this life will not wear it in the Hereafter.’ (Agreed upon from the hadith of Anas. It is referenced in al Ahadith al Sahihah by al Albani, 383, and in Ghayat al Maram by al Albani, 78. Sahih Al Bukhari 5834. Sahih Muslim 2073.)

Likewise, some scholars have attachments concerning maʿazif whose explanation would be long. This hadith is supported by the saying of Allah Most High:

وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَشْتَرِي لَهْوَ الْحَدِيثِ لِيُضِلَّ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ

“Among the people is one who buys distracting speech so that he may mislead from the path of Allah without knowledge.” (Luqman 6)

Al Albani said: Similar to what he mentioned from the Hanafis is their distinction between wine made from grapes, where both a little and a lot are forbidden, and wine made from dates and other things, where only the large amount that intoxicates is forbidden. This is hated literalism. Similar to it is the distinction between music that stirs sexual desire, which is forbidden, and other music, which is lawful, as its explanation already passed in the introduction in the response to Abu Zahrah (d. 1394AH) and those who followed him blindly, pages 6–8.

Along with the fact that this contains restriction by opinion and nullifying Sharia texts, worse than it is the saying of Shaykh al Ghazali after the hadith of maʿazif narrated by al Bukhari (pages 69–70):

“Perhaps al Bukhari meant the full parts of the picture, meaning the gathering that includes wine, singing, and sinful conduct.”

So Albani says to the shaykh: put your “perhaps” by that star. (This is taken from what al Tabarani narrated, 12/264/13058, with an authentic chain from Abu Mijlaz, who said: I used to ask Ibn Umar about Witr. He kept saying: ‘The end of the night.’ I said: ‘What do you think?’ He said: ‘Put “what do you think” by that star.’ A similar story is with al Tirmidhi, 861.)

This reasoning and expression are foreign, even though the one saying it is an Arab and a major writer. How could it not be, when he mixes the speech of the Prophet ﷺ with the speech of al Bukhari, attributing the Prophet’s ﷺ words to al Bukhari? This is extremely strange, as is clear. I do not know whether it is an error in thought or a slip of the pen. Both are bitter.

This is first.

Second: That reasoning is invalidated by what comes after the hadith of maʿazif from hadiths that clearly prohibit types of musical instruments. In the sixth hadith, and the supporting reports under it, there is clear wording that among the causes of transformation, sinking into the earth, and being struck from above is taking instruments and singing women. Among them is the authentic hadith of Rabiʿah al Jurashi, in which they asked about the cause:

“They said: ‘Because of what, O Messenger of Allah?’ He said: ‘Because they take singing women and drink wine.’”

In the hadith of Imran:

“When musical instruments appear, singing women become many, and wine is drunk.”

Third: Ibn al Qayyim said in Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim after the hadith of maʿazif, in summary (1/260–261):

“The way it proves the ruling is that maʿazif are all instruments of amusement. There is no disagreement among the people of language on this. If they were lawful, he would not have blamed them for regarding them as lawful, and he would not have joined regarding them as lawful with regarding wine and unlawful sexual relations as lawful. In it, he threatened those who regard maʿazif as lawful that Allah will cause the earth to swallow them and transform them into apes and pigs. Even though the threat applies to all these actions, each one has a share of blame and threat.”

“This is the truth, and there is no obscurity in it, so leave me from the side paths.”

The bitter reality is that Shaykh al Ghazali and his likes from contemporary callers or writers do not have a scholarly method from which they proceed in the rulings and questions they adopt, neither from the fiqh side nor from the hadith side. Rather, it is blind randomness, often joined with following desires. Sometimes you see him with the people of opinion or the conceptualists, as they say today, opposing authentic and clear texts. Rather, he went ahead of them by stages and opposed all the imams and fuqaha without exception. I mentioned some examples in the introduction. At other times, you see him as a rigid literalist like solid rock, following some of the extreme imams of literalism, even if he opposes all the imams of hadith and fiqh. Just as he followed Ibn Hazm blindly in his grading the authentic hadiths on maʿazif weak, he also followed him blindly in his false interpretation of the hadith of maʿazif. However, Ibn Hazm, despite this, was more reasonable than him in choosing the wording that he interpreted. He did not dare interpret the hadith of al Bukhari, as al Ghazali did, because it contains the wording: “they will regard as lawful.” Rather, he interpreted the hadith of Muawiyah ibn Salih, which is free from it and contains, as already passed on page 45:

“Musical instruments will be played over their heads.”

Ibn Hazm said (9/57):

“There is nothing in it to show that the mentioned threat is only because of maʿazif, just as it is not because of taking singing women. The apparent meaning is that it is because they regarded wine as lawful by another name.”

Even though what he found apparent is clear forcing and false interpretation, because of the hadiths already mentioned and Ibn al Qayyim’s explanation, al Shawkani (d. 1250AH) answered it with another answer. He said in Nayl al Awtar by al Shawkani (8/85) after quoting Ibn Hazm’s interpretation in summary without naming him, and in it there is also an apparent response to al Ghazali:

“The answer is that the joining of matters together does not indicate that what is forbidden is only the combination of all of them. Otherwise, it would follow that unlawful sexual relations, which is clearly mentioned in the hadith, meaning the hadith of al Bukhari, is not forbidden except when wine is drunk and maʿazif are used. The consequence is false by consensus, so what leads to it is the same. It would also follow in the like of Allah Most High’s saying:

إِنَّهُ كَانَ لا يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ الْعَظِيمِ ۝ وَلا يَحُضُّ عَلَى طَعَامِ الْمِسْكِينِ

“Indeed, he did not believe in Allah, the Magnificent. And he did not urge the feeding of the poor.” (al Haqqah 33–34)

that lack of faith in Allah is not forbidden except when joined with not urging the feeding of the poor. If it is said: the prohibition of such matters mentioned in the answer is known from another proof, the reply is that the prohibition of maʿazif is also known from another proof, as has already passed. Also, there is no need to go to that in the first place.”

Here there is an important note concerning the meaning of istihlal (regarding something forbidden as lawful) in the hadith. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah Most High have mercy on him, said in Ibtal al Tahlil by Ibn Taymiyyah (pages 20–21, al Kurdi printing):

“Perhaps the istihlal mentioned in the hadith is only through corrupt interpretations. If they regarded them as lawful while believing that the Messenger ﷺ had forbidden them, they would be disbelievers and would not be from his Ummah. If they acknowledged that they were forbidden, then it would be likely that they would not be punished with transformation, like all those who have continued to commit these sins. Nor would it be said about them, ‘they regard as lawful,’ because the one who regards a thing as lawful is the one who takes it while believing it to be lawful. So their regarding wine as lawful resembles their naming it by another name, as in the hadith, so they drink forbidden drinks but do not call them wine. Their regarding maʿazif as lawful is by believing that instruments of amusement are merely hearing a sound that contains pleasure, and that this is not forbidden, like the melodies of birds. Their regarding silk and the rest of its types as lawful is by believing it to be lawful for fighters. They heard that wearing it during battle is permissible according to many scholars, so they made qiyas (analogy) between all their conditions and that one. These three interpretations occur in the three groups about whom Ibn al Mubarak (d. 181AH), may Allah Most High have mercy on him, said:

‘What corrupted the religion except kings, evil scholars, and their monks?’

It is known that these interpretations will not avail their people before Allah at all after the Messenger ﷺ conveyed and made clear the prohibition of these things in a decisive way that removes excuse, as is known in its places.”

The Madhhahib of the Scholars Concerning the Prohibition of Musical Instruments

After we established earlier the authenticity of the hadiths on the prohibition of instruments, and clarified their indication of prohibition, it is fitting to follow that by making clear the position of the scholars and fuqaha in adopting them and acting upon them. This is so the student may also have knowledge from the fiqh side, and so that he may increase in knowledge of al Ghazali’s departure, in his book al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah bayna Ahl al Fiqh wa Ahl al Hadith, and those who follow his way, from fiqh and its scholars, just as he departed from the Sunnah and its scholars. He described them all, through deep ignorance, as “preachers” on page 74, because they forbade singing.

Imam al Shawkani said in Nayl al Awtar by al Shawkani (8/83), in summary:

“There has been difference over singing, with an instrument from the instruments of amusement and without one. The majority held that it is forbidden, using as proof what has already passed, meaning from the hadiths. The people of Madinah and those who agreed with them from the scholars of the literalists and Sufis held that listening is permissible, even with the lute and reed flute.”

Then he quoted from some of them that they mentioned sayings from some of the Salaf concerning permission, and he expanded greatly on that without benefit, because most of those sayings are suspended, with no head or reins. Some are authentically reported from those same people with the opposite. Some have doubtful wording, as its verification will come.

Before that, however, I want to point out two matters.

The first: what is meant by “the majority” here is the four imams, following the Salaf, as the scholar Ibn al Qayyim al Jawziyyah explained in detail in Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim (1/226–230). For this reason, when Ibn al Mutahhar the Shia attributed to Ahl al Sunnah the permissibility of instruments of amusement and singing, Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah declared him a liar in his response to him in Minhaj al Sunnah by Ibn Taymiyyah. He said (3/439):

“This is a lie against the four imams. They agree on the prohibition of maʿazif, which are instruments of amusement, such as the lute and similar things. If someone destroyed them according to them, he would not have to compensate the form of the destroyed item. Rather, possessing them is forbidden according to them.”

The second matter: al Shawkani’s attribution of permission to the people of Madinah gives the impression, when left unrestricted, that Malik is among them. This is not so, although others before him did that, such as al Dhahabi in the biography of Yusuf ibn Yaʿqub ibn Abi Salamah al Majishun:

“Al Dhahabi said: The people of Madinah were lenient regarding singing, and they are known for being easy concerning it.”

He mentioned in the same biography that his slave girls in his house would play the miʿzaf.

Al Albani said: Imam Malik is certainly not among them. Rather, he and others from the scholars of Madinah rejected that from them. Abu Bakr al Khallal (d. 311AH) narrated in al Amr bil Maʿruf by al Khallal (page 32), and Ibn al Jawzi (d. 597AH) narrated in Talbis Iblis by Ibn al Jawzi (page 244), with an authentic chain from Ishaq ibn Isa al Tabbaʿ, who is reliable and from the men of Muslim, who said:

“I asked Malik ibn Anas (d. 179AH) about what the people of Madinah permit regarding singing. He said: ‘Only the sinners among us do it.’”

Then al Khallal narrated, also with his authentic chain, from Ibrahim ibn al Mundhir, a reliable Madani from the shaykhs of al Bukhari, that he was asked, and it was said to him: “You permit singing?” He said:

“Allah forbid. None does this among us except the sinners.”

As for the sayings quoted by al Shawkani, which were pointed to earlier and which we promised to speak about, the answer is from two ways.

The first: even if their attribution to the one who said them were authentic, and among them are Kufans, Madanis, and others, there is no proof in them because they oppose the authentic hadiths whose indication is clear.

The second: the opposite has been authentically reported from some of them, so taking that is more fitting. Rather, it is obligatory. I will mention what I was able to come across from them.

First: Shurayh the judge. Abu Husayn said: A man broke another man’s tanbur, so he took the case to Shurayh, and he did not make him liable for anything.

Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated it in al Musannaf (7/312/3275), and its chain is authentic. Al Bayhaqi (6/101) and al Khallal (26) also narrated it. He said after it:

“Hanbal said: I heard Abu Abdullah say: It is munkar (rejected). He did not judge anything in it.”

Abu Abdullah is Imam Ahmad. Abu Dawud narrated similar from him in Masail Abi Dawud (page 279).

Second: Said ibn al Musayyib (d. 94AH), who said:

“I hate singing, and I love rajaz poetry.”

Abd al Razzaq (d. 211AH) narrated it in al Musannaf (11/6/19743) with an authentic chain.

Third: al Shaʿbi Amir ibn Sharahil (d. 103AH). Ismail ibn Abi Khalid reported from him that he disliked the wages of a singing woman and said:

“I do not like to consume it.”

Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated it (7/9/2203) with an authentic chain.

His saying, “Singing grows hypocrisy in the heart,” will come in chapter 8, page 148.

Fourth: Malik ibn Anas. We already quoted from him with an authentic chain that he said about singing: “Only the sinners among us do it.” Despite that, al Shawkani quoted from al Qaffal that the madhhab of Malik is the permissibility of singing with maʿazif.

Some of the sayings mentioned by al Shawkani may have authentic chains, but their wording does not clearly indicate permission. I have come across the chain of two of them.

