Firstly, the issue of music and singing is one that has been subject to scholarly disagreement both in the past and present. This debate is unlikely to be resolved definitively as some might believe. This persistent disagreement arises from the apparent conflict between some evidence related to listening to music, as well as the way in which jurisprudential texts have historically addressed the matter. These texts often dealt with music and singing based on contextual considerations rather than purely on evidence and reasoning. Historically, music and singing were associated with certain contexts, such as immorality and taverns, and were seen as distractions from seeking knowledge and striving against the enemy.

Secondly, despite the widespread presence of music and singing during the time of Islamic legislation, we do not find a single explicit verse in the Qur᾽ān that prohibits music and singing. The Qur᾽ān addresses similar widespread issues such as usury, alcohol, gambling, and certain social vices in detail, yet there is no clear verse that forbids music and singing.

All the evidence used by those who prohibit music is open to interpretation and does not definitively establish a prohibition, no matter how much those who prohibit try. In fact, interpreting some verses as prohibiting singing lowers the literary quality of the text, weakens the meaning, and eliminates its general applicability.

I will mention some of the evidence cited by those who prohibit music, along with refutations of their interpretations:

1. The prohibitors cite the verse: “And of the people is he who buys idle talk (lahw al-ḥadīth) to mislead others from the way of Allāh without knowledge and takes it in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment.” [Luqmān: 6].

Firstly: This verse does not indicate the prohibition of singing, neither in its wording nor in its interpretation. The verse was revealed concerning An-Naḍr ibn al-Ḥārith, as reported by Al-Baghawī and others: Al-Kalbī and Muqātil said: It was revealed about An-Naḍr ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Kaldah who used to trade in goods. He would go to Al-Ḥīrah, buy stories of the non-Arabs, and then narrate them to the Quraysh, saying, “Muḥammad tells you stories of ῾Aād and Thamūd, and I will tell you stories of Rustam and Isfandiyar and the kings of Persia.” The people would enjoy his stories and abandon listening to the Qur᾽ān, so Allāh revealed this verse. [Tafsīr al-Baghawī].

Al-Qurṭubī said: It was said that he used to buy slave girls who would sing, and whenever someone inclined towards Islam, he would take him to one of his singing girls and say, “Feed him, give him drink, and sing for him.” He would then say, “This is better than what Muḥammad calls you to—prayer, fasting, and fighting in his cause.” [Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī].

Secondly: There are narrations from Ibn Mas῾ūd and Ibn ῾Abbās interpreting “idle talk” as singing, and other narrations interpret it as any false speech. The narrations attributing the interpretation to singing have issues with their chains of transmission, and other interpretations exist (refer to what professor Al-Juday῾ wrote in his extensive research on music in Islam and his ḥadīth study, which spans over 250 pages).

Thirdly: Regarding the wording of the verse: Even if we concede that “idle talk” is singing, does the verse say that everyone who uses idle talk will have a humiliating punishment, or is the verse specific to those who use it to mislead others from the way of Allāh and take it in ridicule, as An-Naḍr ibn al-Ḥārith did?

Does anyone who sings have the intention of misleading people from Allāh’s path? If someone’s intention is indeed to mislead, then it is forbidden, whether it is singing, poetry, sports, acting, or anything else. If the intention is not as mentioned in the verse, then the act remains originally permissible.

Fourthly: Even if we disregard all the above and say that singing is the “idle talk” mentioned in the verse and that it is prohibited without qualification, how could the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him) have listened to this prohibited idle talk, and even allowed it in the mosque? I will mention only the main points of such ḥadīths:

1. The singing of the two slave girls on ῾Iīd while he was seated.
2. The Abyssinians performing with singing and dancing in the mosque.
3. The woman who vowed to beat the drum and sing before him if he returned victorious.
4. The shepherd who played the flute.
5. Singing during travel.
6. His request for singing at the weddings of the ᾽Anṣār.

The question is: Was the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him) engaging in idle talk or buying idle talk?

Some might say that singing is permissible only on special occasions such as ῾Iīd and weddings. We respond that what is prohibited remains prohibited at all times, except when there is a necessity, and there is no necessity here.

