Arts
of the Sound and the Islamic Ethico-Legal Tradition: Annotated
translation of an ethico-legal opinion[1]
from Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s Fatawa al-Mu’asirah
OPINION
This is
a question that people from all walks of life and from various eras of history
have frequently asked. The Muslim polity/demos
(jamhoor-ul-muslimeen)[5] stands divided in its view of the
matter, and therefore differs in its practice too. So you will find amongst
Muslims, people who lend their ears to all kinds of songs and music, espousing
the view that these are blessings from amongst the blessings of the world which
God has made lawful for his faithful servants. But, you will also find amongst
Muslims another kind - the person who turns off the volume of the radio as soon
he comes across it or stuffs his fingers into his ears whenever he comes within
earshot of a song, saying: “Music is the trumpet of the devil. It is a
distraction which keeps one from the remembrance of God and the canonical
prayers.” People of this category hold this view especially in the situation
where the singer is a woman for they consider a woman’s voice a part of her private
parts (‘aurah). Naturally, if even the unadorned voice is included in a woman’s
‘awrah, then her adorned voice, ie. a
song, would also be included in it, and thus be viewed by the proponents of
this view as forbidden unto non-kin men. And then there is the third category
of Muslims, those who dither and dally between these two perspectives. They
await from the scholars of the Islamic ethico-legal tradition an authoritative
pronouncement on this issue which touches the emotions of some many people and
affects the conduct of their daily life. The issue has become especially
significant ever since broadcasting – both audio and visual – penetrated
people’s homes, and has, willy-nilly, imposed upon people’s ears songs and
music of various kinds.
I
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
THE ISSUE AND THE JURISPRUDENTIAL DEBATE AROUND IT
The
truth is that since the early days of Islam, the status of the aural arts,
including both singing and instrumental music, has remained the subject of a
vibrant discussion amongst scholars. If one looks at this discourse, one finds
that while all scholars agree on some aspects, on other aspects there is no
such consensus.
The
scholars agree on the impermissibility of any song which is obscene, perverted
and incites sinful disobedience to God. The rule behind this is simple. Songs are
but a form of speech. The rule about speech is that it is commendable, if its
content is good, whatever its form may be. Conversely, if the content of speech
is condemnable, then it is condemnable; the addition of rhyme and rhythm makes
no difference to this conclusion.
The
scholars also agree on the permissibility of any song or music which is purely
natural and not produced by instruments and is enjoyed in a time and place
where merry-making is permissible, such as at weddings or when a long-departed
loved one returns, or on the Eids and on similar occasions, with the condition
that the singer is not a woman performing in the presence of strangers (all
others besides non-marriable kin).
Both
these consensus opinions find support in unambiguous texts, which we shall
mention below.
But on
all other matters, the scholars are in visible disagreement: some amongst them
deemed singing both with and without instruments not only permissible but
actually praise-worthy; some others deemed singing permissible for as long as
it was not accompanied by instruments, and yet others deemed singing itself
totally impermissible, be it with or without instruments, and even counted it
amongst the great sins.
Because
of the pertinence of the subject, we[6] consider
it necessary to deal with it in some detail. We will shed the light of reason
on the multiple facets of this issue so that the boundary between the forbidden
and the permissible may become self-evident to the Muslim. And we will derive
our conclusions though sound arguments, not just through reliance upon the
saying of someone, in the hope that the Muslim may be able to follow what is
evident and develop a deeper insight into the spirit of his religion.
II
ANALYSIS: THE
DEFAULT ETHICO-LEGAL RULE IS PERMISSIBILITY
The
scholars of Islam have declared that, as a default rule, all things are
permissible. This rule is derived from the word of God: “It is He who created
for you all of that which is on the earth.[7]”
(Al-Baqarah: 29) Furthermore, nothing can be declared impermissible except
where such impermissibility is established by an unambiguous and authentic text
from the Book of God, or the Sunnah of the Prophet or where impermissibility is
borne out by an indisputable consensus of opinion amongst the early scholars (‘ijmaun sabitun mutayaqqan). Where the
impermissibility of a thing cannot be established by such textual support or
scholarly consensus or where the supporting texts are either deficient in
authenticity or ambiguous, this lack of evidence does not necessarily categorize
the thing in the category of the lawful. But it does categorize the thing in
that vast residual category known as the irreprehensible. God says: “He hath
explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you - except under compulsion
of necessity.” (Al-an’am: 119)
And the
Prophet of God said: “Whatever God has declared lawful in His book is lawful;
whatever He has declared forbidden is forbidden, and whatever He has passed
over in silence is irreprehensible, so accept (with gratitude) God’s mercy, and
remember that God would not have forgotten anything.” After saying this, he,
upon him be peace, recited the verse: “And thy Lord never doth forget” (Maryam:
64) This report was narrated by al-Hakim from Abu Darda and extracted and
authenticated by al-Bazzar.
The
Prophet has also said: “Allah had prescribed for obligatory duties for you; do
not be deficient in performing them; and he has demarcated the limits of the
permissible, so do not transgress those limits; and many matters has he has
passed over in silence, not out of forgetfulness but out of mercy, so do not inquire
into (His ruling on) these matters. Extracted
by al-Daraqtani from Abu Sa’labah al-khashani and authenticated by al-Hafiz Abu
Bakr al-Sam’ani in “Amalihi” and by Al-Nawawi in al-Arbaeen.
This
being the general rule of our jurisprudence, let us examine the texts and
arguments which are presented by the proponents of the impermissibly of music
and the proponents of its permissibility, respectively.
III
REFUTING THE CASE AGAINST
PERMISSIBILTY OF MUSIC
A – The proponents of
impermissibility have relied upon a report attributed to the Prophet, narrated
by al-Bukhari through a chain that runs either through Abu Malik or Abu Aamir
al-Ash’ari – we’re not sure which one – where he, upon him be peace, said:
There shall arise in my flock (ummat) a group (qaum) who will make lawful (yastahillun) the enjoyment of
genitalia(i.e. sexual intercourse), silk, wine and musical instruments.
Even
though this report forms a part of al-Bukhari’s Sahih, it is counted amongst reports
whose chain suffers from a rupture and not those whose chain is totally
unbroken. It is for this reason that Ibn Hazm simply refused to rely on it. They
(why plural?) said: the authenticity of its chain of narration as well as its
text is not sufficiently certain for it to be relied upon in the derivation of
universally applicable ethico-legal rules.
Even if
we were to cast aside the doubts about its authenticity, there remains some
ambiguity about its meaning. The report does not necessarily indicate the
impermissibility of musical instruments per
se, since the word yastahillun (will
make lawful) – as Ibn al-Arabi[8]
mentions – has two possible meanings: one of the meanings is “they will
consider these things lawful”; and the other meaning is “they shall be
excessive in their use of these things.”
Even if
we concede that the report indicated the impermissibility of the usage per se (and not just the excessive usage), of the things
mentioned therein, the rule would still remain confined to the things mentioned
as a group and not as individuals.