One of them is what he attributed to Ibn Hazm in his treatise on listening, with his chain to Ibn Sirin, who said:

“A man came to Madinah with slave girls and stayed with Abdullah ibn Umar. Among them was a slave girl who played. A man came and bargained with him, but nothing among them appealed to him. He said: ‘Go to a man who will be better for you in selling than this.’ He said: ‘Who is he?’ He said: ‘Abdullah ibn Jaʿfar.’ He presented them to him. He commanded one of the slave girls and said: ‘Take the lute.’ She took it and sang. He then bought her. Then he came to Ibn Umar.”

The story continues.

I have two notes on this.

The first: the word “lute” does not appear in the printed treatise of Ibn Hazm, page 100.

The second: it appears in al Muhalla, but with doubt concerning it or hesitation between it and the word duff. He brought it there (9/62–63) through the route of Hammad ibn Zayd, Ayyub al Sakhtiyani, Hisham ibn Hassan, and Salamah ibn Kuhayl, the hadith of some entering into others, all of them from Muhammad ibn Sirin: a man, and he mentioned the story. It contains:

“She took it. Ayyub said: ‘the duff,’ and Hisham said: ‘the lute,’ until Ibn Umar thought he had looked at that. Ibn Umar said: ‘Enough for you today from the flute of Satan.’ Then he bargained with him.”

Ibn Hazm authenticated its chain, and it is as he said, if the chain to the four named narrators is authentic, as is most likely.

The point is that Ayyub and Hisham differed in identifying the instrument played by the slave girl. Each of them is reliable. The first said: the duff. The other said: the lute. I lean towards the statement of the first for two reasons.

One of them: he accompanied Ibn Sirin earlier, and he is more reliable than Hisham from all his shaykhs. Hisham is not like that, despite his virtue, knowledge, and reliability, as becomes clear to the researcher in their biographies, especially in Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala by al Dhahabi, volume 6. He said about Ayyub (6/20):

“Al Dhahabi said: To him belongs the end point in precision.”

The other: it is more fitting with Abdullah ibn Jaʿfar رضي الله عنهما. The ruling of the duff is different from all other musical instruments, since it is permissible for women to play it at weddings, as has already passed and will come. For this reason, we find that the scholars differentiated between it and others in terms of destroying them. Al Khallal narrated (page 28) from Jaʿfar, meaning Ibn Muhammad, who said:

“I asked Abdullah about breaking the tanbur, lute, and drum. He did not see anything due upon him.”

Similar already passed a short while ago from Ahmad and Shurayh.

Jaʿfar said: It was said to him: “What about duffs?” He considered that the duff should not be touched. He said: “It has been reported from the Prophet ﷺ concerning marriage.”

He is pointing to the hadith, “The difference between what is lawful and what is forbidden…” It already passed in the introduction, pages 10 and 11, along with the mistakes of Shaykh Abu Zahrah around it. It is as if Imam Ahmad is indicating that the hadith requires not destroying the duff, because using it was made permissible in marriage. This is from his precise fiqh and understanding, may Allah have mercy on him. This is different from when it is used in what has not been made permissible. Upon this is understood what al Khallal mentioned (page 27) from al Hasan, meaning al Basri (d. 110AH), who said:

“Duffs are in no way part of the matter of the Muslims. The companions of Abdullah, meaning Ibn Masʿud, used to tear them.”

What I mentioned is supported by what al Khallal narrated (page 28) from Yaʿqub ibn Bukhtan, that Abu Abdullah was asked about playing the duff at a wedding when there is no singing. He did not dislike it. He was asked about the duff at a death. He did not see any harm in breaking it and said: “The companions of Abdullah used to take duffs from children in the alleyways and tear them.”

Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrated the sentence about the companions (9/57) with an authentic chain.

The summary is that we declare Abdullah ibn Jaʿfar رضي الله عنهما innocent of having bought the slave girl for the purpose of her playing the lute, because of what we have preferred above. Otherwise, there is no proof except in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet ﷺ, especially when Abdullah ibn Umar, who was more knowledgeable in fiqh and more learned than him, said:

“Enough for you today from the flute of Satan.”

As for the other saying which has a problem, it is what al Shawkani attributed to Shuʿbah, that he heard a tanbur in the house of al Minhal ibn Amr, the famous hadith narrator.

Al Albani said: The basis of this is what al Uqayli narrated in al Duʿafa (4/237) through the route of Wahb, meaning Ibn Jarir, from Shuʿbah, who said:

“I came to the house of al Minhal ibn Amr and heard from it the sound of the tanbur, so I returned and did not ask him. I said: Why did you not ask him? Perhaps he did not know.”

Al Albani said: Its chain to Shuʿbah is authentic. From it, it becomes clear that it is not permissible to place al Minhal among those who said it is permissible to listen to musical instruments, let alone use them, because it is possible that this happened without his knowledge or approval. So Shuʿbah leaving him is rejected. For this reason, Wahb ibn Jarir objected to him. Al Hafiz said in his biography in the introduction, page 446:

“This is a correct objection, because this does not require any criticism of al Minhal.”

Before him, al Dhahabi said in al Mizan by al Dhahabi:

“This does not require any blame of the shaykh.”

Moreover, this report can be turned against those who permit it, because Shuʿbah rejected the sound of the tanbur. He was correct in that, even if he was mistaken in thinking that al Minhal permitted it.

The summary is that the scholars and fuqaha, among them the four imams, agree on the prohibition of musical instruments, following the Prophetic hadiths and the reports of the Salaf. If the opposite is authentic from some of them, it is answered by what has been mentioned. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, says:

“But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you judge in what arises between them, then find no discomfort within themselves concerning what you decide, and submit fully.” (al Nisa 65)

The Doubts of Those Who Permit Them and Their Answer

After we invalidated, by what has preceded of authentic hadiths and the stronger madhhahib of the imams, Ibn Hazm’s clinging, and the clinging of those who followed him, to the original rule, which is permissibility, and his claim that no text came prohibiting any of the instruments, it is part of completing the research and benefit that we mention what he supported his alleged original rule with, then respond to it with what the scholars answered. Al Albani said:

Ibn Hazm relied in his treatise (pages 98–99) and in al Muhalla by Ibn Hazm (9/61–62) on two hadiths.

One of them is from Aʿishah رضي الله عنها. The other is from Ibn Umar رضي الله عنهما.

As for the hadith of Aʿishah, he brought it through the narration of Muslim alone, although al Bukhari and others also narrated it. It is referenced in Ghayat al Maram by al Albani, 399. I had included it in my book Mukhtasar Sahih al Bukhari by al Albani, number 508, in its wording at the beginning of the Book of the Two Eids, adding to it all the extra wordings and benefits spread in various places and chapters of Sahih al Bukhari from her hadith. For that reason, I will quote its wording from it, omitting the volume and page numbers from the additions. She رضي الله عنها said:

“The Messenger ﷺ entered upon me while I had two young girls with me, from the young girls of the Ansar. In one narration: two singing girls. During the days of Mina, they were playing the duff and beating it. They were singing a song. In one narration: about what the Ansar had said to one another. In another: about what the Ansar had thrown at one another on the day of Buʿath. They were not professional singers. He lay down on the bed and turned his face away. Abu Bakr entered while the Prophet ﷺ was covered with his garment. Abu Bakr scolded me. In one narration: he scolded both of them and said: ‘A flute.’ In one narration: ‘The flute of Satan in the presence of’ and in one narration: ‘The flutes of Satan in the house of the Messenger ﷺ?’ twice.

The Messenger ﷺ turned to him. In one narration: the Prophet ﷺ uncovered his face and said: ‘Leave them, O Abu Bakr, for every people have an Eid, and this is our Eid.’ When he became inattentive, I signalled to both of them, and they went out.” (Sahih Al Bukhari 949. Sahih Muslim 892.)

Al Albani said: Ibn Hazm used this as proof for the permissibility of singing with the duff. He said, commenting on her saying, “They were not professional singers”:

“We say: yes, but she said that they were singing, so singing from both of them is established. Her saying, ‘they were not professional singers,’ means they were not skilled. None of this is proof. The proof is only in his ﷺ rejection of Abu Bakr’s saying: ‘The flute of Satan in the presence of the Messenger ﷺ?’ So it is correct that it is unrestrictedly permissible, with no dislike in it, and whoever rejects it has certainly erred.”

In answer to him, Albani says, seeking help from Allah:

It is very clear to everyone who looks at this hadith that it does not contain the unrestricted permissibility he claimed. How could it, when unrestricted permissibility would include, along with young slave girls, adult women and even men?

It would also include every musical instrument and every day of the year. This is a very clear mistake in which he made the hadith carry what it cannot carry. The cause of that is another mistake, even clearer than it, which he fell into, namely his saying:

“The proof is only in his ﷺ rejection of Abu Bakr’s saying: ‘The flute of Satan in the presence of the Messenger ﷺ?’”

Al Albani said: There is nothing in the hadith showing this rejection, not even by indication. Rather, in it is his ﷺ rejection of Abu Bakr’s rejection against the two girls, and he gave the reason for that by saying:

“For every people have an Eid, and this is our Eid.”

Al Albani said: This reasoning is from his eloquence ﷺ, because from one side it points to approving Abu Bakr’s rejection of flutes as an original rule.

From another side, it clearly approves the two young girls in their singing with the duff, pointing through that to it being an exception from the original rule. It is as if he ﷺ said to Abu Bakr: “You were correct in holding to the original rule, and you erred in rejecting these two girls, for it is a day of Eid.”

I had mentioned something like this in my introduction to the book of Shaykh Numan al Alusi, al Ayat al Bayyinat fi Adam Samaʿ al Amwat, and asked there, pages 46 and 47: From where did Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه get this original rule? I said:

The answer is that he took it from the teachings of the Prophet ﷺ and his many hadiths prohibiting singing and musical instruments. Then I mentioned some of their earlier sources and said: Were it not for Abu Bakr knowing that and being upon clarity concerning the matter, he would not have preceded the Prophet ﷺ, in his house, with such a strong rejection. (Al Albani said: Especially since he is the refined and humble one who said to the Prophet ﷺ: “It is not for the son of Abu Quhafah to pray in front of the Messenger ﷺ,” although he ﷺ had commanded him to remain in his prayer so that the Prophet ﷺ would follow him, as in the two Sahihs in a well known story. It is referenced in Irwa al Ghalil by al Albani, 2/258. Then I saw in Tafsir al Alusi, 12/7, what agrees with what came in my answer mentioned above, so I praised Allah for that and asked Him for more of His guidance and bounty.)

However, what he rejected was hidden from him as being permissible on the day of Eid, so the Prophet ﷺ clarified it to him by saying: “Leave them, O Abu Bakr, for every people have an Eid, and this is our Eid.” So Abu Bakr’s general rejection remained accepted because the Prophet ﷺ approved it, but he made an exception from it for singing on Eid. So it is permissible with the descriptions that appear in this hadith.

I had mentioned there in the introduction pointed to earlier other examples showing the importance of the Prophet ﷺ approving a statement, and that it is one of the strong reasons for understanding the matter in which the approval occurred correctly.

Among them is the hadith of the well of Badr and his ﷺ calling the dead polytheists in it: “O so and so, son of so and so.” Umar and others from the Companions said: “How can you speak to bodies that have no souls in them?”

He approved them in that, but answered them by saying: “You do not hear what I say better than they do.” It is agreed upon. I used this story there as proof that the original rule concerning the dead is that they do not hear, through two matters. What matters to me now is the part connected to approval. I said, pages 39–42:

The other matter is that the Prophet ﷺ approved Umar and others from the Companions upon what had become settled in their souls and belief, that the dead do not hear. Some of them indicated that, and others mentioned it clearly. However, both matters need explanation. I say:

As for the indication, it is in the Companions’ quick response when they heard him ﷺ calling the dead of the well, by saying:

“How can you speak to bodies that have no souls in them?” In another narration from Anas with similar wording, it says: “They said,” instead of: “Umar said.”

Were it not for their having prior knowledge of that, which they had received from him ﷺ, they would not have hastened to say that to him. Suppose that they rushed and rejected without prior knowledge, the duty of conveying would then require the Prophet ﷺ to make clear to them that this belief of theirs was wrong and had no basis in the Sharia.

We do not see in any narration of the hadith such clarification. The most he said to them was: “You do not hear what I say better than they do.”