Allāh Almighty says: “Do you believe in part of the Book and disbelieve in part?” [Al-Baqarah: 85], and the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Say, ‘I believe in Allāh,’ and then remain straight.” This means to follow the straight path.

Therefore, this verse does not provide any evidence for the prohibition of singing, listening to music, or playing musical instruments. What scholars have reported in its interpretation pertains to the specific descriptions mentioned in the verse (misleading and ridicule) as done by An-Naḍr. If these intentions are absent, the text does not apply, and this includes singing and other activities.

2. Those who prohibit music cite the verse: “And when they hear ill speech (al-laghw), they turn away from it and say, ‘For us are our deeds, and for you are your deeds. Peace be upon you; we seek not the ignorant’.” [Al-Qaṣaṣ: 55], and the verse: “And when they pass near ill speech (al-laghw), they pass by with dignity.” [Al-Furqān: 72]. This is one of the most curious pieces of evidence cited because “ill speech” (laghw) in the language refers to any false or vain speech or action. It appears in the Qur᾽ān with several meanings, including:

• First: “Ill speech” (laghw) meaning false speech, as in the verse: “And when they pass near ill speech (laghw), they pass by with dignity.” [Al-Furqān: 72].
• Second: “Ill speech” meaning an oath that the heart does not intend, merely spoken without intention or deliberation, as in the verse: “Allāh will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths (bi-al-laghwi fī ᾽aymāni-kum).” [Al-Baqarah: 225].
• Third: “Ill speech” (laghw) meaning undesirable or worthless speech, as in the verse: “You will not hear therein any ill speech (lāghiyah).” [Al-Ghāshiyah: 11].

There is no mention in the Qur᾽ān or the Sunnah, neither explicitly nor implicitly, of “ill speech” (laghw) meaning singing. If “ill speech” meant singing, how would we understand the verse: “And those who disbelieve say, ‘Do not listen to this Qur᾽ān and speak noisily during [the recitation] (wa-alghaw fīh) that perhaps you will overcome’.” [Fuṣṣilat: 26]. Does this mean “and sing” [during the recitation]?

How do we understand the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) statement: “If you say to your companion on Friday, ‘Be quiet,’ while the imam is delivering the sermon, you have engaged in ill speech (fa-qad laghawt).”? Does it mean “you have engaged in singing”?

How do we understand the poet’s verse:

“wa-lastu bi-ma᾽khūdh-in bi-laghw-in tagūluh-u
᾽idhā lam ta῾mid ῾aāqidāt al-῾azā᾽im-i“

(Meaning: I will not be taken to account for idle talk (laghw) you say
If not intended by deliberate resolutions)

Did the poet mean singing?

Linguists say: The original meaning of the word “laghw” is sound, whether it is meaningful or not. They called the spoken words of each generation “lughah” (language), originally “laghwah.” They said: The bird’s “laghw.” When they observed that it was a meaningless sound, they generalized it to everything without meaning, saying: “So-and-so ‘laghā/yalghū‘ if he spoke meaningless words.” They then called invalid or null things “laghw” because it resembles meaningless things, and they said: “I nullified (᾽alghayt-u) something, meaning I discarded it.” They then called falsehood (bāṭil) “laghw,” likening it to something nullified because falsehood falls before truth and has no stability. Vulgar speech is called “laghw” because it is discarded and not heeded.

As for the claim that singing is “laghw,” it is a false statement that needs evidence. Would the Prophet (peace be upon him) listen to “laghw“?

3. Those who prohibit music also cite the verse: “‘And incite [to senselessness] whoever you can among them with your voice and assault them with your horses and foot soldiers and become a partner in their wealth and their children and promise them.’ But Satan does not promise them except delusion.” [Al-᾽Isrā᾽: 64]. They argue that “your voice” refers to singing. This interpretation is weak both in terms of wording and meaning:

In terms of wording: The action here is attributed to Satan, with the phrases “your voice,” “your horses,” and “your foot soldiers” being associated with him. How can a singer’s voice be considered the voice and action of Satan? If the intent was singing in general, it would have been stated as “with the voice” or “with singing.” But saying “your voice,” implying the singer’s song, is weak in wording.

