FaiQ_KhaLiFa
New Member
:salam2:
i'm refering to the topic, "music and singing is clearly haram heres the proof", this thread had already been closed...
first of all, i never mean to protest agains our moderators that have been doing their best in monitering this forum. i never want that. but seems like i didn't been given the chance to defend myself, and to further my discussion on that topic.
i humbly ask for permission to my dear brother ibn azem, to further discuss it here, and i beg to differ.
the hadeth you brought,
The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“Among my ummah there will certainly be people who permit zinaa, silk, alcohol and musical instruments…” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari ta’leeqan, no. 5590; narrated as mawsool by al-Tabaraani and al-Bayhaqi. See al-Silsilah al-Saheehah by al-Albaani, 91).
yes, i'm aware of this hadeth. i learnt hadeth from several teachers, i memorise some, and still learning here. i learn the Quran, tafseer, lughatul arabiyyah, fiqh, tauheed, etc, and still learning right now, in a traditionil religious institution here in malaysia, we call "pondok". but i never ever consider myself as faqih or mujtahid. i have my reference to what i said.
for the above mentioned hadeth, scholars from long ago have had a very long discussion on it. the 'rowi' of this hadeth is Hisyam bin Ammar, and the 'sanad' continued up to Abu Aamir or Abu Malik al-Asy'aari form prophet Muhammad pbuh. the word in arabic that you translated it to musical intrument here is "al-ma'azif".
eventhough this hadeth was in the soheeh Bukhariy, but it feels under category of "mu'allaq" and not "musnad muttasil" (a complete continuous narrator from the latest up to the prophet Muhammad pbuh), therefore, Ibnu Hazmin had refused to use this hadeth as an argument due it its status. apart from that, some scholars said that there is idhtiraab (weakness at the sanad and matan) on that hadeth.
the problem is with Hisyam bin Ammar himself. Adu Dawood when commenting on Hisyam said: Hisyam has narated 400 hadeth with no basis at all.
Abu Hatim also criticised on Hisyam saying, "he is truthful, but he changed (at the later part of his life)".
Ibnu Sayyar said the same thing.
please refer to Hisyam's biography in Mizan al Iktidal, Tahzibut Tahzib by Ibnu Hajar, and Tazzibul Kamal by al Muzzi.
the list of scholars that criticised Hisyam goes on, and that include our beloved Imam Ahmad, but i think it is enough here.
Anyway, if we put the problem on the sanad (sorry i don't know what the best word to translate "sanad" into english, but it is the list os narrator or those who deliver a hadeth, from one generation to the other, up to prophet Muhammad pbuh), there is still another argument on the MEANING of the above mentioned hadeth.
first of all, the word "al-ma'azif" in this hadeth is still general. some says it is "al-malaahi" or musical instruments, some says it is "alatul 'azfi" or string musical instrument. however, even if it means all musical instruments, this hadeth still didn't give the meaning that it is ABSOLUTELY HARAAM.
this is because of the word, "yastahillun" translated as "they will permit..." in the hadeth. according to Ibnul Arabi, it has two meanings:
1) the exact meaning, that "they" really believe it is permissible.
2) or it is a majaz (in english, it means some hidden meaning, or another meaning, in Malay we called 'kiyasan', someone who knows Malay can please translate this..thanks). which actually means that "they" did it extremely or excessively. if we use the exact meaning, surely those who commit this become kafr, because permitting something that is prohibited such as zinaa and alcohol.
so we can argue, wether the prohibition of the musical instrument is because it presence together with other sins mentioned in that hadeth, that is zinaa, silk and alcohol? or each and every of those is prohibited on its own?
THE OPINION THAT THE MUSICAL INSTRUMENT IS PROHIBITED DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF THE OTHER MENTIONED SINS TOGETHER WITH IT, IS MUCH STRONGER.
actually this hadeth warned against the bad habit of humanbeing. they are drawn with luxuries, zinaa and alcohol. with wemon, sex, musics, parties, etc.
that is why, Ibn Majah narrated this hadeth in a different lafaz, from Abu Malik al-Asy'ari:
"Among my ummah there will certainly be people who drink alcohol and name it with other name. they are entertained with musics and female singers. Allah will punish them by beign swallowed by the earth, and He will turn some of them into monkeys and pigs..." (narrated Ibn Majah in chapter "fitnah", 4020).
the same goes to the hadeeth narrated by Ibn Hibban in his Soheeh (refer to al Ihsan, juz 15, hadeeth # 6758), and Al-Bukhariy in his Tarikh.
most scholars delivering this hadeeth (from Hisyam bin Ammar) said that it refers to the punishment for those who drink alcohol. "al ma'azif" or the musical instrument is as something that accompanying it.