This, as you see, does not establish a general rule concerning all the dead that opposes their earlier belief. Rather, it is information about the people of the well specifically. Even that is not unrestricted, as its explanation already passed. So their hearing was specific to that time and to what the Prophet ﷺ said to them only. It is therefore a specific event with no general meaning.

It does not indicate that they hear always, forever, and everything said to them, nor does it include any other dead person at all.

As for the clear report, it is what Ahmad narrated (3/287) from the hadith of Anas رضي الله عنه, who said:

“Authentic: Umar heard his voice and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, do you call them after three days? Do they hear? Allah, Mighty and Majestic, says:

إِنَّكَ لا تُسْمِعُ الْمَوْتَى

‘Indeed, you cannot make the dead hear.’ (al Naml 80)

He said: ‘By the One in whose hand is my soul, you do not hear what I say better than they do, but they are unable to answer.’”

Its chain is authentic upon the condition of Muslim.

Umar رضي الله عنه clearly said that the mentioned verse was the basis for that quick response, and that they understood from its general wording that the people of the well were included in it. For that reason the matter became unclear to them, so they spoke frankly to the Prophet ﷺ about it, so he could remove what was unclear to them. That happened through the explanation already mentioned.

From it, it becomes clear that the Prophet ﷺ approved the Companions, and at their head Umar, upon their understanding of the verse according to that general way that includes the dead of the well and others. He did not reject that from them, nor did he say to them: “You have erred. The verse does not negate the hearing of the dead unrestrictedly.” Rather, he approved them upon that, but clarified for them what had been hidden from them concerning the matter of the well, and that they really heard his words. That was a specific matter excluded from the verse, as a miracle for him ﷺ, as already passed.

Then I said there:

Pay attention to this. Know that part of precise fiqh is to care about following what the Prophet ﷺ approved and to use it as proof, because his approval is truth, as is known. Without this, understanding can stray away from what is correct in many texts.

We do not take you far away. Here is the evidence before you. Many authors and others have become used to using this hadith, the hadith of the well, as proof that the dead hear, holding onto the apparent meaning of his ﷺ saying: “You do not hear what I say better than they do,” while not paying attention to his ﷺ approval of the Companions upon their belief that the dead do not hear.

By noticing what we mentioned, the hadith becomes proof that the dead do not hear, and that this is the original rule. It is not permissible to depart from it except by a text, as is the case with every general text. Allah is the One who grants success.

The researcher may find many examples of this type. Perhaps it is useful to mention here what comes to mind now. They are two examples.

Then I mentioned both of them, and one of them is this hadith of Aʿishah. I then said after it, page 46:

Al Albani said: We find in this hadith that the Prophet ﷺ did not reject the saying of Abu Bakr al Siddiq, “the flute of Satan.” Rather, he approved him upon that. So his approval indicates that this is known and not rejected. From where did Abu Bakr al Siddiq get that answer?

This continues as already quoted on pages 107 and 108. Then I said, page 47:

It becomes clear that just as he ﷺ approved Umar’s rejection of the dead hearing, he likewise approved Abu Bakr’s rejection of the flute of Satan. Just as he entered a specification upon the first matter, he also entered a specification upon this saying of Abu Bakr, which required the permissibility of the mentioned singing on the day of Eid. Whoever fails to notice the approval we clarified takes from the hadith permissibility on all days, as some contemporary writers like, and Ibn Hazm preceded them in this.

Then I said, pages 48 and 49:

As for the fact that he ﷺ did not reject the two young girls, that is true. However, it was on a day of Eid, so it does not include other days.

This is first.

Second: when he ﷺ commanded Abu Bakr not to reject them by saying, “Leave them,” he followed that by saying, “for every people have an Eid.” This is a sentence giving the reason. It shows that the reason for permissibility is Eid, if this expression is correct. It is known that a ruling revolves around its reason, in presence and absence. So when this reason is absent, by it not being a day of Eid, singing is not permitted, as is clear. However, perhaps Ibn Hazm does not accept proof by reason, as is known from him that he does not accept proof by implied meaning. The scholars responded to him, especially Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, in many places in Majmuʿ al Fatawa. Refer to the second volume of its index.

The speech on the hadith of Aʿishah concerning hearing singing has become long, and there is no harm in that, if Allah Most High wills. The point from it is clear and important, which is that the student of knowledge noticing the Prophet’s ﷺ approval of a matter opens for him a door of fiqh and understanding that he could not have reached without it. This is how it was in the hadith of the well.

The summary is that Ibn Hazm’s mistake arose only from his imagining that the Prophet ﷺ rejected Abu Bakr’s rejection of the two young girls in an unrestricted way. It did not arise from the Prophet’s ﷺ approval of the two young girls, because this only indicates a permissibility restricted to the day of Eid, as already passed, and to the duff, not all musical instruments, and to young females, as the scholars clearly said. Ibn al Jawzi said in Talbis Iblis by Ibn al Jawzi (1/239):

“What is apparent regarding these two young girls is young age, because Aʿishah was young, and the Messenger ﷺ used to send young girls to her so they could play with her.” (The two Shaykhs and others reported it. It is referenced in Ghayat al Maram by al Albani, 99/128. Sahih Al Bukhari 6130. Sahih Muslim 2440.)

For this reason, I do not think Ibn Hazm would have generalised the ruling were it not for that misunderstanding. What supports my thought is the mentioned hadith about sending young girls, because he adopted its specific indication and did not generalise it. He said in al Muhalla by Ibn Hazm (10/75–76):

“It is permissible for young girls specifically to play with images, and it is not lawful for others besides them.”

Al Albani said: This is the fiqh required by combining between the texts, such as the general and the specific here. The clear hadiths on the prohibition of images of living beings are many and well known. The toys of girls mentioned by Ibn Hazm are excluded from them. So this is not to be struck against those hadiths, as some virtuous people have held, because that goes against the mentioned combining. This is how Ibn Hazm’s position should have been regarding musical instruments. He should have said that they are forbidden, just as he forbade images, and he should have excluded from them the duff on Eid. However, success did not accompany him, and he did not come across the earlier hadiths on the prohibition of instruments. It would have been enough for him to rely on the saying of Abu Bakr in the presence of the Prophet ﷺ: “The flute of Satan in the presence of the Messenger ﷺ?” Were it not for his misunderstanding which I have explained just now, and we have made clear that the hadith is proof against him, as the scholars said. There is no harm in mentioning some of their sayings on that.

Abu al Tayyib al Tabari (d. 450AH) said:

“This hadith is our proof, because Abu Bakr called that the flute of Satan, and the Prophet ﷺ did not reject Abu Bakr’s saying. Rather, he only prevented him from being harsh in rejection because of his good companionship, especially on the day of Eid. Aʿishah رضي الله عنها was young at that time, and nothing was transmitted from her after she reached maturity and attained knowledge except blame of singing. Her nephew al Qasim ibn Muhammad used to blame singing and prevent listening to it, and he took knowledge from her.”

I quoted it from the book of Ibn al Jawzi (1/253–254).

Ibn Taymiyyah said in Risalat al Samaʿ wa al Raqs (2/285, within Majmuʿat al Rasail al Kubra):

“In this hadith there is clarification that this was not from the habit of the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions to gather upon it. For this reason, al Siddiq Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه called it the flute of Satan. The Prophet ﷺ approved the young girls upon it, giving the reason that it was a day of Eid, and young people are given concession in play on Eid days, as came in the hadith:

‘So the polytheists may know that in our religion there is ease.’ (It is part of the hadith about the Abyssinians playing with spears in the masjid. Its basis is agreed upon, and this part was narrated by Ahmad and al Humaydi through two routes from her. It is referenced in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 1829, and Adab al Zifaf by al Albani, pages 274–275. Al Hafiz was silent about it, 2/444, and attributed it to al Sarraj.)

And as Aʿishah used to have toys with which she would play, and her female friends from young women would come and play with her.” (Agreed upon, as already passed a short while ago, page 112.)

Ibn al Qayyim said in Ighathat al Lahfan by Ibn al Qayyim (1/257):

“He ﷺ did not reject Abu Bakr calling singing the flute of Satan. He approved both of them because they were two young girls who were not legally responsible, singing the song of the Bedouins that was said on the day of the battle of Buʿath concerning courage and war, and the day was a day of Eid.”

Al Hafiz said in Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar (2/442), commenting on his ﷺ saying, “Leave them”:

“In it there is reasoning and clarification, contrary to what al Siddiq thought, that they had done that without his ﷺ knowledge, because he entered and found him covered with his garment, so he thought he was sleeping. Thus, rejection was directed towards his daughter from these ways, while keeping with what had been established with him concerning the prohibition of singing and amusement. So he hastened to reject that, acting on behalf of the Prophet ﷺ in that, based on what appeared to him. The Prophet ﷺ then clarified the reality to him and informed him of the ruling, joined with explaining the wisdom, namely that it was a day of Eid, meaning legislated happiness. Thus, the like of this is not rejected, just as it is not rejected at weddings.”

As for the hadith of Ibn Umar which Ibn Hazm used as proof for permissibility, Nafi, the freed slave of Ibn Umar, reported it:

“Ibn Umar heard the sound of a shepherd’s flute, so he placed his two fingers in his ears and turned his mount away from the road, saying: ‘O Nafi, do you hear it?’ I would say: ‘Yes.’ He continued until I said: ‘No.’ He then lowered his hands, returned his mount to the road, and said: ‘I saw the Messenger ﷺ hear the flute of a shepherd and do the same as this.’”

Ahmad narrated it (2/8 and 2/38), as did Ibn Saʿd (4/163), Abu Dawud (Sunan Abu Dawud 4924–4926), and through his route al Bayhaqi in al Sunan (10/222), likewise Ibn al Jawzi (page 247), Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (2013, Mawarid), Ibn Abi al Dunya (leaf 9/1), al Ajurri (64), al Tabarani in al Muʿjam al Saghir (page 5, Indian printing), and al Bayhaqi in Shuʿab al Iman as well (4/283/5120), through routes from Nafi with it. Some of its routes are authentic. I referenced them and spoke on them in detail, along with a follow up for Nafi from Mujahid with similar wording, in al Rawd al Nadir by al Albani, 568, and in brief in al Mishkat by al Albani, 4811, second checking. Al Hafiz Abu al Fadl Muhammad ibn Nasir said: “Authentic hadith,” as in Tafsir al Alusi (11/77) and Kaff al Ruʿa (page 109, margin of al Kabair).

Ibn Hazm said after the hadith:

“If it had been forbidden, the Messenger ﷺ would not have permitted Ibn Umar to hear it, and Ibn Umar would not have permitted Nafi to hear it. Rather, he عليه الصلاة والسلام disliked everything that was not from drawing near to Allah, just as he disliked eating while reclining. If it were forbidden, he عليه الصلاة والسلام would not have limited himself to blocking his ears from it without commanding that it be left and forbidding it.”

Al Albani said: May Allah pardon Ibn Hazm, for matters were hidden from him which do not befit his knowledge to have been hidden from him.

First: the difference between samaʿ (hearing) and istimaʿ (listening intentionally) was absent from him, so he explained the first as the second. This is a clear error in language, the Qur’an, and the Sunnah. For this reason, Ibn Taymiyyah said after the hadith of Aʿishah mentioned a short while ago:

“There is nothing in the hadith of the two young girls to show that the Prophet ﷺ intentionally listened to that. Command and prohibition only relate to intentional listening, not mere hearing. This is like seeing, for it only relates to intending to see, not what happens without choice. Likewise with smelling perfume. The muhrim is only prohibited from intending to smell it. As for when he smells what he did not intend, nothing is upon him. Likewise with direct contact with forbidden things through the five senses: hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch. Command and prohibition only relate in that to what the servant intends and does. As for what happens without his choice, there is no command or prohibition in it.

This is among what explains the hadith of Ibn Umar.”

Then he mentioned it. He said:

“Some people say, assuming the hadith is authentic, that Ibn Umar did not command Nafi to block his ears. The answer is that Ibn Umar was not intentionally listening. He was only hearing. There is no sin in this. The Prophet ﷺ only turned away seeking what was more complete and better. This is like someone passing on his road and hearing people speaking forbidden speech, so he blocks his ears so he does not hear it. This is better. If he did not block his ears, he would not sin by that, unless there was religious harm in his hearing which would not be repelled except by blocking.”

Al Albani said: It is authentic, as I clarified.