Therefore, the majority of interpreters (mufassirūn) have understood “the voice of Satan” to mean his whispering and calling towards evil. Ibn ῾Abbās and Qatādah said: “With your call to disobey Allāh, and every caller to disobey Allāh is part of the army of Satan.” [Tafsīr al-Baghawī].

In terms of meaning: All the terms mentioned here are metaphorical rather than literal. Satan does not have actual horses or foot soldiers, nor does he literally share in a person’s wealth or children. The intended meaning is: Use all means of whispering, gather all your forces and actions, and everything that aids you in that endeavor.

In reality, interpreting Satan’s actions in a physical sense, such as singing, would require us to accept some interpretations that say the verse “and become a partner in their wealth and their children” means that Satan sits on a man’s penis, and if he does not say “In the name of Allāh,” Satan joins him in the intercourse with his wife and ejaculates into her private parts as the man does.

There are even reports suggesting that among us are those who are “mixed with the jinn,” and when asked what that means, it was said: “Those with whom the jinn share.”

It was reported that a man said to Ibn ῾Abbās: My wife woke up with a flame of fire in her private parts? He responded: “That is from the jinn having intercourse.”

Such absurdities have no basis and cannot occur in this literal sense. Most people do not say “In the name of Allāh” before intercourse, so should we then say that humanity is now made up of children of jinn and devils and not of the sons of Adam?

The truth is that those who use such verses as evidence and take a single word out of context do not realize they are corrupting the overall meaning of the text. For instance, Allāh’s statement: “And lower your voice” refers to the tone, not to singing. And His statement: “Indeed, the most disagreeable of sounds is the voice of donkeys.” [Luqmān: 19] refers to their braying, not their singing. Similarly, the voice of Satan is his whispering; we know of no other voice attributed to him.

4. Another verse cited by those who prohibit music is Allāh’s statement: “While you are heedless (sāmidūn).” [An-Najm: 61], considering that “heedless” (sāmidūn) means singing in one of the Arabic dialects.

Once again, this evidence is weak and flawed for the following reasons:

Firstly: The word “sāmidūn” in the language means diversion and neglect of something. The meaning is: you are heedlessly distracted from what is required of you. This is the interpretation agreed upon by lexicographers, and attributing the meaning to a dialect different from the majority of Arab dialects is invalid as evidence in points of disagreements, without relying on contextual support.

Secondly: Even if we say that the meaning of “sāmidūn” is singing, there is nothing in the verse that indicates prohibition. At most, the verse describes their state, meaning they are distracted from the Day of Judgment by worldly activities. Worldly activities include both permissible and impermissible acts, and the verse calls them to prostrate to Allāh after describing these states.

Thirdly: If we were to prohibit singing based on the interpretation of “sāmidūn,” then we would also have to prohibit laughing and amazement since these are also mentioned in the verse: “Do you then wonder at this statement (the Qur᾽ān)? And you laugh and do not weep, while you are heedless.” [An-Najm: 59-61]. All these actions would share the same ruling. Would any rational person say that laughing is prohibited by this verse? If someone says that laughing is not prohibited, then how can they prohibit the other mentioned acts?

In summary, this is an important issue that has been prevalent both in the past and present. Singing was even associated with other activities like drinking alcohol. Despite this, there is not a single explicit verse that prohibits it. Meanwhile, Allāh has mentioned alcohol, gambling, idols, and divining arrows. He has mentioned menstruation, forbidden foods like carrion and blood, which people naturally avoid, and many other less widespread issues with clear rulings. However, when it comes to singing, there is no definitive verse saying: “Singing is ḥarām” or “Do not sing.” Allāh has said: “He has explained to you what He has prohibited for you.” [Al-᾽An῾ām: 119].