THEREFORE, THIS HADEETH CANNOT BE USED AS AN ARGUMENT TO PROHIBIT MUSIC OR SINGING.
my dear brother ibn azem, this is not my own fatwa. together with me in this view is our 2nd Caliph ar Rosyideen, Sayyidina Omar r.a, Sayyidina Othman r.a., Sayyidina Abdur Rahmaan bin 'Auf r.a., Saad binAbi Waqqas r.a, Abu Mas'ud, Qarazah and Thabit bin Yazid, Abdullah bin Jaafar r.a, al Mughirah, Muawiyah, ibnu al Ass, Usamah bin Zaid, Bilal bin Robah r.a, Said bin al Musayyab, Salim bin Abdullah, Kharijah bin Zaid, Ato' bin Abi Rabah, Umar Bin Abdul Aziz, Ibnu Juraij, Ibn Sirin, Ubaidullah bin al Hassan, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Asy-Syafie, Imam Ahmad, Ishak bin Ibrahim al Mausili, Sufyan bin Uyainah, etc... and not to mention, Asy Syeikh Dr. Yusuof Al-Qardawi.
i'm quite surprise to open up the thread and see my post has already been deleted, and i was accused of being given my own fatwa. how can one be so sure that they are in the right position when they didn't even listen to what the other has to say? that is not the way Islam teach us to deal with others who have different opinion with us. we cannot treat them unjust, if we do so, we will be doing zolim, or unjust to our own brother.
to have different opinion, is not a sin in Islam. if not, we will never have 4 mazhab, and more actually. that is why i said, it is khilafiyaat.
I love this beautiful deen, just like how you love it. i've been thought to love it ever since i know the true meaning of it. and will never be in my mind to mislead people from my own religion. may God guide us all to the right path.
wallahu a'lam.....
i'm refering to the topic, "music and singing is clearly haram heres the proof", this thread had already been closed...
first of all, i never mean to protest agains our moderators that have been doing their best in monitering this forum. i never want that. but seems like i didn't been given the chance to defend myself, and to further my discussion on that topic.
i humbly ask for permission to my dear brother ibn azem, to further discuss it here, and i beg to differ.
the hadeth you brought,
The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“Among my ummah there will certainly be people who permit zinaa, silk, alcohol and musical instruments…” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari ta’leeqan, no. 5590; narrated as mawsool by al-Tabaraani and al-Bayhaqi. See al-Silsilah al-Saheehah by al-Albaani, 91).
yes, i'm aware of this hadeth. i learnt hadeth from several teachers, i memorise some, and still learning here. i learn the Quran, tafseer, lughatul arabiyyah, fiqh, tauheed, etc, and still learning right now, in a traditionil religious institution here in malaysia, we call "pondok". but i never ever consider myself as faqih or mujtahid. i have my reference to what i said.
for the above mentioned hadeth, scholars from long ago have had a very long discussion on it. the 'rowi' of this hadeth is Hisyam bin Ammar, and the 'sanad' continued up to Abu Aamir or Abu Malik al-Asy'aari form prophet Muhammad pbuh. the word in arabic that you translated it to musical intrument here is "al-ma'azif".
eventhough this hadeth was in the soheeh Bukhariy, but it feels under category of "mu'allaq" and not "musnad muttasil" (a complete continuous narrator from the latest up to the prophet Muhammad pbuh), therefore, Ibnu Hazmin had refused to use this hadeth as an argument due it its status. apart from that, some scholars said that there is idhtiraab (weakness at the sanad and matan) on that hadeth.
the problem is with Hisyam bin Ammar himself. Adu Dawood when commenting on Hisyam said: Hisyam has narated 400 hadeth with no basis at all.
Abu Hatim also criticised on Hisyam saying, "he is truthful, but he changed (at the later part of his life)".