Second: it is as if Ibn Hazm pictures the shepherd playing the flute as being before the Prophet ﷺ so that he could command him and forbid him. There is nothing in the hadith indicating this. Rather, there may be what suggests the opposite, namely that he was far away and his person was not seen, but only his sound was heard. For this reason, the scholar Ibn Abd al Hadi said after mentioning something like the words of Ibn Taymiyyah, in summary:

“Approving the shepherd does not indicate its permissibility, because it is a specific event. Perhaps he heard him without seeing him, or from far away on top of a mountain, or in a place that could not be reached. Or perhaps the shepherd was not legally responsible, so rejecting him was not binding.” (I quoted it from Awn al Mabud by al Azimabadi, 4/435, and it is from Mirqat al Suʿud by al Suyuti.)

Third: the prohibition of singing and musical instruments is not stronger in prohibition than wine. He knows that the Prophet ﷺ lived for as long as Allah willed among his Companions while they drank it before its prohibition. Is it correct to say that he ﷺ approved them and did not forbid them? Likewise, we say, assuming the hadith indicates permissibility: it is possible that it was before the prohibition. When possibility enters, proof falls away.

Fourth and lastly: assuming what was mentioned, then it is a permissibility specific to the shepherd’s flute. It is a simple, primitive, weak instrument in terms of stirring souls, moving natures, and taking them out of the limit of balance. So where is it compared to other instruments such as the lute, qanun, and other instruments that became more varied as time passed, especially in the present age, through which some singers have been tested by using them and the public by listening to them and being distracted by them?

There is no doubt that the evidence in this hadith, upon the mentioned assumption, is more specific than the claim, as the fuqaha say. Otherwise, the reality is that there is no proof in it at all. Rather, it contains proof that the Prophet ﷺ disliked the sound of the shepherd’s flute. Without doubt, this is a Sharia dislike that enters under the general meaning of Allah Most High’s saying:

لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ

“You certainly have in the Messenger of Allah a good example.” (al Ahzab 21)

For this reason, Abdullah ibn Umar رضي الله عنهما followed him and placed his two fingers in his ears, although there was no intention, as we have explained. So with intention it is more severely disliked, as is not hidden. For this reason, Ibn al Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him, said, page 247:

“If this was their action regarding a sound that does not go beyond balance, then what about the singing and flutes of the people of this time?”

Al Albani said: What, then, should be said about the people of our time and their music?

Is there anyone who will take lesson?

Before ending the speech on this chapter, it occurred to me to present the readers with a rare and useful report which I have not seen anyone who wrote on instruments of amusement mention. It is from one of the rightly guided caliphs, Umar ibn Abd al Aziz رضي الله عنه. The noble reader will become certain from it that maʿazif were rejected among the Salaf, and that the one who strives to make them public deserves disciplinary punishment and exposure. Imam al Awzaʿi (d. 157AH), may Allah Most High have mercy on him, said:

A letter was written with Umar ibn Abd al Aziz to Umar ibn al Walid, and in it was:

“… Your making maʿazif and the mizmar public is an innovation in Islam. I had resolved to send to you someone who would cut your forelock, an evil forelock.”

Al Nasai narrated it in his Sunan (2/178), and Abu Nuʿaym in al Hilyah (5/270), with an authentic chain. Ibn Abd al Hakam mentioned it in Sirat Umar (pages 154–157) in a very lengthy form. Abu Nuʿaym narrated it (5/309) through another route in a very brief form.

So there is no surprise that he also wrote to the teacher of his children, commanding him to raise them upon hatred of instruments of amusement and maʿazif. Abu Hafs al Umawi Umar ibn Abdullah said: (I do not know him. It is possible that he is Umar ibn Abdullah, the freed slave of Ghufrah, the Madani, for his kunyah is Abu Hafs. However, I did not see anyone attribute him as Umawi.)

Umar ibn Abd al Aziz wrote to the teacher of his children, commanding him to raise them upon hatred of maʿazif:

“Let the first thing they believe from your teaching be hatred of instruments of amusement, whose beginning is from Satan and whose end is the anger of the Most Merciful. It has reached me from reliable people of knowledge that attending maʿazif, listening to songs, and being attached to them grows hypocrisy in the heart as water grows grass. By my life, protecting oneself from that by avoiding attendance at such places is easier for the person of understanding than hypocrisy becoming firm in his heart.”

Ibn Abi al Dunya narrated it in Dhamm al Malahi (leaf 6/1), and through his route Abu al Faraj Ibn al Jawzi narrated it, page 250. The sentence, “singing grows hypocrisy,” has been authentically reported from Ibn Masʿud as stopped upon him, and it was also narrated from him as raised to the Prophet ﷺ, as already passed in the introduction, page 10. Its referencing will come in chapter 8, page 145.

A completion:

Perhaps someone may ask: We have known from the earlier hadiths, studies, and sayings of the scholars that all musical instruments are forbidden without exception, except the duff at weddings and Eid. Is there another occasion in which the duff is also lawful?

Al Albani said: In the words of some scholars, there is what points to the permissibility of playing the duff in times of joy, as they mention unrestrictedly, and at circumcision and the arrival of an absent person. Personally, I have not found anything that proves this, even as a stopped report. I saw that Ibn al Qayyim mentioned in his book Masalat al Samaʿ (page 133) a report from the narration of Abu Shuʿayb al Harrani, with his chain from Khalid, from Ibn Sirin:

“Umar ibn al Khattab, when he heard the sound of the duff, would ask about it. If they said: ‘A wedding,’ or ‘a circumcision,’ he would remain silent.”

Its men are reliable, but it is disconnected. Ibn al Qayyim went far in attributing it to Abu Shuʿayb al Harrani, even though he is reliable, because he is not the author of a known work. It was narrated by someone more famous than him, more reliable, and from the authors of books, such as Ibn Abi Shaybah (4/192). He said “he approved it” instead of “he remained silent.” Abd al Razzaq also narrated it (11/5), and from him al Bayhaqi (7/290), through two routes from Ayyub, from Ibn Sirin: “Umar used to…” and so on. The wording of Ibn Abi Shaybah is:

“From Ibn Sirin, who said: I was informed that Umar…”

This is clear in disconnection. What came before it is also apparently disconnected, because Muhammad ibn Sirin did not meet Umar ibn al Khattab. He was born around ten years after his death.

Some used as proof for the matter the hadith of Abdullah ibn Buraydah from his father:

“A black slave woman came to the Messenger ﷺ after he returned from one of his military expeditions and said: ‘I had vowed that if Allah returned you safe,’ and in one narration: ‘sound,’ ‘I would beat the duff before you and sing.’ He said:

‘If you had vowed, then do it. If you had not vowed, then do not do it.’

So she beat it. Abu Bakr entered while she was beating it. Another entered while she was beating it. Then Umar entered. She put her duff behind her, and in another narration: under her backside, then sat upon it while covering herself. The Messenger ﷺ said:

‘Satan surely flees,’ and in the other narration: ‘Surely fears you, O Umar. I was sitting here while she was beating it, and these people entered while she was beating it. When you entered, O Umar, she did what she did.’ In the other narration: ‘She threw the duff.’” (Ahmad reported it, and the wording is his. The other narration, with the additions, is by al Tirmidhi. He graded it authentic, as did Ibn Hibban and Ibn al Qattan. It is referenced in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 1609 and 2261. Al Hafiz was silent about it in Fath al Bari, 11/587–588. Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 3690.)

(Note: This hadith is among what the brother Abdullah ibn Yusuf al Judayʿ missed, so he did not include it in his valuable book Ahadith Dhamm al Ghina, which I gave a good word about in the comment on page 37. This hadith falls under his condition. Ibn al Qayyim brought it very briefly in his book Masalat al Samaʿ, page 299, but he made a mistake in its wording by adding at its end a rejected addition with the wording: “When Umar came, he commanded her to be silent and said: ‘This is a man who does not like falsehood.’ This command and saying were only narrated in another story from the hadith of al Aswad ibn Sariʿ with al Hakim, Ahmad, and al Tabarani through the route of Abd al Rahman ibn Abi Bakrah from him, concerning his reciting to the Prophet ﷺ words of praise by which he praised his Lord. Al Dhahabi graded it weak. The story of recitation is authentic without mentioning Umar. I clarified that in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 3179. In short, this story of Umar is weak. The noble brother Saʿd ibn Abdullah Al Humayd graded it good in his commentary on Mukhtasar Istidrak al Hafiz al Dhahabi, 5/2332 and 2334, through both of its weak routes from Abd al Rahman ibn Abi Bakrah, while not noticing its rejection because it opposes the authentic route that is free from it. Then it has no basis in the story of the black slave woman, contrary to what Ibn al Qayyim, may Allah Most High have mercy on him, did. There are other additions that appear after the hadith in Mawarid al Zaman, pages 493 and 494, more rejected than the previous one, with the wording: “She beat the duff and said: The full moon has risen upon us from the mountain paths of al Wada. Gratitude has become due upon us so long as one calling calls to Allah.” This addition is weak here and weak in the story of his ﷺ arrival to Madinah. Its chain is broken with a missing link, and it does not clarify whether his arrival was from Tabuk, as Ibn al Qayyim brought it in Masalat al Samaʿ, pages 265 and 266, and used it as proof in Zad al Maʿad, 3/18, or from Makkah during his migration from it, as indicated by the way al Bayhaqi placed it in Dalail al Nubuwwah, 2/506–507, and al Hafiz followed him, 7/261. Whether this or that is stronger, the basis of the story is weak and not established, and whatever is built upon the weak is weak. Al Ghazali added another addition to it, more rejected than all that preceded, with the wording: “with the duff and melodies.” It has no basis in the story, as al Hafiz al Iraqi pointed out in Takhrij al Ihya, 2/277. I have given detailed speech on this story and what we mentioned around it in al Silsilah al Daʿifah by al Albani, 2/63, and al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 5/331. It is truly among the strange things that Ibn al Jawzi brings it in Talbis Iblis, page 239, as if it were accepted without question, and likewise Ibn al Qayyim in al Masalah and Zad al Maʿad, while the editor of the Muassasah printing did not comment on it at all, 3/551, as is the case with most of the book’s content.)

The grandfather of Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on them both, gave this hadith of Buraydah the heading in al Muntaqa min Akhbar al Mustafa:

“The chapter on women beating the duff at the arrival of an absent person and what is similar to it.”

Al Albani said: In using this hadith as proof for the heading he gave, I have a pause, because it is a specific event and has no general meaning. Making qiyas between joy at the arrival of an absent person, no matter his rank, and the Prophet ﷺ is qiyas with a clear difference. For this reason, I said in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani (4/142) after the hadith:

“This hadith may be unclear to some people, because beating the duff is a sin outside marriage and Eid, and it is not permissible to vow a sin or fulfil it.

What appears to me regarding that is that when her vow was made out of joy at his عليه السلام safe and victorious return, the reason she vowed to show her joy was overlooked, as a specific matter for him ﷺ alone, and not for all people. So from it, the permissibility of the duff in all joys is not taken, because there is no one whose arrival gives joy like joy at his ﷺ arrival. Also, that would oppose the general proofs prohibiting maʿazif, duffs, and others, except what has been excluded, as we mentioned a short while ago.”

Similar wording appears in the fifth volume of al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani (5/332–333).

Imam al Khattabi, may Allah have mercy on him, explained the reason I mentioned. He said in Maʿalim al Sunan by al Khattabi (4/382):

“Beating the duff is not counted among acts of obedience to which vows are attached. Its best state is that it is from the permissible. However, when it was joined to showing joy at the safe arrival of the Messenger ﷺ, when he returned to Madinah from one of his military expeditions, and in that there was grief for the disbelievers and humiliation for the hypocrites, doing it became like some acts of nearness from optional acts of obedience. For this reason, beating the duff was made permissible.”

Al Albani said: In this there is a strong indication that the story is specific to the Prophet ﷺ. It is a specific incident and has no general meaning, as the fuqaha say regarding similar cases. Allah, Glorified and Most High, knows best.

Singing Without an Instrument

Someone may say:

We have now known the ruling on singing with musical instruments, and that it is forbidden except for the duff at a wedding and Eid. So what is the ruling on singing without an instrument?

In answer, Albani says: it is not correct to make an unrestricted statement that it is forbidden, because there is no evidence for this unrestricted wording. It is also not correct to make an unrestricted statement that it is permissible, as some Sufis and others from the people of desires have done in the past and present, because singing is usually with poetry, and poetry is not forbidden unrestrictedly. How could it be, when the Prophet ﷺ said:

“Indeed, some poetry contains wisdom.” (Sahih Al Bukhari 6145. It is referenced in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 2851.)