As for what is mentioned in the Sunnah, I say:

Firstly: The ḥadīths related to singing and music fall into three categories:

1. Explicit ḥadīths on prohibition, but they are weak in terms of chain of transmitters and narration, and these are the majority of the ḥadīths related to this point of discussion.
2. Authentic ḥadīths in terms of chain of transmitters but not explicit in prohibition, such as the ḥadīth: “They will regard as permissible al-ḥirr (adultery), silk, alcohol, and musical instruments.”
3. Authentic ḥadīths in terms of chain of transmitters that explicitly permit singing and music, like the ḥadīths I previously referenced.

There is no authentic, explicit ḥadīth that says: “Do not sing” or “Singing is forbidden.” If anyone has an authentic ḥadīth of this nature, let them present it to us.

Secondly: The mentioned ḥadīth: “There will be among my ummah people who will regard as permissible al-ḥirr (adultery), silk, alcohol, and musical instruments” is authentic according to Al-Bukhārī and others, narrated by Abī Mālik al-᾽Ash῾arī.

The question is: Does this ḥadīth, by its wording or meaning, indicate the prohibition of musical instruments?

I say: The ḥadīth does not indicate by its wording or meaning the prohibition of musical instruments for the following reasons:

1. The narration is a descriptive report, not a prescriptive report. The descriptive reporting of an incident does not establish a legal ruling. It merely indicates the occurrence of a specific event, similar to many reports about the minor and major signs of the Day of Judgment. For example, the great battle (Al-Malḥamah al-Kubrā) does not establish a ruling obligating fighting against the Romans at all times. Similarly, the report about the conquest of Constantinople does not obligate Muslims to conquer it, meaning that those who do not strive to conquer it are sinful. The report merely praises those who conquer it and gives them glad tidings. Therefore, we must understand the difference between ḥadīths that establish legal rulings (prescriptive reports) and those that report events (descriptive reports).
2. If we look at the items mentioned in Al-Bukhārī’s narration, we find that it includes what is unanimously forbidden, such as adultery and alcohol, and mentions what is permissible for some members of the ummah and forbidden for others, like silk. If the intention was to list everything in the context of prohibition, then silk would be forbidden for the entire ummah without exception, as he (peace be upon him) said: “On my ummah,” which includes men, women, children, and adults. It is known that silk is not forbidden for women or children due to their lack of religious accountability. Would anyone argue that we can use this ḥadīth as evidence to prohibit silk for women, just as some want to use it as evidence to prohibit musical instruments?
3. If you ask those who use this ḥadīth to argue for the prohibition of musical instruments where the prohibition comes from, they will say: The prohibition comes from two things: the term “they will regard as permissible” (yastaḥillūn), and the corollary indication, where musical instruments are mentioned alongside alcohol and adultery in the same sentence and joined by the conjunction “and,” indicating that they all share the same ruling.

I will explain the weakness of these two points:

Firstly: They claim that the term “ yastaḥillūn” (they will regard as permissible) indicates that the mentioned items were originally prohibited:

This interpretation overlooks the comprehensive meaning of the term “yastaḥil” in the Sunnah. The term “yastaḥil” can mean to permit something that was previously forbidden, as in the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) statement: “You have made their private parts lawful for you (wa-astaḥlaltum) through Allāh’s word.” [Muslim], meaning that the private parts were forbidden until marriage, which is Allāh’s word, made them permissible.

It also means to do something that is originally permissible, as in the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) statement: “Soon a man will recline on his couch, speaking about a ḥadīth of mine, and he will say: ‘Between us and you is the Book of Allāh. Whatever we find in it that is permissible, we will regard as permissible (istaḥlalnāh), and whatever we find in it that is forbidden, we will regard as forbidden.’ But what the Messenger of Allāh has forbidden is like what Allāh has forbidden.” Here, he says: “Whatever we find in it that is permissible, we will regard as permissible (istaḥlalnāh).”

So, those women who regard silk as permissible do not do so because it was forbidden, but because the Sharī῾ah permits it. Similarly, those who regard singing as permissible do not do so because it was forbidden, but because the Sharī῾ah permits it.

Therefore, the term “yastaḥillūn” (they will regard as permissible) does not itself indicate that the action is forbidden. We need external evidence to prove its prohibition.

