Arts of the Sound and the Islamic Ethico-Legal Tradition: Annotated translation of an ethico-legal opinion from Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s Fatawa al-Mu’asirah

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

QUESTION[2]
What is the ruling on music (ghina[3]) in Islam?[4]

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)




* Translated by Umer Ijaz Gilani, submitted to Professor Clark B. Lombardi (2014)

[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.