Ibnu Sayyar said the same thing.
please refer to Hisyam's biography in Mizan al Iktidal, Tahzibut Tahzib by Ibnu Hajar, and Tazzibul Kamal by al Muzzi.
the list of scholars that criticised Hisyam goes on, and that include our beloved Imam Ahmad, but i think it is enough here.
Anyway, if we put the problem on the sanad (sorry i don't know what the best word to translate "sanad" into english, but it is the list os narrator or those who deliver a hadeth, from one generation to the other, up to prophet Muhammad pbuh), there is still another argument on the MEANING of the above mentioned hadeth.
first of all, the word "al-ma'azif" in this hadeth is still general. some says it is "al-malaahi" or musical instruments, some says it is "alatul 'azfi" or string musical instrument. however, even if it means all musical instruments, this hadeth still didn't give the meaning that it is ABSOLUTELY HARAAM.
this is because of the word, "yastahillun" translated as "they will permit..." in the hadeth. according to Ibnul Arabi, it has two meanings:
1) the exact meaning, that "they" really believe it is permissible.
2) or it is a majaz (in english, it means some hidden meaning, or another meaning, in Malay we called 'kiyasan', someone who knows Malay can please translate this..thanks). which actually means that "they" did it extremely or excessively. if we use the exact meaning, surely those who commit this become kafr, because permitting something that is prohibited such as zinaa and alcohol.
so we can argue, wether the prohibition of the musical instrument is because it presence together with other sins mentioned in that hadeth, that is zinaa, silk and alcohol? or each and every of those is prohibited on its own?
THE OPINION THAT THE MUSICAL INSTRUMENT IS PROHIBITED DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF THE OTHER MENTIONED SINS TOGETHER WITH IT, IS MUCH STRONGER.
actually this hadeth warned against the bad habit of humanbeing. they are drawn with luxuries, zinaa and alcohol. with wemon, sex, musics, parties, etc.
that is why, Ibn Majah narrated this hadeth in a different lafaz, from Abu Malik al-Asy'ari:
"Among my ummah there will certainly be people who drink alcohol and name it with other name. they are entertained with musics and female singers. Allah will punish them by beign swallowed by the earth, and He will turn some of them into monkeys and pigs..." (narrated Ibn Majah in chapter "fitnah", 4020).
the same goes to the hadeeth narrated by Ibn Hibban in his Soheeh (refer to al Ihsan, juz 15, hadeeth # 6758), and Al-Bukhariy in his Tarikh.
most scholars delivering this hadeeth (from Hisyam bin Ammar) said that it refers to the punishment for those who drink alcohol. "al ma'azif" or the musical instrument is as something that accompanying it.
THEREFORE, THIS HADEETH CANNOT BE USED AS AN ARGUMENT TO PROHIBIT MUSIC OR SINGING.
my dear brother ibn azem, this is not my own fatwa. together with me in this view is our 2nd Caliph ar Rosyideen, Sayyidina Omar r.a, Sayyidina Othman r.a., Sayyidina Abdur Rahmaan bin 'Auf r.a., Saad binAbi Waqqas r.a, Abu Mas'ud, Qarazah and Thabit bin Yazid, Abdullah bin Jaafar r.a, al Mughirah, Muawiyah, ibnu al Ass, Usamah bin Zaid, Bilal bin Robah r.a, Said bin al Musayyab, Salim bin Abdullah, Kharijah bin Zaid, Ato' bin Abi Rabah, Umar Bin Abdul Aziz, Ibnu Juraij, Ibn Sirin, Ubaidullah bin al Hassan, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Asy-Syafie, Imam Ahmad, Ishak bin Ibrahim al Mausili, Sufyan bin Uyainah, etc... and not to mention, Asy Syeikh Dr. Yusuof Al-Qardawi.
i'm quite surprise to open up the thread and see my post has already been deleted, and i was accused of being given my own fatwa. how can one be so sure that they are in the right position when they didn't even listen to what the other has to say? that is not the way Islam teach us to deal with others who have different opinion with us. we cannot treat them unjust, if we do so, we will be doing zolim, or unjust to our own brother.
to have different opinion, is not a sin in Islam. if not, we will never have 4 mazhab, and more actually. that is why i said, it is khilafiyaat.
I love this beautiful deen, just like how you love it. i've been thought to love it ever since i know the true meaning of it. and will never be in my mind to mislead people from my own religion. may God guide us all to the right path.
wallahu a'lam.....