(Therefore,
in my considered opinion), what the report is actually referring to is the
behavior of a group of people which is totally engrossed in luxury, sexual
orgies and drunkenness. They frolic between wine and women, and partying and
music, and [adorn] silken garments. If is perhaps for this reason that in the
report recorded by Ibn Maja, received through Abu Malik al-Ash’ari, the wording
is a little different: There shall arise in my flock a group who shall drink
wine and call it by another name as they listen to music being played in front
of them by singing girls. God will banish from the earth them (yakhsifu bihim
al-ard) and turn them into apes and swines.” Also recorded by Ibn Habban in his
Sahih.
B – The proponents of
impermissibility also rely upon the conduct of Ibn Mas’ud and Ibn ‘Abbas from
the first blessed generation of Muslims and some others from the second blessed
generation of Muslims. Music is impermissible, they argue, because these some
people from the earliest blessed generations deemed music impermissible,
relying upon the Quranic verse: “And of the people is he who buys the amusement
of speech to mislead [others] from the way of Allah without knowledge and who
takes it in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment.” (Luqman: 6)
These blessed people interpreted the ‘amusements of speech’ in this verse as
referring to music.
Ibn Hazm
said: This argument is not sound for a number of reasons:
Firstly, the opinion of any person other
than the Prophet himself, upon him be peace, is not in itself a sufficient
ground (for declaring a thing permissible or impermissible).
Secondly, the fact is that there were
other people amongst the same blessed generation who did not share this
opinion.
Thirdly, the text itself defeats the
argument of those who are trying to rely on it. Upon closer reading you will
notice that what is condemned in this verse is not the act of buying an amusement of speech but rather the purpose behind this act. Read again:
“[H]e who buys the amusement of speech to
mislead [others] from the way of Allah without knowledge and who takes it
in ridicule.” A person whose purpose is to turn the path of God into an object
of ridicule should be considered an infidel; nobody disagrees with that. If his
intention is to use it for misleading others from the path of God and turning
into an object of ridicule, a person would be deemed an infidel, even if it is
a copy of the Holy Quran that he is buying. It is the not the act but the
intent behind it which God is condemning. This condemnation cannot be extended
to someone who buys the amusement of speech, simply to seek a little
entertainment and relaxation, with no intent to of lead people astray. To sum
up, this argument fails because of a lack of intentionality. Consider, for
instance, someone who recites the Quran or who narrates a story from the life
of the prophet, or narrates one of his saying, with the intention of
distracting a worshipper from his prayers. Whether he has anything to do with
music or not, such a person is an evil-doer, a sinner against God; conversely,
someone who performs the same acts without the intention of distracting others from
the performance of their religious obligations, is obviously praise-worthy.[9]
C – The proponents of
impermissibility also rely upon this statement of God in praise of the true
believers: “And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom …”
(Al-Qasas: 55) Music, they contend, is a form of “vain talk” and is therefore
it is best for believers to stay away from it.
To this
it may be responded that from the text of the Quranic verse it is clear that
“vain talk” refers to profane language, cursing, swearing and things of that
sort. The rest of the verse makes this clearer: “And when they hear vain talk,
they turn away therefrom and say: ‘To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be
to you: we seek not the ignorant.’" (Al-Qasas: 55) The same meaning is
contained in another verse: “And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are
those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them,
they say, "Peace!" (Al-Furqan: 63)
Yet,
even if we concede that “vain talk” in this verse does refer to music, the most
that it proves is the praise-worthiness of those who abstaining from listening
to music… wa laysa fiha ma yujabu zalik…
The term
“vain talk” is akin to the term “futility” which means that there is nothing to
be gained from it. Listening to something which is a futility is not forbidden,
as long as it does not become an obstacle in in the performance of one’s
obligations to God or man.
It has
been narrated that Ibn Juraij held the view that music is permissible. Someone
asked him: On the day of judgment, will this be counted amongst one’s good
deeds or evil deeds? He said: It shall be counted neither amongst the good
deeds nor the evil deeds, because it is like a thoughtless act. And God has
said: “And make not Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good,
or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for Allah is One Who
heareth and knoweth all things. Allah
will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the
intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.”
(Al-Baqarah: 225; Al-Maidah: 89)[10]
Imam
al-Ghazali said: If going back on an oath taken under God’s name is not
reprehensible, provided there is no harm caused to others by such going back,
and provided God’s name was made inadvertently, then why would (the much more
innocuous acts of)poetry and dancing be reprehensible?[11]
To this
reasoning let us add something more. Not all music is meant to be frivolous; in
fact, the worth is to be judged according to the intention of the singer or
player. For indeed a good intention can turn what otherwise seems frivolous
into a means of drawing closer to God, and
turn entertainment into worship. Conversely,
an evil intent can destroy an act. What appears, in its form, to be an act of
worship may well be nothing but hypocrisy in its substance: “And God does not
look at your appearances or your wealth; He looks instead to your hearts and to
your deeds!”[12]
And let
us quote here a fine statement on this issue by Ibn Hazm in al-Mahalli, as he
refutes those who declare music impermissible:
They
ask: Is music a good thing or a bad thing? Surely, a third category there
cannot be, for God has said: “…[A]part from truth, what (remains) but error?”
(Yunus: 32) Our response, may God guide us, is as follows: Indeed the Prophet,
upon him be peace, said: “Actions are judged by intentions; everyone will get
what they intended for.” It follows from this that the person who turns to
music with the intention of deriving from it the strength to commit sinful
disobedience against God, surely he is a wrong-doer; this rule applies to all his
acts done with such intent, not just to his act of listening to music. On the
contrary, the person who turns to music with the intention of relaxing and thus
regaining the strength needed for regularly obeying God’s commands and doing
good deeds, surely he is a most praiseworthy and obedient servant of God and
this act of his is indeed an act of righteousness. As for the person who
intends neither disobedience nor obedience, his act will be deemed
‘thoughtless’ and thus not-accounted-for before God. It is, in that sense, just
like a man’s walking out into his garden or his standing at the door of his house,
or his wearing cloth that is black or lajwardi
or any other colour or his stretching his legal and other such acts.
D – The proponents of
impermissibility have also relied upon the report attributed to the Prophet:
“All sources of entertainment that a believer seeks are pointless except three:
a man doting on his wife, training his horses and practicing (shooting arrows)
with his bow.” This has been recorded by the four Sunan collectors, although
its authenticity is not beyond doubt.
The
proponents of permissibility have responded by highlighting the doubtful
authenticity of this report. Yet, even if is deemed authentic, it does not
support the argument being made. Something being “pointless” does not mean that
is also impermissible; it just means that it has no benefits. Abu Darda is
reported to have said: “Sometimes I indulge myself with a little bit of that
which is ‘pointless’ so that I may become the stronger in doing that which is
good.” Furthermore, this category cannot be restricted to the above-mentioned
three acts. So there is, for instance, the well-known incident, preserved in an
authentic hadith, of the dance troupe of Ethiopian origin who once performed in
the mosque of the Prophet; surely that too must be counted in with the above
three. Furthermore, relaxing in a garden and listening to the chirping of birds
too must be counted in this list. And then there are the countless jokes with
which people amuse themselves… la yuharram
alayhi shaeein minha wa in jaaza wasafahu biannahu baatil…
E – The proponents of
impermissibility also rely upon the report: “Verily God has forbidden the al-qaynah (the singing slave girl), the
act of selling her, the money it brings, and the act of training her.”
Our
answer to this as follows:
Firstly,
it is a report of doubtful authenticity.