Rather, he would sometimes quote some of it, such as the poetry of Abdullah ibn Rawahah رضي الله عنه:

“News will come to you from one whom you did not supply.”

It is referenced in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 2057. See the comment on it in my new book Sahih al Adab al Mufrad by al Albani, page 322.

For this reason, when he عليه الصلاة والسلام was asked about poetry, he said:

“Authentic: It is speech. Its good is good, and its bad is bad.”

It is also referenced in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 447. Likewise, the lady Aʿishah رضي الله عنها said:

“Authentic: Take what is good and leave what is bad. I have narrated poems from the poetry of Kaʿb ibn Malik, among them an ode containing forty lines, and less than that.”

This is also in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani.

The hadiths about his listening to poetry are many, and some of them will come, if Allah Most High wills. Aʿishah رضي الله عنها said:

“Authentic: When the Messenger ﷺ came to Madinah, Abu Bakr and Bilal became feverish. When Abu Bakr was seized by fever, he would say:

‘Every person wakes among his family, while death is closer than the strap of his sandal.’

When Bilal recovered from it, he would sing and say:

‘If only I knew whether I would spend a night in a valley while around me were idhkhir and jalil.

And whether I would one day return to the waters of Majannah, and whether Shamah and Tafil would appear to me.

O Allah, disgrace Utbah ibn Rabiʿah and Umayyah ibn Khalaf as they drove us out of Makkah.’”

Ahmad narrated it (6/82–83) with an authentic chain. It is in the two Sahihs and elsewhere without the wording “he would sing.” It is referenced in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 2584. (Sahih Al Bukhari 3926. Sahih Muslim 1376.)

Authentic: From Anas ibn Malik, that he entered upon his brother al Bara, who was reclining, placing one leg over the other, singing. He forbade him. He said:

“Do you fear that I will die on my bed, while I alone killed one hundred of the disbelievers, besides those in whose killing other people shared with me?”

Al Hakim narrated it (3/291), as did Abd al Razzaq (11/6/19742), and through his route al Tabarani in al Muʿjam al Kabir (2/12/1178), and from him Abu Nuʿaym in al Hilyah (1/350). Al Hakim said: “Authentic according to the condition of the two Shaykhs,” and al Dhahabi agreed with him. It is as they both said, and its route is other than the route of Abd al Razzaq.

Authentic: From Abdullah ibn al Harith ibn Nawfal, who said:

“I saw Usamah ibn Zayd رضي الله عنه sitting in the gathering, placing one leg over the other, raising his voice.” He said: “I thought he was singing nasb poetry.”

Abd al Razzaq narrated it (19739), and through his route al Bayhaqi (1/224). Its chain is authentic according to the condition of the two Shaykhs. (In Musannaf Abd al Razzaq it says “masjid,” but in al Bayhaqi it says “gathering.” The wording in Musannaf Abd al Razzaq is either a scribal or printing distortion, or an error from al Dabari, the narrator of al Musannaf. What is affirmed is the narration of al Bayhaqi.)

Authentic: From Wahb ibn Kaysan, who said: Abdullah ibn al Zubayr, while reclining, said: “Bilal sang.”

A man said to him: “He sang?” So he sat upright and said:

“Which man from the Muhajirun did I not hear singing nasb poetry?” (Its meaning will come.)

Abd al Razzaq narrated it (19741) in summary form, and al Bayhaqi (10/230), and the wording is his. Its chain is authentic according to the condition of the two Shaykhs.

Al Saib ibn Yazid said:

“While we were with Abd al Rahman ibn Awf on the road of Hajj, heading towards Makkah, Abd al Rahman رضي الله عنه moved away from the road. He then said to Rabah ibn al Mughtar: ‘Sing for us, O Abu Hassan.’ He was good at nasb poetry. While Rabah was singing for him, Umar ibn al Khattab رضي الله عنه caught up with them during his caliphate and said: ‘What is this?’ Abd al Rahman said: ‘What harm is there in this? We are entertaining ourselves and shortening the journey for ourselves.’ Umar رضي الله عنه said: ‘If you must do so, then take the poetry of Dirar ibn al Khattab.’ Dirar was a man from Banu Muharib ibn Fihr.” (See al Ikmal by Ibn Makula, 7/276.)

Al Bayhaqi narrated it (10/224) with a good chain and said:

“Nasb is a type of Bedouin singing, resembling camel driving song. Abu Ubayd al Harawi said this.”

In al Qamus: the nasb of the Arabs is a type of their songs, softer than camel driving song.

Al Albani said: In these hadiths and reports there is clear proof for the permissibility of singing without an instrument on some occasions, such as reminding of death, longing for family and homeland, relaxing the self, being distracted from the hardship and strain of travel, and similar things, so long as it is not taken as a profession, and does not go beyond the limit of balance, and is not joined with swaying, bending, or stamping the foot in a way that harms dignity, as in the hadith of Umm Alqamah, the freed woman of Aʿishah:

“The daughters of the brother of Aʿishah رضي الله عنها were circumcised, and they felt pain because of that. It was said to Aʿishah: ‘O Mother of the Believers, should we call someone to entertain them?’ She said: ‘Yes.’ She sent for so and so, the singer, and he came to them. Aʿishah رضي الله عنها passed by them in the house and saw him singing and moving his head in joy, and he had much hair. Aʿishah رضي الله عنها said:

‘Uff! A devil. Throw him out. Throw him out.’

So they threw him out.” (The original has “so he sent,” and on the margin: “so she sent.” I affirmed this because of the narration of al Adab al Mufrad by al Bukhari, 321/1247.)

Al Bayhaqi narrated it (10/223–224), and al Bukhari narrated it in abridged form in al Adab al Mufrad (1247) with a chain that is good, or open to being graded good. I included it in Sahih al Adab al Mufrad by al Albani, number 945, grading it good. Al Hafiz Ibn Rajab authenticated it in Nuzhat al Asmaʿ (page 55, Tayyibah printing).

Al Bayhaqi gave these hadiths and reports the heading:

“The chapter on a man who does not attribute himself to singing, is not approached for it, and does not come for it, but is only known to become joyful in the moment and hum in it.”

Shaykh Abu al Faraj Ibn al Jawzi has good speech on this matter, which he placed in his book Talbis Iblis in more than one section. To complete the benefit, I will summarise it for the readers. He said, pages 237–241:

“People have spoken at length about singing. Some forbade it. Some permitted it without dislike. Some disliked it while permitting it.

The decisive answer is that we say:

The reality of the thing should be examined first. Then prohibition, dislike, or other than that should be applied to it. Singing is used for a number of things.

Among them is the singing of pilgrims on the roads. Groups of non Arabs come for Hajj and chant poetry on the roads in which they describe the Kaʿbah, Zamzam, and the Maqam. Listening to such poetry is permissible. Their chanting it is not something that stirs musical joy and takes a person out of balance.

Similar to these are the fighters, for they chant poetry by which they urge one another to fight.

Similar to this is the chanting of fighters in single combat, reciting poems out of pride when meeting in battle.

Similar to it is the poetry of those who drive camels on the road to Makkah, such as their saying:

‘Her guide gave her glad news and said: Tomorrow you will see the acacia trees and mountains.’

This moves camels and people. However, this movement does not cause the musical joy that takes one beyond the limit of balance.

Authentic: The Messenger ﷺ had a camel driver called Anjashah, and the camels would move quickly. (Meaning, they would hasten.) So the Messenger ﷺ said:

‘O Anjashah, be gentle when driving the glass vessels.’” (The two Shaykhs and others reported it from the hadith of Anas. It is referenced in al Silsilah al Daʿifah by al Albani under hadith 6059. Sahih Al Bukhari 6149. Sahih Muslim 2323.)

Authentic: In the hadith of Salamah ibn al Akwa, he said:

“We went out with the Messenger ﷺ to Khaybar, and we travelled by night. A man from the people said to Amir ibn al Akwa: ‘Will you not let us hear some of your small poems?’ Amir was a poet. He came down and began driving the people with chant, saying:

‘O Allah, were it not for You, we would not have been guided, nor given charity, nor prayed.

So send down calmness upon us, and make our feet firm when we meet.’

The Messenger ﷺ said:

‘Who is this driver?’

They said: ‘Amir ibn al Akwa.’

He said: ‘May Allah have mercy on him.’” (Muslim narrated it and others. It is referenced in Sahih Ibn Dawud by al Albani, 2289. It has a supporting report from the hadith of Umar رضي الله عنه that the Prophet ﷺ said to Ibn Rawahah: “Come down and move the riding animals.” It is referenced in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 3280. Sahih Muslim 1802.)

We have reported from al Shafiʿi (d. 204AH), may Allah have mercy on him, that he said: “As for listening to camel driving song and the chant of the Bedouins, there is no harm in it.”

The summary ends.

Imam al Shatibi (d. 790AH) said in al Iʿtisam by al Shatibi (1/368), after pointing to the hadith of Anjashah while answering some Sufis:

“This is good. However, the Arabs did not have refinement of tones like what people are upon today. Rather, they would recite poetry freely, without learning these returns in melody that emerged after them. They would soften the voice and stretch it in a way fitting the unlettered Arabs who did not know the crafts of music. So it did not contain delight or musical joy that distracts. Rather, they had something of energy, as Abdullah ibn Rawahah used to chant before the Messenger ﷺ, and as the Ansar used to say when digging the trench:

‘We are the ones who pledged allegiance to Muhammad, upon jihad as long as we live.’

He ﷺ would answer them by saying:

‘O Allah, there is no good except the good of the Hereafter, so forgive the Ansar and the Muhajirah.’”

Then Ibn al Jawzi mentioned through the narration of al Khallal, and this is in al Amr bil Maʿruf (page 34), with his chain from Aʿishah رضي الله عنها, who said:

“We had an orphan girl from the Ansar. We married her to a man from the Ansar. I was among those who escorted her to her husband. The Messenger ﷺ said:

‘O Aʿishah, the Ansar are a people who have affection. What did you say?’

She said: ‘We prayed for blessing.’

He said: ‘Did you not say:

We have come to you, we have come to you, so greet us and we will greet you.

Were it not for the red gold, she would not have settled in your valley.

Were it not for the brown grain, your maidens would not have become full.’” (A good hadith, referenced in Irwa al Ghalil by al Albani, 1995, and Adab al Zifaf by al Albani, page 181.)

Among that are poems chanted by those given to zuhd (renunciation), with a pleasing voice and tune, which stir the hearts towards remembrance of the Hereafter. They call them zuhdiyyat, such as the saying of one of them:

“O one who goes and returns in heedlessness, until when will you see ugly deeds as good?

How long, how long will you not fear a standing in which Allah will make the limbs speak?

How strange you are, while you can see. How have you avoided the clear path?”

This is also permissible. Ahmad pointed to the permissibility of what is like it.

Then Ibn al Jawzi narrated, page 240, with his chain from Abu Hamid al Khalqani, that he said:

“I said to Ahmad ibn Hanbal: ‘O Abu Abdullah, these soft odes that mention Paradise and Hell, what do you say about them?’ He said: ‘Like what?’ I said: ‘They say:

When my Lord says to me: Did you not feel shame in disobeying Me?

And you hid the sin from My creation, while you came to Me with disobedience?’” (Al Albani said: Imam al Shatibi mentioned another story containing poetry of this type, then said, 1/370: “This and what resembles it was the action of the people. Alongside that, they did not limit energising souls and admonition to mere poetry. Rather, they admonished themselves with every admonition. They also did not bring singers to recite poetry, because that was not from their aims, nor did they have any of the singing used in our times.” The imam is pointing to the difference between natural singing, which is permissible, and crafted professional singing, which is prohibited.)

He said: “Repeat it to me.” So I repeated it to him. He stood, entered his house, and closed the door. I heard his weeping from inside the house, while he said the two lines.

As for the poems chanted by singers prepared for singing, in which they describe beautiful women, wine, and other things that move natures, take them out of balance, and stir within them the love of amusement, this is the singing known in this time, such as the saying of the poet:

“Golden in colour. You would think from his cheek that fire is being kindled.

They frightened me of disgrace because of him. If only he came and I were disgraced.”

They have produced different melodies for these songs, all of which take the listener out of balance and stir love of amusement. They have something they call basit, which moves hearts slowly, then they bring chant after it, shaking the hearts. They have added to this beating sticks and striking them in line with the chant, the duff with bells, and the shabbabah that takes the place of the flute.