Secondly: Using the corollary indication as evidence:

Scholars have differed on the validity of using the corollary indication as evidence, falling into two main opinions:

1. Some scholars have accepted it, including Imam Abū Yūsuf from the Ḥanafīs, Al-Muzanī from the Shāfi῾īs, Al-Bājī from the Mālikīs, and Abū Ya῾lā from the Ḥanbalīs. They argued that if Allāh groups some items with a general ruling, then the items share the same ruling.
2. The majority of Mālikīs, Shāfi῾īs, and Ḥanbalīs have rejected the corollary indication as evidence. They stated that correlation in wording does not necessitate correlation in ruling.

According to their view, the correlation between alcohol and musical instruments does not make musical instruments ḥarām; instead, a specific evidence of prohibition is needed.

I will provide examples to demonstrate that the corollary indication is not a valid evidence for prohibition or permissibility:

1. Allāh Almighty says: “And complete the Ḥajj and ῾Umrah for Allāh.” [Al-Baqarah: 196]. Does this correlation make ῾Umrah obligatory like Ḥajj based on the corollary indication in completion? (The majority opinion is that ῾Umrah is recommended).
2. Allāh Almighty says: “And [He created] horses, mules, and donkeys for you to ride and [as] adornment. And He creates that which you do not know.” [An-Naḥl: 8]. Does the correlation between horses, and mules and donkeys for riding make their meat ḥarām as per Mālik’s view or makrūh (disliked) as per the opinion of Imam Abū Ḥanīfah and most Ḥanafīs? While the majority view is that horse meat is permissible, and there is a ḥadīth in Al-Bukhārī that permits it.
3. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim narrate from Abī Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Five practices are of the fiṭrah (natural inclination): circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, plucking the armpit hair, clipping the nails, and trimming the mustache.” Should we understand from the correlation between these five practices that they are all of the same degree, implying that male circumcision is like trimming the mustache? The majority of scholars consider circumcision obligatory, as held by Ash-Sha῾bī, Rabī῾ah, Al-᾽Awzā῾ī, Yaḥyā ibn Sa῾īd, Mālik, Ash-Shāfi῾ī, and ῾Aḥmad. Mālik even insisted that the uncircumcised person’s leadership in prayer is not valid, nor is his testimony accepted.

The point is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) grouped together things in a single text that do not share the same ruling; some are obligatory, while others are recommended.

Similarly, in the ḥadīth “they will regard as permissible al-ḥirr (adultery), silk, alcohol, and musical instruments,” the Prophet (peace be upon him) grouped together things, some of which are absolutely forbidden, some forbidden for men but not for women and children, and some not forbidden at all.

The question here is: What is the significance of this ḥadīth?

The correct understanding is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to disapprove of the simultaneous occurrence rather than the items individually. He informed us about a group of people who engage in actions, some of which are forbidden and some permissible, yet they mix them in a single occurrence.

Similar to that in the Qur᾽ān: “And when you see those who engage in [offensive] discourse concerning Our verses, then turn away from them until they enter into another conversation.” [Surah Al-᾽An῾ām: 68]. Here, there are two commands: the gathering and the offensive discourse. The prohibition is not solely about the gathering itself, but the gathering where the offensive discourse occurs. If the gathering were separate from the offensive discourse, it would be permissible, as indicated by Allāh’s statement: “until they enter into another conversation.”

Moreover, the default principle regarding things is permissibility, and prohibition requires evidence. What if there is evidence indicating that singing and playing music occurred in the Prophet’s life (peace be upon him)?

As for the second part of the question regarding the musical instruments that can be taught if the ruling is permissible, and whether there is prohibition for specific instruments:

Firstly, when we follow the used language of the Arabs regarding musical instruments, we find that they recognized various types, including:

1- String instruments:

• Such as the oud (lute) which the Jews used, claiming that Dāwūd used to play it and that he made it from cedar wood. Arabs also called it al-Mizhar.
• And the rabāb, which Arabs and Jews both used.

2- Wind instruments:

• Such as the nāy (flute), also called the yarā῾, known to Arabs and used by Jews.
• The mizmar (oboe), which could also refer to the nāy, was popular among Arabs and Jews.
• The būq (horn), which was used by Jews.