Secondly,
al-Ghazali has said: Al-qaynah refers
to the slave-girl who would generally sing before a gathering of men drinking
wine. A woman’s singing before such a gathering of reveler who are likely to be
sexually tempted by her is forbidden. Indeed, such men would generally not attend
these gatherings not in the hope of gratifying their illegitimate desire (of
sexual gratification). This being the context, the ruling in this hadith cannot
be extended to the case of a slave-girl’s singing before her own master. In fact,
it cannot even be extended to all cases of a slave-girl singing before stranger
men; recall, for instance, what the two Sahih collections record about the
singing of slave-girls in the house of Aisha, may Allah bless her, which we
shall discuss below.
Thirdly,
recall that these singing-girls constituted an integral pillar of the odious economic
system of slavery. The mission of Islam was to cleanse this system
progressively, since it was not possible to do so in one bold stroke – thus the
continued existence of slave in Islamic society. But that ownership and sale of
singing-girls was certainly forbidden. This ban can easily be understood as
demolishing an important pillar of the odious economic institution of slavery.
F – The proponents of impermissibilty
also rely upon Nafay’s report about Ibn Umar. Nafay reports that Ibn Umar once
came within earshot of an flute being played by a shephard. He cast his fingers
into his ears, and changed the course of his ride. He asked “O Nafi, can you
hear it?” I said: “Yes, I do.” Ibn Umar kept repeating this question after
every little while unlit I finally responded “No, I do not” (because we had
left the flute-playing shepherd behind. Now, Ibn Umar raised removed his
fingers from his ears and put his ride back on course and said: “I saw the
Prophet of God come within earshot of a flute being played just like now and I
saw he do what I just did.” Reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah.
Abu
Dawood says about this report that it is unreliable But even if its authenticity
is admitted, it supports the argument against impermissibility, and not in
favor of it. You see, if the Prophet of God, upon him be peace, deemed
listening to the tune of a flute impermissible, he would not have allowed Ibn
Umar to go on listening, while he himself desisted. Likewise, if Ibn Umar had
deemed it impermissible, he would not have allowed Nafay to keep listening to
it. In fact, the Prophet, upon him be peace, would have commanded an end to
this evil. The Prophets’ iqrar for
Ibn Umar actually proves that it is permissible.
As for
the Prophet’s own abstinence from listening to the flute, it should in its
proper context; it is just like his abstinence from so many of the permissible
pleasures of this world, like his not resting his back while eating, or not
letting even a single dinar or dirham stay with him over-night and countless
other such examples.
G - The proponents of impermissibilty
also rely upon the saying: “Verily, music plants/breeds hypocrisy in the
heart.” But this saying cannot be traced all the way back to the Prophet, upon
him be peace. Indeed, it has been established as the saying of some amongst the
companions of the Prophet. As such, it is, ultimately, just the opinion of
fallible human beings on an issue where others have differed with them. For
instance, there are those – especially the Sufis – who have said that music
softens the heart, fosters repentance and sadness over one’s sins and fires up
the desire for God; therefore, they used it as an aid in seeking spiritual
re-birth, and in uplifting their spirits, in strengthening their commitment.
And they said: this is a matter which cannot be understood save through
tasting, experience and practice. And whoever tasted, understood for hearing is
no substitute for seeing.
Furthermore,
the learned al-Ghazali has opined that the ruling in this saying applies to the
singer and not the listener. If the singer’s intention in singing is to
establish his reputation before those who are listening and to make them admire
his voice, then clearly his deeds stand marred by hypocrisy. In addition,
al-Ghazali said: This does not establish the impermissibility of music; indeed,
the wearing of beautiful clothes, riding of a well-trained horse and all such
good things, and taking pride in one’s agricultural land, livestock and crops
and the like, these things run the risk of creating hypocrisy in one’s heart. But
this does not demonstrate their impermissibility per se. In fact, what runs the risk of planting hypocrisy in one’s
heart are not the impermissible and sinful acts but rather the permissible acts
the doing of which commands respect in people’s eyes.
H – The
proponents of impermissibility, especially the impermissibility of listening to
a female singer, rely upon a widely-circulated rumour (ma sha’a) that a women’s voice is a part of her ‘private parts’,
(which modesty requires her to conceal). The truth is that there is not a shred
of evidence to be found in God’s religion in support of this rumour. Indeed
women used to frequent the gathering of the Prophet and his companions and ask
him ethico-legal questions, and he used to answer then and to make conversation
with them. And the companions/friennds of the prophet used to visit the mothers
of the believers (the Prophet’s wives) and ask these women ethico-legal
questions, and these women would supply these men with answers and make
conversation with them. And yet no one ever object that Aisha or these other
women were revealing before men a part of her that modesty would require them
to conceal.
The proponents
of impermissibility might retort to this and say that permission applies only
to ordinary speech and not to singing. To this we may retort that the two Sahih
collections record an incident where indeed the Prophet of God, upon him be
peace, listed to the song of two singing slave-girls and did not condemn them
and in fact ordered Abu Bakar (who was inclined to stop them): Leave these
girls alone! And Ibn Ja’far and many other men in the generation of the
companions of the Prophet and in the generation that came after them, may
Allah’s blessings be upon them, are reported to have listened to the songs of
singing slave-girls. (/professional female singers)[13].
The
upshot of this discussion is that the texts which the proponents of
impermissibility rely upon are, mostly, not sufficiently authenticated; where
they are sufficiently authenticated, do not provide unequivocal support for the
argument. (When analysed rigorously) not one of the reports relied upon by this
school of thought can be traced back to the Prophet with much certitude; this
is why a large group of scholars of the Zahiri school, the Maliki school, the
Hambali school and the Shafi’I school of ethico-legal thought have declared its
as weak in authenticity.
In
“Al-Ahkam” the Judge Abu Bakr Ibn Arabi
opined: None of the texts cited to prove impermissibility stands scrutiny.”
A-Ghazali expressed the same opinion as did Ibn al-Nahwi[14]
is in his “al-‘umdah.
And Ibn
Tahir[15]
said: Not a word (in these texts) stands scrutiny.
And Ibn
Hazm said: Whatever has been said in this matter is false and, in fact,
fabricated.
IV
ANALYIS: BUILDING A
POSITIVE CASE FOR THE PERMISSIBILITY OF MUSIC
These
being the arguments of the proponents of the impermissibility of music, and
having negated them one after the other until not on them holds its ground
anymore, we can again rely on the default rule: since it is not prohibited, music
is permissible. This conclusion would be warranted, even if we conducted no
further ethico-legal analysis (and had not positive case of our own). Yet, our
conclusion is also borne out by authentic and clear (sacred) texts, and by the
generally permissive spirit of the Islamic ethico-legal tradition and its
wholesome values (mabadi’uhu al-kulliyyah)[17].
Here, we explain these arguments.
THE TEXTUAL
EVIDENCE FOR THE PERMISSIBILITY OF MUSIC:
The
proponents of the permissibility of music rely upon reports attributed to the Prophetic
through authentic chains of narration. Amongst them is the report about the
singing of slave-girls (professional female singers) in the house of the
Prophet, upon his be peace, with Aisha and Abu Bakr’s initial outrage at this
situation: “The flute of the devil in the house of the Prophet?” Contrary to
what some interpreters of this report suggest, the report clearly implies that
these singers were clearly grown-up women, not children. Otherwise, why would
Abu Bakar have been so outraged by what he saw?