Then Ibn al Jawzi narrated, page 244, the prohibition of singing from Malik, and his wording on that already passed on page 99. He also narrated it from Abu Hanifah (d. 150AH), and said on page 245:

Al Tabari (d. 310AH) said: “The scholars of the lands have agreed upon dislike of singing and preventing it. Ibrahim ibn Saʿd and Ubaydullah al Anbari alone separated from the group. The Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Whoever separates from the group dies a death of Jahiliyyah.’” (It is part of a hadith of Ibn Abbas with the wording: “Whoever sees from his ruler something he dislikes, let him be patient, for whoever separates from the group…” Agreed upon. It is referenced in Irwa al Ghalil by al Albani, 2453. However, it is not hidden that mentioning it here is not suitable, so reflect. As for the hadith, “Hold to the great majority,” it is weak, as in Zilal al Jannah by al Albani, 80. Sahih Al Bukhari 7053. Sahih Muslim 1849.)

Ibn al Jawzi said: The leading companions of al Shafiʿi رضي الله عنهم used to reject listening. As for the early ones among them, no difference is known among them. As for the major later ones, they were upon rejection. Among them was Abu al Tayyib al Tabari, who authored a book in blame of singing and prevention from it. (Al Albani said: It is printed under the title al Radd ʿala man Yuhibb al Samaʿ. From it, Ibn al Jawzi quoted his saying mentioned a short while ago, and it is in it on pages 31 and 32, in summary.)

Then Ibn al Jawzi said, page 245:

“This is the saying of the Shafiʿi scholars and the religious people among them. Only those later ones among them whose knowledge was little and whose desire overcame them gave concession in it. The fuqaha among our companions, the Hanbalis, said:

‘The testimony of the singer and dancer is not accepted. Allah is the One who grants success.’”

The Wisdom Behind the Prohibition of Musical Instruments and Singing

You must believe, O Muslim, that in everything Allah has legislated for His servants, whether a command, prohibition, or permission, there is wisdom.

Rather, there are deep and perfect wisdoms. Whoever knows them knows them, and whoever is unaware of them is unaware of them. They become clear to some people and remain hidden from others.

Therefore, the true duty upon the Muslim is to rush towards obeying Allah and not delay until the wisdom becomes clear to him. That would oppose iman (faith), which is complete submission to the Wise Lawgiver. For this reason, Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said in the Noble Qur’an:

Upon this our righteous Salaf lived. Allah honoured them, opened lands for them, and opened the hearts of the servants to them. The last of this Ummah will not be rectified except by what rectified its first. Abu Bakr al Siddiq رضي الله عنه had the foremost share in this, and he was a righteous example for others, as his great position in the story of the Treaty of al Hudaybiyah shows. Sahl ibn Hunayf رضي الله عنه narrated:

Authentic: “O people, blame your own opinions. We were with the Messenger ﷺ on the day of al Hudaybiyah. If we had seen fighting as correct, we would have fought.” This was during the treaty between the Messenger ﷺ and the polytheists.

Umar ibn al Khattab came to the Messenger ﷺ and said: “O Messenger of Allah, are we not upon truth while they are upon falsehood?”

He said: “Yes.”

He said: “Are not our killed ones in Paradise and their killed ones in the Fire?” He said: “Yes.” He said: “Then why should we accept humiliation in our religion and return before Allah has judged between us and them?” He said:

“O Ibn al Khattab, I am the Messenger of Allah, and Allah will never abandon me.”

He said: Umar went away, but he could not be patient because he was angry. He came to Abu Bakr and said: “O Abu Bakr, are we not upon truth while they are upon falsehood?”

He said: “Yes.”

He said: “Are not our killed ones in Paradise and their killed ones in the Fire?”

He said: “Yes.”

He said: “Then why should we accept humiliation in our religion and return before Allah has judged between us and them?”

He said: “O Ibn al Khattab, he is the Messenger of Allah, and Allah will never abandon him.”

He said: Then the Qur’an came down upon the Messenger ﷺ with al Fath. He sent for Umar and recited it to him. He said: “O Messenger of Allah, is it a conquest?” He said: “Yes.” So his soul became calm, and he returned. (Reported by al Bukhari, 3182, Fath al Bari, and Muslim, 5/175–176, and the wording is his. Also reported by Ahmad, 3/486. In another narration from both of them, he said: “O people, blame your own opinions.” It is also with Said ibn Mansur, 3/2/374, and Ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/299. Sahih Al Bukhari 3182. Sahih Muslim 1785.)

Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar (d. 852AH) said (Fath al Bari by Ibn Hajar, 13/288):

“It is as though he said: Blame opinion when it opposes the Sunnah, as happened to us when the Messenger ﷺ commanded us to leave ihram, but we wished to remain in ihram and wanted to fight so that we could complete our rites and defeat our enemy. What became clear to the Prophet ﷺ of what would happen afterwards was hidden from us.”

The most striking example I came across in the life of his Companions ﷺ, showing how they preferred obeying him even when that went against their desires and personal interest, is the saying of Zuhayr ibn Rafiʿ. He said:

Authentic: “The Messenger ﷺ forbade us from something that was beneficial to us, but obedience to Allah and His Messenger is more beneficial to us. He forbade us from renting out land by giving it in return for one third, one quarter, or named produce.” (Reported by Muslim and others. It is referenced in Irwa al Ghalil by al Albani, 5/299. Sahih Muslim 1548.)

This obedience reminded me of that obedience which amazed the believing jinn when they came to the Prophet ﷺ listening to his recitation during the Fajr prayer, as pointed to at the beginning of Surah al Jinn:

قُلْ أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ أَنَّهُ اسْتَمَعَ نَفَرٌ مِنَ الْجِنِّ فَقَالُوا إِنَّا سَمِعْنَا قُرْآناً عَجَباً ۝ يَهْدِي إِلَى الرُّشْدِ فَآمَنَّا بِهِ وَلَنْ نُشْرِكَ بِرَبِّنَا أَحَداً

“Say: It has been revealed to me that a group of the jinn listened and said: We have heard a wondrous Qur’an. It guides to what is right, so we believed in it, and we will never associate anyone with our Lord.” (al Jinn 1–2)

They saw his Companions ﷺ praying with his prayer, bowing with his bowing, and prostrating with his prostration. Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما said:

“They were amazed by the obedience of his Companions to him.” (Reported by Ahmad, 1/270, and others, with an authentic chain.)

The point is that this obedience must be realised in every Muslim, whether it agrees with his desire or opposes it.

One of the necessary outcomes of this is that he must not strike examples for Allah and His rulings. He must not compare the sound of melodies coming from a person to the sound of the nightingale and birds, then say, for example: “If reciting poetry without melodies is permissible, then reciting it with melodies is permissible, because when individual permissible matters come together, the total remains permissible,” as al Ghazali (d. 505AH), may Allah pardon him, said.

He used this as a way to make musical melodies permissible, or at least some of them, by qiyas (analogy) with the sounds of birds, even though he authored works in the principles of fiqh, and among those principles is that there is no qiyas where there is a text. (Ihya Ulum al Din by al Ghazali, 2/273.)

For this reason, the scholars followed one another, such as Ibn al Jawzi (d. 597AH), Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH), Ibn al Qayyim (d. 751AH), and others, in responding to him and to his likes from the Sufis.

The qiyas mentioned reminded me of another qiyas that is worse than it, through which its speaker used it to deem intoxicating nabidh lawful. Ibn al Qayyim mentioned it while responding to the Sufis who deem listening with melodies lawful through the kind of qiyas already mentioned. He said, may Allah have mercy on him, in Masalat al Samaʿ by Ibn al Qayyim (pages 270–271):

“The second way: if each of poetry and melody were permissible on its own, that does not mean they are permissible when joined together. Composition has a special effect by which the ruling changes. This proof is like the proof of the one who said: if a single report does not give knowledge when alone, it does not give knowledge when joined with another.” (Al Albani said: Similar to it is the one who says: if an individual weak chain does not establish a hadith by itself, then the total of its routes does not establish it. This is the way of some destroyers and ignorant people.)

It is similar to what is reported from Iyas ibn Muawiyah:

A man said to him: “What do you say about water?” He said: “Lawful.” He said: “What about dates?” He said: “Lawful.”

He said: “Nabidh is water and dates, so how do you forbid it?” Iyas said to him:

“What do you think? If I struck you with a handful of dust, would I kill you?” He said: “No.” He said: “If I struck you with a handful of straw, would I kill you?”

He said: “No.” He said: “If I struck you with a handful of water, would I kill you?”

He said: “No.”

He said: “If I took water, straw, and dust, made them into clay, left it until it dried, then struck you with it, would I kill you?” He said: “Yes.” He said: “Such is nabidh.” (Reported by Ibn Asakir, 3/330–331, through the route of Ibn Abi al Dunya.)

The meaning of his words is that the intoxicating strength is what comes through composition. Likewise, regarding what we are speaking about, the thing that intoxicates souls, distracts them, and turns them away from the remembrance of Allah and from salah is a strength that comes through composition and the joined arrangement.

Sounds joined together in their stirring of souls are not like one sound. Likewise, the melodised sound upon which singing is performed with a specific rhythm and specific beat, especially when instruments of amusement assist it, is not like reciting poetry when it is free from that. Does this doubt spread except among someone very weak in knowledge and understanding, whose share of both is extremely deficient?

If it is said: “What you mentioned about the obligation of submitting to the rulings of the Sharia, whether the wisdom is known or not, is an obligation about which no Muslim doubts, even though some, sadly, oppose it in practice.

No one doubts the obligation of submitting to the prohibition of usury and similar matters, even though many Muslims deem it lawful in practice, especially in this time. Based on the proofs already mentioned concerning the prohibition of the singing explained there, it is obligatory to turn away from it in practice and not listen to it. However, the question that raises itself, as they say today, is: has anything been established in the Sharia explaining the wisdom behind its prohibition?”

Al Albani said, and success is from Allah:

Yes. Many reports have come from the Salaf, from the Companions and others, which indicate the wisdom behind the prohibition. It is that it distracts from the remembrance of Allah Most High, obedience to Him, and fulfilling the obligations of the Sharia. They took this from Allah Most High naming it “distracting speech” in His saying:

It came down concerning singing and what resembles it. I will mention from them what has an established chain to them.

The first of them is the interpreter of the Qur’an, Abdullah ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما. He said:

“It came down concerning singing and what resembles it.” (Al Albani said: This is what is authentic from Ibn Abbas. As for what Juwaybir narrated from him, that it came down concerning al Nadr ibn al Harith, that he bought a singing slave woman, and whenever he heard of someone wanting Islam, he took him to his singing slave woman and said: “Feed him, give him drink, and sing to him.

This is better than what Muhammad calls you to, such as salah, fasting, and fighting before him,” as in al Durr al Manthur, 5/159, then this is very weak. This Juwaybir was called abandoned by al Daraqutni and others.

Similar to it is what al Wahidi mentioned in Asbab al Nuzul, page 259: al Kalbi and Muqatil said: It came down concerning al Nadr ibn al Harith. He would travel as a trader to the lands of Persia and buy stories of the non Arabs, then narrate them to Quraysh and say to them: “Muhammad tells you stories of Aad and Thamud, and I tell you stories of Rustam, Isfandiyar, and the kings of Persia.”

They found his speech pleasant and left listening to the Qur’an, so this verse came down about them. Al Albani said: al Kalbi and Muqatil are also abandoned and accused of lying, along with what is in their narration of opposing the narration of Juwaybir.

Al Suyuti attributed it to al Bayhaqi from Ibn Abbas with wording similar to theirs in Shuʿab al Iman, but I was not able to come across it there to look at its chain. I do not think it is authentic. Perhaps for this reason Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, and others from the verifying huffaz did not mention it.

Rather, al Qurtubi pointed to its weakness by saying, 14/52: “It was said: it came down concerning al Nadr ibn al Harith.” Likewise, al Zamakhshari said before him, 3/210. Al Hafiz did not follow it up and did not address its referencing. His predecessor al Zaylaʿi did the same in his referencing of al Kashshaf.)

Al Bukhari narrated it in al Adab al Mufrad (1265), as did Ibn Abi Shaybah (6/310), Ibn Jarir in al Tafsir (21/40), Ibn Abi al Dunya in Dhamm al Malahi, and al Bayhaqi in al Sunan (10/221 and 10/223) through routes from him.

The second of them is Abdullah ibn Masʿud رضي الله عنه. He was asked about this mentioned verse and said:

“It is singing, by the One besides whom there is no deity.” He repeated it three times.

Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrated it, as did Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi al Dunya, al Hakim (2/411), and from him al Bayhaqi, and in Shuʿab al Iman (4/278/5096), and Ibn al Jawzi in Talbis Iblis (page 246). Al Hakim said:

“Its chain is authentic.”

Al Dhahabi agreed with him. It is as they both said. Ibn al Qayyim graded it authentic.

The third of them is Ikrimah. Shuʿayb ibn Yasar said: I asked Ikrimah about “distracting speech.” He said:

“It is singing.”

Al Bukhari narrated it in al Tarikh (2/2/217), as did Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Abi al Dunya, and the wording is his, and through his route al Bayhaqi. Its men are reliable apart from this Shuʿayb. Two reliable narrators narrated from him, and Ibn Hibban declared him reliable (4/355). So its chain is good, if Allah wills, especially since Usamah ibn Zayd followed him in Ibn Abi Shaybah (1175) and Ibn Jarir (21/4140).

Usamah ibn Zayd here is al Laythi, and he is good in hadith. Through this strong follow up, the report is authentic. Praise belongs to Allah.

The fourth of them is Mujahid, with similar wording.

Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated it, number 1167 and 1179, as did Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi al Dunya (4/1 and 5/2) through routes from him, some of which are authentic, and Abu Nuʿaym in al Hilyah (3/286).

In a narration of Ibn Jarir, through the route of Ibn Jurayj: “I heard it from Mujahid. He said: amusement means the drum.”

All its men are reliable, so it is authentic if Ibn Jurayj heard it from Mujahid.

There is also, in this subject, a report from al Hasan al Basri (d. 110AH), who said: This verse came down, “And among the people…” and so on, concerning singing and flutes.

Al Suyuti attributed it in al Durr al Manthur (5/159) to Ibn Abi Hatim, and remained silent over it, as is his usual habit. I have not come across its chain to look into it.

For this reason, al Wahidi said in his Tafsir al Wasit (3/441):

“Most of the mufassirun (explainers of the Qur’an) are upon the view that what is meant by distracting speech is singing. The people of meanings said:

Included in this is everyone who chooses amusement, singing, flutes, and maʿazif over the Qur’an, even though the wording came with buying, because this wording is often mentioned for replacement and choice.”

Among the reports of the Salaf which indicate the wisdom behind the prohibition:

First: from Ibn Masʿud رضي الله عنه, who said:

“Singing grows hypocrisy in the heart.”

Ibn Abi al Dunya narrated it in Dhamm al Malahi (leaf 4/2), and through his route al Bayhaqi narrated it in al Sunan (10/223) and in Shuʿab al Iman (4/278/5098 and 5099) through the route of Hammad, from Ibrahim, who said: Abdullah said, then he mentioned it.

Al Albani said: This chain is authentic. Its men are reliable. However, its apparent form is disconnection, because Ibrahim, who is Ibn Yazid al Nakhaʿi, did not meet Abdullah ibn Masʿud. Some contemporary writers who referenced the hadiths of Dhamm al Ghina criticised it with this. (Al Albani said: The weakener of authentic hadiths followed him blindly in his new spoiling commentary which he attached to Ighathat al Lahfan, 1/351.)

What escaped him is that it is authentic from Ibrahim that he said to al Aʿmash, when al Aʿmash said to him, “Give me a chain back to Ibn Masʿud”:

“When I narrate to you from a man from Abdullah, then that is what I heard. When Albani says: Abdullah said, then it is from more than one person from Abdullah.”

Albani says: It is known that Ibrahim al Nakhaʿi is a reliable and noble Tabiʿi. So when he narrates from more than one of his shaykhs, they are at least from those like him among the Tabiʿin, if they are not older than him. His narration from them causes trust and calmness in the soul regarding their narration, because they are a group. It is very unlikely that they all made a mistake in their narration from Ibn Masʿud, let alone agreed together to lie upon him, as is clear.

This is especially so due to their being Tabiʿin in general, and because they are the shaykhs of Ibrahim in particular, and he narrates from them. Even more so when it appears in his biography that he was a money changer of hadith, as al Aʿmash said.

It is not reasonable at all that he would narrate from them while not being calm regarding their truthfulness and memory. In relation to us, they are a group by which their unknown status is repaired.

The earlier words of Ibn Taymiyyah on page 70, concerning strengthening a weak and mursal hadith through routes, indicate this. For this reason, a group of imams graded the mursal reports of Ibrahim authentic, and al Bayhaqi specifically mentioned what he sent from Ibn Masʿud, as in Marasil al Alai (168).

Al Hafiz approved it in al Tahdhib. This is more general than if he said, “Abdullah said,” because it includes if he said, “from Abdullah.” What supports this is that there is no apparent difference between the two expressions, firstly, and because he did not say in either of them, “from a man,” in order to clear his responsibility. So they are equal in ruling.

There is a hadith, but raised to the Prophet ﷺ, which resembles this in that it is narrated by a group of unnamed Tabiʿin. Despite that, some later huffaz strengthened it, because their unknown status is repaired by their number. It is referenced in Ghayat al Maram by al Albani, 471. Whoever wishes may refer back to it.

As for the narrator from Ibrahim, Hammad, he is Ibn Abi Sulayman al Kufi. He is as al Dhahabi said in al Kashif:

“Reliable, imam, mujtahid, noble, generous.”

For this reason, he said in al Mizan:

“He was spoken about because of irja. Were it not that Ibn Adi mentioned him in his al Kamil, I would not have included him.”

Al Hafiz said in al Taqrib:

“Truthful. He has mistakes.”

Al Albani said: Someone like him is used as proof unless his mistake becomes clear through opposing someone more reliable than him, or similar to that. Nothing of that exists here. So whoever from the contemporaries weakened him unrestrictedly did not act fairly.

It has another route, narrated by Said ibn Kaʿb al Muradi, from Muhammad ibn Abd al Rahman ibn Yazid, from Ibn Masʿud, with more complete wording. He said:

“Singing grows hypocrisy in the heart as water grows crops, and remembrance grows iman as water grows plants.”

Ibn Abi al Dunya narrated it (leaf 4/2), and through his route al Bayhaqi (10/223).

This is disconnected. Muhammad ibn Abd al Rahman ibn Yazid, who is al Nakhaʿi al Kufi, did not meet Ibn Masʿud. He is reliable. I do not find it far that he received it from Ibrahim al Nakhaʿi, because he is from this level.

Said ibn Kaʿb al Muradi was not declared reliable by anyone besides Ibn Hibban (8/262).

The first part of it was narrated through another route from a shaykh, from Abu Wail, from Ibn Masʿud, raised to the Prophet ﷺ.

However, this shaykh is unknown and unnamed. For this reason, I referenced it in al Silsilah al Daʿifah by al Albani, number 2430. Ibn al Qayyim pointed to it in Ighathat al Lahfan (1/248) and said:

“It is authentic from Ibn Masʿud as his own statement.”

However, it has the ruling of being raised to the Prophet ﷺ, because something like this is not said from opinion, as al Alusi said in Ruh al Maʿani (11/68).

Second: from al Shaʿbi (d. 103AH), who said:

“Singing grows hypocrisy in the heart as water grows crops, and remembrance grows iman in the heart as water grows crops.”

Ibn Nasr narrated it in Qadr al Salah (page 151/2–152/1) through the route of Abdullah ibn Dakin, from Firas ibn Yahya. In the original it says: Ibn Abdullah, which is an error, from him.

Al Albani said: Its chain is good. Its men are reliable and among the men of the two Shaykhs, apart from Abdullah ibn Dakin, who is Abu Umar al Kufi al Baghdadi. There is difference about him. Al Dhahabi said in al Mughni:

“He was a contemporary of Shuʿbah. A group declared him reliable, and Abu Zurʿah graded him weak.”

Al Hafiz said in al Taqrib:

“Truthful, he makes mistakes.”

It was also narrated as raised to the Prophet ﷺ, but in its chain there is a liar. For that reason, I referenced it in al Silsilah al Daʿifah by al Albani, number 6515.

Benefit: Ibn al Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said after the earlier report of Ibn Masʿud (1/248):

“If it is said: What is the way in which it grows hypocrisy in the heart, from among all other sins?

It is said: This is among the clearest proofs of the fiqh of the Companions concerning the states of hearts, their actions, their medicine, and their illnesses.

They are the doctors of hearts, not those who turned away from their way and treated the illnesses of hearts with the greatest of their illnesses. They were like one treating sickness with deadly poison. By Allah, this is how they acted with many, or most, of the medicines they put together.

So the doctors became few, the sick became many, long lasting illnesses appeared that did not exist among the Salaf, the beneficial medicine prepared by the Lawgiver was abandoned, and the sick person inclined towards what strengthens the source of the sickness. So the trial became severe, the matter became worse, homes, roads, and markets became filled with the sick, and every ignorant person stood up treating people.

Know that singing has special qualities that affect the heart by dyeing it with hypocrisy and causing it to grow in it, as crops grow with water.

Among its special qualities is that it distracts the heart and turns it away from understanding the Qur’an, reflecting on it, and acting upon what is in it. The Qur’an and singing never come together in the heart because of the opposition between them.

The Qur’an forbids following desire, commands chastity, avoiding the desires of the souls and the causes of misguidance, and forbids following the footsteps of Satan. Singing commands the opposite of all of that, makes it seem good, and stirs souls towards the desires of misguidance. It awakens what is hidden within them, disturbs what is settled in them, moves them towards every ugly thing, and drives them towards union with every beautiful woman and handsome man.

It and wine are like two who were nursed from the same breast, and in stirring people towards ugly deeds they are two horses racing together. It is the twin of wine, its nursling, its deputy, its ally, its close companion, and its friend. Satan made between them a bond of brotherhood that is not broken, and made firm between them a law of loyalty that is not abrogated.

It is the spy of the heart, the thief of dignity, and the worm of intellect. It enters deep into the hidden places of hearts, looks into the secrets of inner hearts, and creeps into the place of thought. It then stirs what is in it of desire, lust, foolishness, silliness, recklessness, and stupidity.

So while you see a man upon the sign of dignity, the beauty of intellect, the brightness of iman, the dignity of Islam, and the sweetness of the Qur’an, when he listens to singing and inclines towards it, his intellect decreases, his modesty becomes little, his dignity goes away, his brightness leaves him, and his composure abandons him. His Satan rejoices in him, his iman complains to Allah Most High, and his Qur’an becomes heavy upon him. It says: O Lord, do not bring me and the Qur’an of Your enemy together in one chest.

He then begins to see good what he had regarded as ugly before listening. He reveals from his secret what he used to hide. He moves from dignity and calmness to excessive speech, lying, foolish sounds, and snapping fingers.

He tilts his head, shakes his shoulders, strikes the ground with his feet, and beats the top of his head with his hands. He leaps like flies, circles like a donkey around a mill, claps his hands like women, and bellows from ecstasy unlike even the bellowing of bulls. At times he groans like one sorrowful, and at other times he screams like madmen.

The one from its own people who knew it well spoke truthfully when he said:

‘Do you remember a night when we gathered upon the sweetness of listening until morning?

The cup of songs passed between us, and it intoxicated the souls without wine.

You would only see them as drunk ones, out of happiness, while happiness there was awake.

When the brother of pleasures called within it, amusement answered: come to generosity.

We owned nothing except our souls, so we poured them out for the glances of the beautiful.’

Some of those who know said: listening causes hypocrisy in some people, stubbornness in some people, lying in some people, wickedness in some people, and recklessness in some people.

Until he said:

Singing corrupts the heart. When the heart is corrupted, hypocrisy surges within it.

In summary, when the person of insight reflects on the state of the people of singing and the state of the people of remembrance and the Qur’an, the skill of the Companions and their knowledge of the illnesses of hearts and their medicines becomes clear to them. Success is from Allah.”

Al Albani said: After the wisdom behind the prohibition of singing has become clear from the earlier reports, namely that it distracts from obedience to Allah and His remembrance, and this is something witnessed, then those distracted by it, whether by making others hear it or by listening to it, each have a share of the blame mentioned in the noble verse:

وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَشْتَرِي لَهْوَ الْحَدِيثِ لِيُضِلَّ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ

“Among the people is one who buys distracting speech so that he may mislead from the path of Allah.” (Luqman 6)

This is according to the amount of distraction, whether little or much. You have already known that buying here means replacement and choice. There is an important point to notice, which is that the lam in the saying of Allah Most High, “so that he may mislead,” is the lam of final outcome, as in Tafsir al Wahidi.

