Title: Regarding an Opinion on the Prohibition of Music Question: There is an article on music at the following site that seems quite comprehensive and I was wondering if you could comment when you have time. We have a discussion on the article tomorrow night so any help before that would be great, however I am more interested in a complete response for my own self. http://www.islamworld.net/music.html Jazakallah ker Salaam Answer: After looking at the referred site, I would like to present the following observations: It is true that the psalms were revealed by God. However, it is also true that the prophet Dawood (pbuh) [i.e. David] used to recite these psalms in the accompaniment of a flute like instrument called Mizmaar or some other instrument. This fact is not only evident from the psalms themselves but also through a number of other sources. For instance, at the beginning of the fourth psalm, the Bible clearly says: For the director of music. With stringed instruments. A psalm of David. (New International Version) and at the beginning of the fifth psalm it says: For the director of music. For flutes. A psalm of David. According to " Lisaan al-Arab ", [an Arabic dictionary] the psalms of David were called " Mazamir " because they were, usually sung with a flute. According to Al-Nihayah [an Arabic dictionary], " Mizmaar " and " Mazmoor " both refer to the same thing, i.e. the flute. Ibn Kathir the commentator of the Qur'an , whom the author of the referred article has considered in the reliable commentators of the Qur'an , in his explanation of Al-Anbiaa 21: 79 writes: ...when he [i.e. David (pbuh)] used to sing the psalms... Finally, there is a well known saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) in which, at hearing Abu Musa' Al-Ash`aree 's reciting the Qur'an , he is reported to have said that: "He has been given the voice of a flute from amongst the various flutes of Dawood (pbuh)." In view, of all the above facts, it would seem quite unreasonable to refute that the prophet Dawood (pbuh) used musical instruments during his recitation, as the author of the referred article has implied. After all, what is the basis of this refutation? The author is of the view that Ibn Hazam 's objection on the narrative of Bukhari [1] has been adequately answered by Ibn Al-Salah , as quoted by Ibn Hajar . However, the fact of the matter is that Ibn Al-Salah has only given some possible reasons to explain why Bukhari could have given the chain of narrators in the particular fashion that he has. None of these possible reasons has been proven to be applicable in the particular narrative under consideration by either Ibn Al-Salah or Ibn Hajar . To understand the matter more thoroughly, we must first know what Ibn Hazam 's objection is and then see what is the explanation given for this objection by Ibn Al-Salah . Ibn Hazam has objected to the fact that Bukhari has started the narration with the words: " Hishaam ibn Ammaar said..." According to Ibn Hazam , these words do not necessarily mean that Bukhari heard these words directly from Hishaam ibn Ammaar . If that was the case, Bukhari , as he normally does, should have used the words " Hishaam ibn Ammaar told us/told me/narrated to us/ narrated to me...". Because of this reason, the chain of narrators of this narrative has been termed as "disconnected" by Ibn Hazam , implying that Bukhari actually heard the narrated words from someone, who had ascribed the narrated words to Hishaam ibn Ammaar ... Let us now see the explanation given by Ibn Al-Salah , which is considered by the referred writer as a 'meticulous refutation' of Ibn Hazam 's statement. Ibn Al-Salah in his " Muqaddamah " writes: Ibn Hazam in this case is at fault from a number of aspects. The referred hadith is known to be correct with a continuous chain, as continuous chains should be. Bukhari , sometimes, does the like of what he has done [in noting down the chain of narrators in this particular hadith ], when the particular hadith is well known on the basis of [another] reliable chain of narrators, narrating from the same person at whom Bukhari has ended his chain; while sometimes he does this when he himself has recorded the complete chain of narrators of the particular hadith elsewhere in his book; and sometimes he does this for some other reason". I would request the writer of the referred article to help me understand what exactly is the 'meticulous refutation' of Ibn Hazam 's criticism, in this piece of Ibn Al-Salah 's writing. Ibn Al-Salah has only mentioned that Bukhari would record the chain of narrators in the particular fashion, which is criticized by Ibn Hazam because of one of three or more possible reasons. However, Ibn Al-Salah has failed to determine which among these three or more possible reasons is applicable in the particular hadith under consideration. If the author of the referred article has determined the particular reason applicable in the case under consideration, I would request him to explain it to me. The author of the referred article has also mentioned that Ibn Hajar has given a number of other - connected and reliable - chains of narrators for this hadith . I would request the author to list down the chain of narrators, which, in his opinion, is the most reliable. Moreover, the source of this chain should also be provided, so that it can be thoroughly analyzed. In accepting Hishaam ibn Ammaar 's narrative, one should not ignore the fact that Abu Dawood is reported to have said about him that "He ( Hishaam ) has narrated four hundred hadith which have absolutely no basis (that is, hadith which are not true)" ( Meezaan al-Ai`tidal ). Saalih Jazarah has said about him ( Hishaam ), "He used to take money for narrating hadith " ( Meezaan al-Ai`tidal ). Mohammad ibn Sayyaar Al-Farhiyaani has said, "He used to take a dirham for reporting two pages of hadith " ( Meezaan al-Ai`tidal ). Ahmad ibn Hanbal has said, "He was reckless/impetuous and feeble-minded" ( Meezaan al-Ai`tidal ). Even if all the facts mentioned above are ignored and the narrators are accepted to be truthful and honest and the chain is accepted to be reliable and the words ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) are assumed to be accurate, it should still be considered in the light of some of the other narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), in which the Prophet (pbuh) allowed young girls to play music on certain occasions. This obviously means that music per se is not prohibited in Islam. It is only the wrong use of music, which Islam prohibits. The author, while explaining the word " yastahilloona " has correctly stated: Obviously, one can only seek, desire or attempt to make lawful that which is not lawful. For if something is already lawful, it is nonsensical for one to seek to establish it. Other things which people will attempt to make lawful are named along maazif . These additional matters are definitely prohibited in Islam-namely, illegal sexual intercourse, the drinking of wine or, liquor and the wearing of silk (for males). Had maazif not been prohibited , they never would have been associated with other prohibited objects in one and the same context." This obviously implies that there should be some source other than this source, which is the basis of the prohibition of music. Unfortunately, the author has failed to cite any such source. Another interesting aspect of the words ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) in this narrative is that the prohibitions mentioned include " Hirr " (i.e. a woman's private parts) and " Hareer " (i.e. silk), besides liquor and musical instruments. We know that both " Hirr " and " Hareer " do not belong to the category of absolute prohibition in Islam. As the author has also correctly pointed out, the prohibition of " Hirr " is in the case of fornication and the prohibition of " Hareer " is for men only. Similarly, it can safely be said that the music and the drinks that are referred to in this narrative belong to the particular category of music and drinks which are morally prohibited. In the preceding paragraphs, I have briefly given my analysis of the referred article, as per your requirement. 13 th November 1999 [1] Reference is to a particular narrative reported by Bukhari , in which the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have condemned the use of musical instruments.