What
is really worth emphasizing (al-mu’awwal
anhuI) here is the Prophet’s rebuke to Abu Bakr and the reasoning he gave:
He wants to tell the Jews (Pharisees) that ours is a religion of openness, and
that that the Prophet’s path is that of primordial permissiveness. And his
conduct also demonstrates the obligation upon us to portray a beautiful
depiction of Islam to others and not conceal the easy-going and permissive
aspects of this religion.
There
is another report recorded by al-Bukhari and Ahmad, transmitted through Aisha,
(which is worth considering here). (The context of the report is that) a woman
(from the Prophet’s own Qurashi tribe) was being wed to a man from amongst the
Ansar. The Prophet, upon him be peace, is reported to have shared this thought
with his wife: “Couldn’t they arrange for having some good fun, my dear Aisha?
You know how the Ansar are such a fun-loving people.”[18]
Ibn
Maja records another report transmitted through Aisha. He said: Aisha had found
one of her relatives a suitor from amongst the Ansar. When the Prophet, upon
him be peace, arrived, he asked: “I hope you are giving some wedding gifts to
the girl.” (A hadaytum al-fataat?”) Aisha
said: “Yes, I have.” He further inquired: “And have you also arranged for someone
who would make music with the pride’s procession?” To this Aisha said:
“Actually, I haven’t.” So the Prophet said “You know these Ansar are people
with a cultivated taste for love songs. I wish you have sent with the bride one
of those singers who chant: Atayna kum
Atayna kum, Fa hayyana fa hayyana!”
And
al-Nasai and al-Hakam narrate yet another report, authenticated by Aamir ibn
Saad, which is worth considering here. He said: I went to attend a wedding
ceremony in the presence of Qaradah ib Ka’b and Abu Mas’ud al-Ansari where singing
slave-girls were performing. So I asked “O companions of the Prophet, veterans
of the Holy Battle of Badar, how can this be done in your presence?” To this,
both of them replied: “You are welcome to join us and enjoy, but if you are not
so incline, please feel free to leave. But know we have permission for having
some good fun at weddings.”
Ibn
Hazm also records a report transmitted by Ibn Sijjeen: A man can to Medina to
sell singing slave-girls. First, he visited Abd Allah ibn Ja’far and offered these
to him. He asked them to sing. As they sang, Ibn Umar was also listening.
(Pleased with the girls’ singing prowess,) Ibn Ja’far bought them.
.
.
.
[COULDN’T DECIPHER EXACTLY WHAT’S HAPPENING HERE]
The
proponents of permissibility also rely upon God’s saying: “But when they see
some bargain or some amusement, they disperse headlong to it, and leave thee
standing. Say: "The (blessing) from the Presence of Allah is better than
any amusement or bargain! And Allah is the Best to provide (for all
needs)." (Al-Jum’ah: 11) Amusement has been put here upon the same footing
as trade or seeking the best bargain. What is meant is not the condemnation of
these activities per se, but rather
the way the companions allowed themselves to be distracted from the Prophet’s
sermon, as they heard the drum-beat of a returning (trade) caravan.
The
proponents of permissibility also rely upon the reports about the approval of a
number of companions of the Prophet, may God be pleased with them, who
permitted religious music (samaa’),
either through their conduct or statements. They relied in fact upon the
conclusion of a good number of scholars who report that that the earliest
generations had a consensus about the permissibility of listening to religious
music, a point shall discuss below in greater detail.
ARGUMENTS BASED
UPON THE UNDERLYING SPIRIT OF THE ISLAMIC ETHICO-LEGAL TRADTION AND ITS BASIC
PRINCIPLES[19]
A - In essence, music is nothing but of
the good things of world. It is a source of pleasure for the souls, a balm for the
minds, a thing that our primordial nature approves of. Music is a delight for
the faculty of hearing, just as excellent cuisine is a delight for the faculty
of taste, beautiful scenery is a delight for the faculty of sight, and a
fragrance is delight for faculty of smell and so on and so forth. So let me ask
the proponents of impermissibility of music: are the good things of the earth,
ie. sensual pleasures, considered permissible in the Islamic ethico-legal
tradition or forbidden?[20]
It
is well-known (amongst Muslims) that when God forbade upon the Jews(Pharisees)
the enjoyment of some of the good things of the earth, this was done as a
punishment for their unjust conduct. Recall what God says: “For the iniquity of
the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had
been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way. And [for]
their taking of usury while they had been forbidden from it, and their
consuming of the people's wealth unjustly…” (Al-Nisa 160-161) So when God conferred the prophetic mission
upon Muhammad, may he be blessed, the point of reference for his mission were
the scriptures that had already been revealed: “…[H]e commands them what is
just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and
pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from
their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them…” (Al-a’raf: 157)
This
means that after the advent of Islam, nothing which is good and pure, in the
sense that it appeals to our souls and to any wholesome intellect, remains
prohibited; such is God’s mercy upon this prophetic community, whose mission is
meant to be global and eternal. God says: “They ask thee what is lawful to
them. Say: lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure…” (Al-Maidah: 4)
God
has not conferred upon anyone from amongst humankind the right to declare
prohibited upon himself or upon others anything from amongst the good things of
the world which God has blessed us with, no matter how pious his intent may be,
and no matter how devoted to God he is. The right to declare a thing as
prohibited or to legalize it, vests,
ultimately, with God alone; it is simply not befitting of his servants to
claims to claim this. God says: “Say: Have ye considered what provision Allah
hath sent down for you, how ye have made of it lawful and unlawful? Hath Allah
permitted you, or do ye invent a lie concerning Allah?” (Yunus: 59) God has put
the act of prohibiting something which he allows at a par with legalizing
something which he has prohibited; these are both acts which invite the wrath
of God and his merit his punishment, and the person who engages in such conduct
(with intent) shall be yurdi fi hawiyatil
khusran al-mubeen, wad dalal al-ba’eed… God yan’a ala those who engaged in such conduct from amongst the pagan
Arabs: “They are losers who besottedly have slain their children without
knowledge, and have forbidden that which Allah bestowed upon them, inventing a
lie against Allah. They indeed have gone astray and are not guided.” (Al-an’am:
140)
B - When think deeply about this
issue, we realize that that a fondness for music and a sensitivity to beautiful
voices is a part of our instincts, and ingrained in primordial human nature. We
observed that even a suckling baby who is crying in its mother’s lap stops
crying when it hears a beautiful sound, and begins to listen to it intently. It
is therefore that mothers, foster-mother and others who take care of babies
have, for ages, resort to playing music for children. In fact, even cattle and
birds show signs of being affected by the beauty of voice and rhythm of songs.