3- Percussion instruments:

• Such as the duf (tambourine), also called the ṭabl (drums) or the ghurbāl (sieve), which could have bells and may not.
• The kubar, which is a drum with two faces.
• And the ṣunūj (cymbals), made of brass and producing sound by being struck together, known to both Jews and Arabs.

Secondly, each of these instruments has branched into others with the passage of time, and those who argue for the permissibility of musical instruments do not differentiate between one instrument and another. The principle is that all are permissible; what was known in the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) honorable time and what came after. The ruling is not for a specific instrument in its essence but for its use.

Thus, there is no difference between the flute and the saxophone, for example, as both involve blowing air. There is no difference between the oud and the violin as both are string instruments.

Thirdly, the Prophet (peace be upon him) used the word mizmār in the famous ḥadīth of Abī Mūsā.

The question is: Did the Prophet (peace be upon him) mean praise or disapproval by saying, “Indeed, you have been given a mizmār from the mazāmīr of the family of Dāwūd”?

The definite answer is that it was in the context of praise.

Can the Prophet (peace be upon him) use as an example something forbidden in the context of praise?

If the mizmār was forbidden, would it be appropriate to be used as an example in a context of praise?

For instance, could one say to someone, “You are like a hubal or al-Lāt (names of two idols)” in a context of praise and reverence?

Is appropriate to liken a person to a pig because, for example, they have many offspring?

One might argue: We liken humans to animals in a context of praise, so we say, “So-and-so is like a lion.”

The answer is that we liken humans to animals based on shared attributes between humans and animals, and these attributes are permissible in themselves. For instance, in the case of a lion, it represents strength and courage; in the case of a camel, patience and endurance; in the case of a deer, agility and beauty, and so forth.

By analogy, the Prophet (peace be upon him) liken Abū Mūsā’s voice to the mizmār must have involved something fundamentally permissible.

We have reached this conclusion through support from Allāh, and all praise and gratitude are due to Him.

Regarding those who claim that the four jurists (fuqahā᾽) unanimously agreed on the prohibition of musical instruments, regardless of the issue of the authenticity of the narration of their consensus on prohibition, I say:

Firstly: We must know that the agreement of the four jurists (fuqahā᾽), the founders of the famous schools of Islamic thought, is not considered consensus per se. Others who are respected may disagree with them, and this has indeed happened. There is a difference between agreement and consensus on an opinion.

Secondly: It is permissible to contradict the agreement of the four schools of Islamic thought if evidence indicates a different opinion. This has occurred, and I will provide examples:

1. The four Imams agreed that religious purity, facing the Qiblah, and the cleanliness of the place are prerequisites for the prostration of recitation (sujūd at-tilāwah). However, Al-Bukhārī narrated from Ibn ῾Umar that he prostrated without being in a state of religious purity. Ibn Taymiyyah considered prostration without religious purity valid, and he was followed by Ash-Shawkanī.
2. If someone eats or drinks after the Fajr ᾽Adhān, thinking that there is still some part of the night left: The four schools of Islamic thought agreed that fasting under this assumption is invalid and must be made up later. However, Al-Muzanī and Ibn Taymiyyah disagreed, stating that the fast is valid.
3. Betting involving participation from both sides: The four Imams agreed on the prohibition of betting if both parties share in the compensation, considering it a form of gambling. They stipulated that for it to be permissible, there must be a third party (a person who participates into the bet without having a share in the compensation). However, Ibn al-Qayyim allowed betting with participation and invalidated the condition of the third party.
4. The waiting period for a woman who has initiated divorce (khul῾): The four Imams agreed that her waiting period is the same as that of a woman who has received divorce (ṭalāq). However, ᾽Isḥāq and Ibn Taymiyyah held the opinion that her waiting period is one menstrual cycle.
5. Divorce pronounced three times in one statement: The four Imams agreed that three divorces uttered in one statement count as three separate divorces. However, some disagreed and said that only one divorce occurs. This opinion was held by Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and Muḥammad ibn Waḍḍāḥ. Moreover, others have opposed this view and said: It is considered ill speech which has does even count as one divorce. This is the view of the Ẓāhirīs and Hishām ibn al-Ḥakam.
6. Selling an extract versus its raw material: The four schools of Islamic thought agreed that it is not permissible to sell the raw material versus its extract, such as selling sesame with its oil or grapes with its juice, because squeezing the raw material reduces the quantity of the extract being sold. However, Ibn Taymiyyah permitted it.
7. Selling jewelry with gold without observing similarity in weight: The four Imams: Abū Ḥanīfah, Mālik, Ash-Shāfi῾ī, and ᾽Aḥmad (may Allāh have mercy on them) agreed in their famous opinions that selling gold jewelry with another item, while differing in value and deferring payment, is prohibited. They considered this transaction akin to usury, and more than one scholar, such as Ibn ῾Abd al-Barr, Al-Qāḍī ῾Iyāḍ, and An-Nawawī, reported consensus on this issue. Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim disagreed and permitted selling it with difference in weight, stating that the extra value lies in what is exchanged for craftsmanship.