Meaning, so that his matter ends in misguidance, as Ibn al Jawzi said in Zad al Masir (6/317). It is not for giving the reason, as some people say. It has a way in relation to the disbelievers who take Allah’s verses in mockery. For this reason, Ibn al Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said (1/240):

“Once this is known, the people of singing and its listeners have a share of this blame according to their being busy with singing away from the Qur’an, even if they do not receive all of it. The verses contain blame of the one who replaces the Qur’an with distracting speech in order to mislead from the path of Allah without knowledge and take it in mockery. When the Qur’an is recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as though he did not hear it, as though there is heaviness in his ears, meaning weight and deafness. When he learns something from it, he mocks it.

All of this together only occurs from the greatest of people in disbelief. If some of it occurs among singers and their listeners, then they have a portion and share of this blame.

What clarifies this is that you do not find anyone who gives attention to singing and listening to its instruments except that within him there is misguidance away from the path of guidance, in knowledge and action, or within him there is turning away from listening to the Qur’an towards listening to singing, to the point that when listening to singing and listening to the Qur’an are both placed before him, he turns away from this to that.

Listening to the Qur’an becomes heavy upon him. Perhaps his state even leads him to silence the reciter, find his recitation too long, ask the singer for more, and think the singer’s turn is too short. The least in this is that he receives a large share of this blame, even if he does not receive all of it.

This speech is for the one whose heart contains some life by which he can feel. As for the one whose heart has died and whose trial has become great, he has closed the way of advice upon himself.

وَمَنْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ فِتْنَتَهُ فَلَنْ تَمْلِكَ لَهُ مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئاً أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ أَنْ يُطَهِّرَ قُلُوبَهُمْ لَهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا خِزْيٌ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

“Whoever Allah wills to test, you will have no power for him against Allah at all. Those are the ones whose hearts Allah did not wish to purify. For them there is disgrace in this life, and for them in the Hereafter there is a great punishment.” (al Maidah 41)

Al Albani said: From those reports of the Salaf and Ibn al Qayyim’s beneficial and excellent follow up to them, his mistake becomes very clear to you, meaning Ibn Hazm, when he said after bringing most of them:

“There is no proof in this for several reasons.

The first: there is no proof in anyone below the Messenger ﷺ.

The second: others from the Companions and Tabiʿin opposed them.

The third: the wording of the verse itself invalidates using it as proof, because in it is:

‘Among the people is one who buys distracting speech so that he may mislead from the path of Allah without knowledge, and takes it in mockery. For such people there is a humiliating punishment.’ (Luqman 6)

This is the description of a person who, if he does it, is a disbeliever without disagreement, because he takes the path of Allah Most High in mockery.”

Al Albani said in answer to him:

As for the first, it is a true statement by which falsehood is intended, because it gives the impression that the reports oppose something that came from the Messenger ﷺ in explanation of the verse. There is nothing of that at all. Rather, they only oppose his own rigid explanation alone.

It is enough proof for the intelligent reader of his mistake to picture this reality: the reports of the Salaf are on one side, and Ibn Hazm is on the other.

As for the second, it is noise without substance, because there is no one opposing them. Had there been anything of that, he would have hastened to mention it, as is his habit according to those who know his style when responding to those who oppose him.

As for the third, its answer has already passed in the final words of Ibn al Qayyim. It is as if he, may Allah have mercy on him, was intending by it to answer this saying of Ibn Hazm. It is very strong and clear. Do you not see that some Muslims today distract themselves in their gatherings and assemblies with worldly speech, smoking, playing backgammon, and even gambling in cafes and other places, while they hear from the radio the saying of Allah Most High:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْخَمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنْصَابُ وَالْأَزْلَامُ رِجْسٌ مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

“O you who believe, wine, gambling, stone altars, and divining arrows are only filth from the work of Satan, so avoid them so that you may succeed.” (al Maidah 90)

They hear this and similar verses of Allah being recited while they continue in their speech and amusement, as though there is heaviness in their ears. Are these people disbelievers, O Ibn Hazm?

Rather, the state of these people and their amusement remind me of the saying of Ibn Abbas and others from the Salaf: “Disbelief below disbelief.” (Its referencing is in al Silsilah al Sahihah by al Albani, 2552, the sixth volume, and it will be published soon, if Allah wills.)

Not every disbelief expels from the religion. Therefore, these people and their likes have a share of the blame mentioned in the verse, each according to his level. The famous mufassir Ibn Atiyyah al Andalusi (d. 541AH) pointed to this meaning in his Tafsir al Muharrar al Wajiz by Ibn Atiyyah (13/19), as though he was also responding to Ibn Hazm:

“The meaning of the verse remains in the Ummah of Muhammad. However, it is not that they mislead from the path of Allah through disbelief, nor that they take the verses in mockery, nor that this threat applies to them. Rather, it is so that he disables worship, cuts time with what is disliked, becomes among the disobedient, and is from the deficient souls.”

I want to draw attention to an inconsistency into which Ibn Hazm fell. His mentioned saying in the first way requires that he accepts the establishment of the explanation of the verse according to what has passed from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masʿud, and others. Otherwise, he would have hastened to grade it weak and would not have said: “There is no proof in anyone…”

For this reason, in his treatise on instruments of amusement, he completely opposes that. First, he did not say the mentioned statement. Second, he clearly graded it weak, saying on page 97:

“Nothing has been established from any of his Companions ﷺ. Rather, it is only the saying of some mufassirun whose saying does not establish proof.”

This contradicts his acceptance pointed to a short while ago, and that acceptance is the truth in which there is no doubt. How could it not be, when the sayings of the Salaf are given priority by agreement over the sayings of the later people, especially when the Salaf are many and the later people are few. Rather, most of the mufassirun agree with them, as already passed on page 144 from Tafsir al Wahidi. It is as al Qurtubi (d. 671AH) said (14/52):

“The highest thing said about this verse is that Ibn Masʿud swore by Allah, besides whom there is no deity, three times that it is singing.”

It already passed from al Alusi that it has the ruling of being raised to the Prophet ﷺ.

“This is the truth, and there is no obscurity in it, so leave me from the side paths.”

Know, my Muslim brother, that among what confirms, or at least indicates, the wisdom behind the prohibition of singing is the principle of blocking the means. I had pointed to it while responding to Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahrah and his two students, Muhammad al Ghazali and Yusuf al Qaradawi, in the introduction, page 8. Acting upon it here is enough due to the harms and violations that usually arise because of singing and listening to it.

Then I saw strong and sound speech from Ibn al Qayyim, may Allah Most High have mercy on him, in his book Masalat al Samaʿ, applying this principle to this very issue. I therefore wanted to benefit the readers with it because of the explanation, proof, and benefit within it. He said, may Allah have mercy on him and reward him with good (pages 167–168):

“The one who knows is the one who looks at causes through their ends and results, and reflects on their purposes and what they lead to.

Whoever knows the aims of the Sharia in blocking the means that lead to the forbidden will state decisively that this listening is forbidden. Looking at an unrelated woman and listening to her voice when there is no need is forbidden in order to block the means. Likewise, being alone with her.

The forbidden matters of the Sharia are of two types:

One type is forbidden because of the harm within it.

Another type is forbidden because it is a means to what contains harm.

Whoever looks only at the image of this forbidden thing and does not look at what it leads to will find the reason for its prohibition unclear and say: what harm is there in looking at a beautiful image that Allah Most High created and made a sign pointing to Him? What harm is there in a pleasing sound through an instrument that carries it, or in listening to balanced speech with a good voice? Is this not just like listening to the pleasing sounds of birds, seeing flowers, and pleasant scenes of places with beautiful buildings, trees, rivers, and other things?

It is said to this person: the prohibition of looking at these images and of these pleasing instruments is from the complete wisdom of the Lawgiver, the perfection of His Sharia, and His sincere care for the Ummah. He forbade what contains harms, and what is a means and path to them.

If He permitted the means to harms while forbidding the harms, that would be contradiction, and He is far above that. If a sensible person forbade a harm and permitted the means leading to it, people would count him foolish and playing around. They would say: he is contradictory.

Can anyone who has smelt the scent of the Sharia and fiqh in religion reject this speech? Is it not like saying: what harm is there in praying to Allah after Fajr and after Asr such that it is forbidden? What harm is there in forbidding prayer towards graves and in forbidding prayer inside them?

What harm is there in preceding Ramadan by one or two days? And in forbidding insulting the gods of the polytheists to their faces? Alongside many times more than this from what the Lawgiver forbade in order to block the means leading to the forbidden which He dislikes and hates.

Is this not pure wisdom, mercy, protection of His servants, and guarding them from harms, their causes, and their means?

The intelligent one who knows reality knows that if this listening leading to what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden is not greater than the leading caused by looking, then it is not less than it. Rather, in many cases, what it leads to is greater than what wine leads to. The intoxication of wine wears off from its drinker quickly, but the intoxication of listening does not leave its person except in the army of the destroyed.”

Al Albani said: Ibn al Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, spoke the truth. The effect of listening on those afflicted with it is clear and witnessed, as has already been pointed to. It is enough that I mention to you one example from what I saw myself, which embodies in the mind the correct meaning of Allah Most High’s saying, “distracting speech.” I was in the masjid on Friday listening to the khutbah, and beside me was a young man around thirty years old. He was sitting cross legged and tapping his fingers on the ground as though he were listening to a song and dancing his fingers along with it. I signalled to him to stop and listen to the khutbah.

This incident is one of many incidents that decisively show that listening has turned its people away from the remembrance of Allah, like wine, and from listening to it. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, says:

وَإِذَا قُرِئَ الْقُرْآنُ فَاسْتَمِعُوا لَهُ وَأَنْصِتُوا لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ

“When the Qur’an is recited, listen to it and remain silent so that you may receive mercy.” (al Aʿraf 204)

It is known that the verse includes Jumuʿah, as appears in some reports, and this is the choice of Ibn Kathir (d. 774AH). Amusement turned them away from remembrance and from listening to it. Allah’s help is sought.

Taḥrīm Ālāt al Ṭarab by Muḥammad Nāṣir al Dīn al Albānī pg 34–157

Author

ISHAQ. K

Navigation Menu

Navigation Menu For The Summary

Summary

Ibn Hazm’s Main Claim and the Basis of the Response

The Hadith Evidence Is Not Limited to One Report

The Hadith of Al Bukhari Is Authentic and Not Disconnected

The Hadith Was Narrated Through Several Connected Routes

The Doubt Over Abu Amir or Abu Malik Does Not Harm the Hadith

Ibn Hazm’s Own Principle Undermines His Objection

Major Huffadh Graded the Hadith Authentic

Ibn Hazm Missed Other Authentic Reports

Why Weak Routes Can Strengthen Each Other

The Meaning of Maʿazif Covers Musical Instruments

The Wording “They Will Regard as Lawful” Proves Prohibition

The Meaning of Istihlal in the Hadith

The Four Imams and the Majority Forbade Musical Instruments

Reports Used for Permission Are Either Weak, Unclear, or Answered

The Hadith of Aʿishah Does Not Prove General Permission

The Hadith of Ibn Umar Is About Hearing, Not Intentional Listening

The Duff Has Specific Exceptions

Singing Without Instruments Has Its Own Ruling

The Qur’an Verse on Distracting Speech and the Reports of the Salaf

Ibn Hazm’s Objection to the Verse Is Answered

Singing Grows Hypocrisy in the Heart

The Wisdom Behind the Prohibition

False Comparisons Do Not Make Music Lawful

Preventing the Means to Harm

How Music Turns People Away From the Qur’an

Conclusion

The Response to Ibn Hazm’s Treatise and the Reason for the Response

Mentioning the Authentic Hadiths on the Prohibition of Singing Instruments and Musical Instruments

The First Hadith

The Second Hadith

The Third Hadith

The Fourth Hadith

The Fifth Hadith

The Sixth Hadith

The Seventh Hadith

Explaining the Unfamiliar Words in the Hadith

The Response to Ibn Hazm and Others Who Criticised Some of the Earlier Hadiths

The Indication of the Hadiths That All Forms of Instruments of Amusement Are Forbidden

The Madhhahib of the Scholars Concerning the Prohibition of Musical Instruments

The Doubts of Those Who Permit Them and Their Answer

Singing Without an Instrument

The Wisdom Behind the Prohibition of Musical Instruments and Singing

Author

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Related Post

Discover more from ATHARI ARCHIVE