On account of these reasons, al-Ghazali went so far as to conclude in Revivification[21]:
A human being who does not feel
stirred by music does is a deeply deficient human being. It suggests that his personality
is imbalanced, he is spiritually deficient, is excessively rigid, and lack sensitivity to (the manifestations of
God’s) beauty (in the universe). Bear in mind that even birds and cattle are
not unmoved by the power of music. The camel, despite being otherwise rather
dull, is affected by the singing of the camel-riders. The song lighten the
camel’s weariness with the burden it must bear and the lengths it must
traverse, raised is spirits, and almost intoxicated it. So you will notice that
when the camels hear the song of the camel-rider, they stretch their ears and
draw the ears closer to the source of the sounds, and speed up reaching a pace
where their load begins to fall off. [NEED TO CHECK THIS PART]
If
the love of music is instinctive and is a part of our primordial nature, then
the question is: has the ethical code come to negate our instinctive desires and
to shackle our primordial human nature? Not at all. Indeed the mission of
religion is to cleanse our instinctive desires and to elevate them, and to
channelize them in the right direction. (taujihiha taujihil qaweem). The
learned Ibn Taymiyyah, may be blessed, said: Verily the Prophets were sent to
perfect our primordial nature and to reinforce it, and not to modify it or to
supplant it.
An
example of this can be found in what did the Prophet, upon him be peace, did he
arrived in the city of Medina, where they used to have to have have two annual
festivals in the pagan era. So he, upon him be peace, said: “Verity God has
replaced your two festivals with better ones: the Festival of Sacrifice and the
Festival of Fitr.” Narrated by Ahmad and Abu Dawood and al-Nasai.
And
Aisha said: [DID NOT UNDERSTAND THIS PART]
Even
if music is one of simply a frivolity and a form of entertainment, that does
not make it impermissible because frivolity and entertainment per se are not impermissible because
human beings would simply grow weary of complete seriousness and perpetual saramah.
The
Prophet, upon him be peace, said to Hanzala, who suspected himself of loss of
faith after he spent some time making merry with his wife and children. He
became acutely conscious of how his state of mind was different when he would be
at home than what it was when he would be in the company of the Messenger of
God. The Prophet told him: “There is a
time for everything, my dear Hanzalah!” Narrated by Muslim.
And
Ali ibn Abu Talib said: “Amuse the hearts from time to time for if the hearts
grow weary beyond bearing, they go blind!” [CHECK THIS AGAIN]
And
Abu Darda said: I indulge myself with a little bit of frivolities so that I may
emerge the stronger for doing what is good.
To
those who say that music is just a frivolity and a thing of play, the learned
al-Ghazali has responded adequately:
Well, if this is so, then the
whole of this world would also be just a frivolity and a thing of play… And,
except for the procreative act which causes the birth of a child, all making
merry with women would also be a frivolity. And even that non-obscene humour
which is permissible and which the Prophet and his companions are reported to
have engage in, would also be deemed a frivolity.
And what would be more frivolous
than that the dance of the Abbyssinian and the Zunuj, which we know is
permissible through an authoritative text. On top to that, let me add that
sometimes frivolities freshen up the heart, and relieve us from the burden of
weighty thoughts, and indeed if the hearts get tired, they can grow stiff.
Amusing the heart is actually an aid in doing serious work. So the one who
regularly engages in serious thinking should, for instance, take a break on
Friday because a day’s rest contributes towards better performance in other
days. Similarly, someone who regularly engages in pre-dawn worship should
sometimes take a break. In fact, this is why prayers in discouraged a certain
times; resting periodically is an aid is doing more work. And frivolities are
likewise an aid doing what is serious. Indeed, except for the prophets of God
upon them be peace, we are not capable of being utterly serious and remaining
perpetually focused. Let me go so far as to say that frivolity is the medicine
of the hearts for it prevents the disease of a’yaa… And for this reason, if no other, it should be viewed as
permissible. That said, one ought not to over-indulge in it, just as one should
not be excessive in one’s usage of medicine.
Faizal lahwu ala hazihi al-niyyah
yuseeru qurbah… The pertains to the kind of person for whom music fails to stir
up the finest attributes of the heart; in other word, the kind of person for
whom all music can give provide is pleasure and relaxation. From an
ethico-legal perespective, even for him, music is a recommended thing because
he needs it to achieve the desirables we have mentioned above. Of course, such
dependence upon music as a means of attaining relaxation does indicate one’s
lack of spiritual perfection. The spiritual maestro requires no such crutches
for attaining happiness; for him simply being in the presence of the Divine
Being is enough. Yet, what may constitute a failing for a maestro is a good
thing for the novice. Anyone who has mastered the art of healing spiritual
maladies and wujuh al-talattuf biha wa siyaqatiha
ilal haq, knows fully well: amusing the hearts with such light things as
music is a useful form of treatment and in fact it is quite indispensible.
There
ends the discourse of the learned al-Ghazali; and it is indeed a remarkably
fine exposition of the true spirit of the Islamic ethico-legal tradition.
V
JURISTIC
PRECEDENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PERMISSIBILITY OF MUSIC
These,
then, are the arguments based upon the sacred texts and core principles of the
Islamic ethico-legal tradition, which support of proposition that music is
permissible. Such is the weight of evidence, that had this proposition never
before been espoused by a single exponent before us, and had not a single
jurist adopted it earlier, it would still have been convincing. Yet, it grows
all the more convincing when we enlist
in its support the vast body of prececent which can be found in its support
among the recorded opinons of the companions of the prophet, the blessed
generation after them and the jurists.
In
this regards, we have already mentioned the (support we draw) from the
Medinites, despite their reputation for exacting standards of piety, and the
Zahiris, who supported it despite all their literlism and adherence to plain
the plain main of texts, and the Sufis, who permitted it despite their
unflinching devotionalism and their preference for the more exacting rulings
rather than the more lenient ones.
In
Neel-al-Awtar, the learned
al-Shaukani says: “The Medinites and their supporters from amongst the Zahiri
scholars and the Sufi group were inclined towards the ruling that singing is
permissible, even when it is done with the accompaniment of Oud and Yaraa.” Commenting on this issue in his book on religious music,
the learned Abu Mansur al-Shafi’I says: “Abd Allah ibn Ja’far saw nothing wrong
with music and used to listen to his slave-girl as they sang and played their
instruments for him. This was from the era of the Ali, the Leader of the
Faithful, upon him be peace.”
The
above-mentioned scholar also related a similar account of the life of the
famous Judge Shurayh, and Said ibn al-Musayb and ‘Ata ibn Abu Riyaah and
al-Zahari and al-Sha’abi.
Amongst
the historians, both the learned Imam al-Haramayn, in his Al-Nihayah, and Ibn Abi al-Dunya record precedents in support of
music. They record that Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr had a number of slave-girls who
were ouud-players. One day, when Ibn Umar came into Ibn al-Zubayr’s room, he
saw an uud lying by his side. So Ibn Umar aksed him: What is this, O Companion
of the Prophet? Ibn Zubay simply passed the ouud around to him. For a while, he
stood there contemplating its shape. Then he conjectured, “Is this what a
Syrian weighing-balance?” Ibn al-Zubayr quipped: “This is where minds the
weighed!”
In
his book on religious music, aa-Hafiz Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm has narrated, on
his own authority that Ibn Seereen said: [COPY THE REPROT ABOUT IBN UMAR AND
IBN JA’FAR FROM ABOVE]
The
author of Al-Aqd, the learner
prose-writer Abu Umar al-Andulusi said: Abdullah ibn Umar visited Ibn Ja’far
and and found there a slave-girl who had a lute in her hjr. Ibn Ja’far asked Ibn Umar: Do you see anything wrong with
this? He replied: No, I see no harm in it. Al-Mawardi has reported that
Mu’awiyah and Amr ibn Saabit listened to a couplet from amongst the couplets of
Azzat al-Milaa, sung with a mazhar.