These examples suffice, though I could mention dozens of other issues if desired.

Thirdly: I hope the person posing this question would review the statements of the scholars of the various schools of Islamic thought to see if they explicitly prohibit singing and music, or if their statements might imply dislike based on aesthetic or specific forms of singing.

Here are some statements:

• In “Badā᾽i῾ aṣ-Ṣanā᾽i῾” by Al-Kāsānī: “It is permissible to sell musical instruments such as the lute, drum, flute, and tambourine according to Abū Ḥanīfah, but it is disliked. According to Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad, the sale of these items is invalid because they are instruments intended for amusement, leading to corruption and immorality. Therefore, they are not considered commodities and cannot be sold. According to Abū Ḥanīfah (may Allāh have mercy on him), however, they can be utilized for legitimate purposes, such as using them for certain occasions or for other benefits, without ceasing to be commodities. Their saying that these are instruments for amusement and immorality does not necessitate their loss of commodity status, just like singers and dancers.”

He added: “If a person breaks them, they should be guaranteed according to Abū Ḥanīfah. However, they should not be guaranteed according to both of them [i.e., Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad].”

• Adh-Dhahabī mentioned in the biography of Ibn al-Mājishūn: “He knew singing and had female singers.” He added: “He was the first who taught singing among the people of dignity.”
• Yūsuf ibn Ya῾qūb al-Mājishūn used to narrate from Az-Zuhrī. He was also contemporary with Yaḥyā ibn Ma῾īn who said about him: “We used to visit him, and he would tell us stories in one house and in another, there were slave girls who would play musical instruments.” Adh-Dhahabī commented on Ibn Ma῾īn’s narration: “The people of Medina considered permissibility regarding singing; they were known for their tolerance.”
• When Ziryāb moved to Al-Andalus during the reign of ῾Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn al-Ḥakam, he established a house for teaching singing and music called “Dār al-Mudaniyyāt,” which was a music institute in Cordoba, considered the first in Al-Andalus. It was founded in 825 AD and continued for centuries with the presence of jurists from Al-Andalus, including Mālikī scholars and others, including well-known figures.
• One of the famous scholars of Medina, Imam ῾Abd al-῾Azīz ibn Abī Salamah, as described by Al-Khalīlī: “He approves of listening to singing and allows playing the oud.”
• ῾Abd al-Malik ibn ῾Abd al-῾Azīz, the mufti of his time and a companion of Mālik, as mentioned by Ibn ῾Abd al-Barr: “He was fond of listening to singing, whether traveling or not. ᾽Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said: ‘He visited us with someone who sang to him.'”
• ᾽Ibrāhīm ibn Sa῾d, a great ḥāfiẓ and the grandson of ῾Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn ῾Awf, as described by Adh-Dhahabī: “᾽Ibrāhīm was skilled in the art of singing.”

Al-Khaṭīb narrated his story with some scholars of ḥadīth, in which he swore not to narrate a ḥadīth unless he sang before it. This story is well-known in biographical literature.

So, let us contemplate over all of this and not restrict what is wide, and let us not rush into prohibition without considering various opinions and balancing them.

Fatwa issued by Dr. Khālid Naṣr