Abu
Abbas al-Mabrad too reports a similar
precedent. According to lexicographers, the word mazhar here means: lute.
Al-Adfawi
reports that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz used to listen to singing slave-girls before
he assumed the office of Caliph. And Ibn al-Sam’ani has reported tarkhis an tawus. Ibn Qateebah has,
through the authory of the writer of Al-Amtaa’, reported that amongst the
second generation of Muslims, Sa’ad Ibn Ibrahim ibn Abd al-Rahman Al-Zuhri, the
judge of Medina held the same view. In al-Irshad, Abu Ya’li al-Khalili has
reported that same about Abd al-Aziz ibn Salamah al-Majushoon, the jurisconsult
of Medina.
Al-Ruyani
has, through al-Qafal narrated that Malik ibn Anas view music, including
instrumental music, as permissible. The learned Abu Mansur and al-Faurati has
also recorded Malik as having held lute to be permissible. In “The Sustenance
of the Hearts”, Abu Talib al-Makki has recorded that Shu’bah listedn to birds “tuyuran” [CHECK THIS!] in the house of
al-Manhal ibn Amr, a’madat al-mashhoor…
Abul
Fadl ibn Tahir has, in his book on religious music, opined that there was no
dispute amongst the people of Medina about the permissibility of lute.
Ibn
al-Nahwi, in al-Umdah, and Ibn Tahir
also record: this is the consensus opinion of the jurists of Medinah. Ibn Tahir
also says: this is view of the Zahiri jurists, without exception. [DID NOT GET
THIS LINE]
Al-Mawardi
records some of the Shafi’is as having view the lute as permissible. Abul Fadl
ibn Tahir records the same through Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi. And al-Sanawi records
this in some of the al-muhimmat from
al-Ruyani and al-Mawardi. And Ibn Nahwi records this through the lear Abu
Mansur. And Ibn al-Mulaqqan records this through Ibn Tahir in Al-Umdah, and al-Adfawi records this
through the revered Izz ibn Abd al-Salam, and the author of Al-amtaa’ records this trhough Abu Bakr
Ibn Arabi, wa jazama bil ibahah
al-Adfawi.
All
of these jurists viewed music produced by widely used instruments as permissible.
As for non-instrumental music, ie. vocals, al-Adfawi relates in Al-imtaa’ the view of al-Ghazali,
expressed in some of his juristic writings, that the jurists are unanimous in
permitting it. Ibn Tahir too records that the companions of the Prophet and the
generation succeeding them were unanimous in holding it as permissible. Al-Taj
al-Fazari and Ibn Qutaybah also record that the scholars of the two holy cities
were unanimous in holding this as permissible. Al-Mawardi says: The people of
Hijaz viewed this as permissible even during the holiest days of the year,
which were devoted to worship and the remembrance of God. And Ibn al-Nahwi in al-Umdah says: A group of the companions
of the Prophet and the generation succeeding them are reported to have listed
to music. Amongst them was ‘Umar (as recorded by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and other),
‘Uthman (as recorded by al-Mawardi and the author of Al-Bayan and al-Rafi’) and Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Auf (as recorded by
Ibn Abu Shaybah), Abu Ubaydah ibn Jarrah (as recorded by al-Bayhaqi), Sa’ad ibn
Abi Waqqas (as recorded by Ibn Qutaybah), Abu Mas’ood al-Ansari (as recorded by
al-Bayhaqi), and Bilal and Abd Allah Ibn al-Arqam and Usamah Ibn Zayd (as
recorded by al-Bayhaqi), Hamzah (as recorded by a sahih report) and Ibn Umar (as recorded by Ibn Tahir), al-Barra ibn
Malik (as recorded by Abu Nuaim), Abd ibn Ja’far (as recorded by Ibn Abd
al-Barr), Abd Allah Ibn Zubayr (as recorded by Abu Talib al-Makki), Hassan (as
recorded by Abul Faraj al-Isfahani), Abd Allah Ibn Amr (as reoded by al-Zubayr
ibn Bakkar), and Qarazah ibn Ka’ab (as recorded by Ibn Qutaybah), Khuwat ibn
Jubayr and Ribah al-Mu’tarif (as recorded by the author of Al-Aghani), al-Mughirah ibn Shu’bah (as recorded by Abu Talib
al-Makki), Amr ibn al-Aas (as recorded by al-Mawardi) and Aisha and al-Rabi’
(as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and other collections).
As
for the succeeding generations, the supporters of this view are amongst them
are so numerous they are beyond count; they include amongst then the
progenitors of the four great Sunni schools of ethico-legal thought, and Ibn
Ayeenah and a majority of the subsequent Shafi’i jurists. Here ends the
discourse of Ibn Nahwi. And all of this has been mentioned by al-Shawkani in Neel al-Awtar.
VI
GENERAL
CONDITIONS AND PRE-REQUISITES THAT MUST BE RESPECTED
We
must not, however, forget to mention here certain conditions which must be
respected while enjoying music.
1.
We have already mentioned in the early part of this opinion that not all forms
of music are permissible; for it to be permissible, it must be in accord with
the general principles of the Islamic ethico-legal tradition and its etiquette.
Songs
like “The world is nothing but a wine-cup and cigarette!” are obviously not in
accord with the general principles of the Islamic ethico-legal tradition which
declares drinking wine as an act of impurity which is of Satanic inspiration,
and castigates the one who drinks it, sells its, transports it and anyone who
aids and abets in this process. Likewise, smoking is also a menace which cause
harm to the body and the soul and also wastes wealth.
Likewise,
songs which glorify the tyrannical, unjust and licentious ruler with whom our
prophetic community is afflicted, are also not in line with the teachings of
the Islamic ethico-legal traditions. A tradition which condemns the unjust and
those aid the unjust, and even those who refuse to speak up against the unjust
obviously does not look kindly at those who glorify the unjust.
Similarly,
songs which glorify the man or woman who exercises a lustful gaze are not in
accord with the etiquette promoted by the Islamic ethico-legal tradition whose
scripture urges: “Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest.
That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is aware of what they do. And tell the
believing women to lower their gaze …” (Al-Noor 30-31) And the Prophet, upon be
peace, says: “My ear Ali, do not cast glance after glance, for the first you
are entitled to but not the other.”
2.
Furthermore, the manner of performance is also important. Sometimes, it is
possible for the subject of music to be unobjectionable; yet the way in which
the singer, be he male or female, performs it is full of seduction, and
calculated to arouse lust, and its purpose is to stir up otherwise tamed carnal
desires, and to appeal to sick souls. These factors can take music from the
realm of the permissible to the impermissible, or at least the undesirable. An
example of this category are the songs which ………………….. [ COULDN’T COMPREHEND ]
…….. and that is the dimension of the desire for sexual intercourse, and the
fantasy and affection that stems from it, and the usage of every possible means
to arouse it, especially amongst young boys and girls.
Indeed the Quran addresses the wives of the prophet
and says: [INSERT]
3. Thirdly, one should be careful to not to mix
music with anything this is actually unlawful, such as drinking wine, women’s dressing
up in manner calculated to arouse men’s lust, and the unrestrained interaction
between men and women in a sexually charged atmosphere. It should be remembered
that all of these factors did quite often accompany music in the past; in fact,
even today when we mention music, especially the music of slave girls and
women, it is this picture that comes up in the minds of many. This composite
picture is also what report attributed to the Prophet seems to warn us against:
“There shall arise in my flock a group who shall drink wine called by another
name and listen to music being played in front of them by singing girls. God
will banish from the earth them (yakhsifu bihim al-ard) and turn them into apes
and swines.” And I also wish …
4. Remember that there is more to
being human than just having emotions, that love is not the only emotion that
human beings feel, that there is more to love than just the love of women and
that there is more to women that just their bodies and sexual appeal. This is
why we there is a need to cut down on that interminable stream of songs that celebrate
romantic adventures, and why we need to strike a proper balance in our songs,
our (media) programming and our lives in general, and exercise due moderation
in the pursuit of the sacred and the mundane, and between human emotions
ranging from love, hatred, honour, paternal, maternal, brotherly and sisterly
affiliation and friendship. Each one of these relationships has a certain right
over us that may not be compromised.
When any particular one amongst
this set of emotions is excessively indulged, it always comes at the cost of something
else, be it other emotions, the intellect, the soul, the will, the interests of
society, wa khasaisihi wa muqawwimatihi. It
is a course of action which is detrimental to religion and what it stands for.
Indeed, religions forbids excess
and indulgence is every aspect of life, even in ritual worship. So it follows
logically that it does not condone excess in an activity, though permissible,
is essentially a frivolous activity.
Indeed, this (excessive
indulgence in music) is a sure sign of the lack of performance of crucial
duties by the heart and the mind, and lack of possession of grand aspirations,
and defaulting on many duties which must be discharged in the precious few
moments of life that we have on this earth. How truly and perceptively did Ibn
Muqaffa remarks: “Never did I see excessive indulgence, but that it was
accompanied by deprivation of the rights of someone else.” And it comes in a
saying attributed to the Prophet, upon him be peace: “A person of sound
intellect is not led astray save by these three: ……..” Therefore, we must
distribute our time between these three fairly. And we must always remember
that God will hold all people accountable for the manner in which they spend
their lives, and especially the way they spend the days of their youth.
D - After this exposition, there
still remain unanswered many issues. But in these issues, listener of music is
his own best counsel and his own jurisconsult. So if a person finds that listening
to music or a particular kind of music stimulates his base instincts, or drives
him towards moral corruption and drifts his imagination in that direction, or
stirs his animalistic self at the cost of his spiritual self, then he should
certainly abstain from listening to it and shut that door from he fears a
hazard to his religion and ethics, and then live in peace and happiness.
A
Warning Against the Practice of Casually Issuing Declarations of Illegality
Let us conclude our response with
a word of advice addressed to those of our learned scholarly brothers who have
fallen into a habit of issuing declarations of illegality rather casually. It
seems as though the term “prohibited/illegal” comes to possesses them whenever
they are issuing ethico-legal opinions or writing books. I would urge them to
be mindful of God in their speech and to be conscious this is a most grave term
– it implies that punishment of God for him who engage in the act thus
described, and it is therefore a declaration that cannot be issued upon mere
conjecture, or on the basis one’s personal preferences, or on the basis of a
report attributed to the Prophet with a dubious chain of transmission, or the
text of an ancient book of jurisprudence. On the contrary, it can only be
issued that is authentic and unambiguous, or a resounding scholarly consensus.
Otherwise, the real of the permissible and the unreprehensible is vast. You can
find for this principle ample evidence in the exemplary conduct of our
illustrious ancestors.
Imam Mali, may Allah bless him,
said: I find nothing harder than answering questions about what is lawful and
unlawful. And in this regards I am no different from the scholars and jurists
of our community (of Medina); when one of them was asked to declare his opinion
on a matter of this sort, it seemed as though he would rather die than proclaim
his opinion. Yet, now in our times, people love issuing declaration about what
is lawful and unlawful. If such people paused to think about where they will
end up tomorrow, perhaps they would engage in such conduct less frequently.
Indeed, Umar Ibn al-Khattab and Ali and the companions of the Prophet in
general were often presented with similar question. Despite them being who they
were, the best of all generations who had once lived in the company of prophet,
they would first assemble other companions and ask their opinion and only then
issue a response to the questioner. People in our time have, on the other hand,
have grown haughtier, while their knowledge had diminished considerably. And he
said: The people of that era, and indeed all of our ancestors whose example is
worth following and who expounded the principles of Islam, were reluctant to
say: “this is lawful; that is unlawful”; instead they would prefer to make the
more limited claim: “I like this; I do not like this this” because saying that
something is “lawful” or “unlawful” can amount to attributing lies to God. Have
you not heard the word of God who says: “ ….. Yunus: 59”Indeed the lawful is
that which God and his prophet have made lawful; and the unlawful is that which
God and his Prophet have made unlawful.
And in his book Al-Umm, Imam
al-Shafi’I records Imam Abu Yusuf, the colleague of Abu Hanifa saying: I noticed that amongst the elder generation
of scholars, they would hestitate to declare that “this is lawful and that is
unlawful” except where the matter was clear and beyond the scope to
interpretive doubt. And Rabi’ ibn Khaytham has related to us through Ibn
al-Saib – and he was amongst the best men of the generation that followed after
the companions – that he say: Beware, let none of be trapped in a situation
where you say: God has declared this lawful or chosen it for us while He
retorts: No, I have not declared this lawful nor chosen it; or the situation
where he says: God has declared this unlawful which God retorts: You lie; I
have not declared this unlawful. And some of our colleagues tell us that
Ibrahim al-Nakha’I remarked about his companions that when the were asked about
whether something was lawful or unlawful, they would prefer to say: this is
disliked; or I see no harm in this. But to say that is lawful and that is
unlawful is a matter of grave consequences.
So this is what Judge Abu Yusuf
said, and it has been transmitted to us by Al-Shafi, who does not criticize
this view, but rather affirms it. And
certainly he would not have affirmed it unless he believed it to be authentic.
Indeed, God Himself says:
(Al-Nahl: 116)
[1]
I have translated the term fatwa as
“Islamic ethico-legal opinion”. It is cumbersome term but, in my considered
view, better than commonly used alternatives. It is sometimes translated
‘religious decree’ especially in the popular press. See, for instance, this
translation by the New York Times subsidiary in Pakistan: http://tribune.com.pk/story/672064/religious-decree-constitution-completely-in-line-with-sharia/
The term ‘decree’ suggests both the presence of an ‘established church’ and its
merger with the state. The term fatwa orginated in the context of the classical
Islamicate where a separation between ‘ulema
and the salateen hardly allowed
for such a fusion. The most that the ‘ulema
could issue were ‘opinions’, which a state-appointed judge, the qazi or another state official would
then execute, if he so felt inclined. Similarly, it would be unfair to
translate a fatwa as ‘diktat’ which
Merriam-Webster defines as “a harsh settlement unilaterally imposed (as on a
defeated nation)”. Regardless of how one views any religious tradition of law,
this term is too loaded term to constitute a fair and accurate translation. Finally, it is important to note that
since the discourse of Islamic fiqh never
experienced the complete conceptual separation between ethics and law which
European traditions of law experienced during the Enlightenment. As a result,
the knowledge-claims made in fatawa are
ethico-legal; while fiqh was never
the sole voice for ethics in the Islamic tradtion to the exclusion of all
others, it kept on having an important ethical element. Therefore, translating fatawa in the fiqhi tradition as simply ‘legal opinions’ also leaves an important
feature of the discourse out.
[2] The typical format of an ethico-legal
opinion (fatwa) in the Islamic
tradition is that it begins with a question actually posed to the scholar (mufti) by someone (mustafti). Statements of law in the fatawa are situated and contextual nature, , similar to those made
in case reports in the common law tradition.
[3]
Although the question uses the term ‘ghina’, the fatwa uses three different terms “mauseeqa”, “ghina” and “samaa’”.
Nowhere does the fatwa define either
of these terms, but it seems that for the most part they are being used
interchangeably, which is the case in most contemporary usage. I have
translated the first two terms as music; the third I have translated as
“religious music” because of the way it has been understood in the classical
period. At one point the fatwa does
draw a distinction between two kinds of music: vocal music and instrumental music. But it should be clear that
the distinction between “mauseeqa” and “ghina” does not overlap with the
distinction between vocal music and instrumental music. In passages where it is
clear that what is being referred to is only vocal music, I have used the term
‘song’; for instrumental music I have used the same as term as the term for the
more inclusive category, i.e muic. This leaves us with the question: If the
distinction between mauseeqa and ghina is not that between vocals and
instrumentals, then what is the distinction?
From an amateur study of etymologies, it seems that
the distinction goes down to the distinction between historical traditions: the
Bedouin and the Greek traditions. The word ghina
is the original Arabic term for vocal and instrumental music used, amongst
other things, for the songs sung by Bedouins as they rode their camels. Lisan-al-‘Arab makes this etymology
quite evident. The word mauseeqa, on
the other hand, enters the Arabic
language when only once the Arabs encounter the musical theory of the Greeks in
the period of translation. [COULDN’T FIND ANY SOURCE FO ARABIC ETYMOLOGY]. In
other words, the Greek term entered Arabic in just the same way the word music
entered English; music never completely replacing the older Anglo-Saxon
“singing” but simply subsumed and blended with it. See etymonline:
music (n.) mid-13c., musike,
from Old French musique (12c.) and directly from Latin musica "the art of
music," also including poetry (also source of Spanish musica,
Italian musica, Old High German mosica, German Musik, Dutch muziek, Danish
musik), from Greek mousike (techne) "(art)
of the Muses," from fem. of mousikos "pertaining to the Muses,"
from Mousa "Muse" (see muse (n.)). Modern spelling from 1630s. In
classical Greece, any art in which the Muses presided, but especially music and
lyric poetry.
The third term “samaa”
is the one which is perhaps the subject of the richest discussion in fiqh literature. For the most part, it
refers to only “religious” music, such as the music that was produced in the
gatherings of the Sufis. Notice that the quotation from al-Ghazali’s Ihya used that term, for the most part,
and not ghina or mauseeqa.
[4]
In this piece, the word Islam should
be understood in its narrower sense, ie. the Islamic ethico-legal discursive
tradition. In its broader sense, the term Islam
refers to a holistic worldview which includes not only the ethico-legal
tradition, but also traditions of theology and cosmology (‘iman) and of spirituality and aesthetics (ihsan). This tripartite conception of the Islamic tradition is
borrowed from the famous hadith-e-Jibrael.
For reference, please see: William C. Chittick and Sachiko Murata, A Vision of Islam. The fatwa genre is situated largely in the
ethico-legal tradition and here the term Islam should therefore be understood
in that sense alone.
[5]
Qaradawi has used an interesting term “jamhoor-al-muslimeen”
in his response; this is a modernization of the classical fiqhi term jamhoor-al-‘ulema,
the majority of scholars; clearly, the Qaradawi’s term reflects a more
democratized conception of the law. Meaning of jamhoor: (see lisan al-Arab)… my
conjecture is that the origins of this word go back to the idea of the Greek
demos…. This is a cultural assimilation that needs to be noted.
[6]
Qaradawi, like many other ethico-legal scholars often uses the ‘regal pronoun’,
the pronoun which is no longer used in colloquial speech for singular person. A
famous verse in the Book of Genesis also begins, arguably, with the regal
pronoun: “And God said, Let us make
man in our image, after our likeness…” (Genesis 1:26)
[7]
The fatwa contains extensive quotations
from the Quran and hadith. Since both
are, in most understanding of Islam, believed to contain elements of divine
revelation, I make no claim to having “translated” them. Especially in the case
of the Quranic text, what I have done here should be understood as nothing more
than interpretations which convey only a carefully selected part of the meaning
of the Quran. In doing my translations, I have drawn heavily upon the works of
esteemed “translators” such as Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Marmaduke Pickthall; in
places though I have also altered their
texts to convey the meaning that I deemed most suitable for our present
purposes.
[8]
The reference here is to the works of the jurist Ibn al-Arabi and not the
philosophical mystic Ibn Arabi.
[9]
Al-Mahalli li Ibn Hazm; this is the first time we find a footnote to Ibn Hazm’s
actual work, but even here the citation is incomplete.
[10]
Qaradawi quoted only a part of the verse; I have added the full verse and also
the one preceding it to facilitate understanding.
[11]
Ihya ‘Ulum al-Din
[12][12]
Narrated by Muslim from Abu Hurayrah, Book of Al-Birr wal Silah wal Adaab,
Chapter on the Impermissibly of doing injustice to a Muslim
[13]
The term jariah mughaniah may be more aptly translated as a professional female
singer than as a singing slave-girl because, at the time, one of the functions
of slavery was to allow for professionalization. Thus the tradition of slave
soldiers that emerged in the subsequent centuries, in response to the demand
for the professionalization in the army.
[14]
Who’s Ibn Nahwi, why’s he being citied?
[15]
Who’s Ibn Tahir; why’s he being cited?
[16]
Why’re there no Hanafis cited in this opinion?
[17]
Interesting, al-Qaradawi depicts the “spirit (ruh)” of Islam as “permissiveness
(samha)”. This depiction may not not sit very well with those Muslims as well
as non-Muslims who seek to portray a ‘culture war’ between the Islamic
‘tradition’ and Western ‘modernity’ wherein one tradition becomes the archetype
of liberty and permissiveness and the other tradition as its enemy.
[18]
The candid and colloquial tone of this translation, quite deliberately, from
the general tone of hadith translations.
From the context some ahadith it
becomes clear that what they are recording are really snippets from the
Prophet’s lovely and warm conversations, and not injunctions from his sermons
or speeches. In such cases, a warm and colloquial tone of translation seems
only becoming.
[19]
In this section, Qaradwi draws heavily upon his understanding theory of Islamic
law, which is quite akin to a natural law theory. He had expounded this early
earlier it in greater detail in his early best-seller Al-halal wal haram fi al-Islam.
[20]
This is obviously a rhetorical question as the context makes clear; the
presumed answer is: No, they are permissible.
[21]
The Revivification of Religious Thought or Ihya-ulum-ad-din.