The book "Al-Sama'" by "Ibn al-Qaysarani" contains many hadiths that support the permissibility of listening to singing and music

The Shaykh : Here a questioner says: The book "Al-Sama'" by Ibn al-Kasirani. I do not know it, by Allah.

The questioner : Al-Qaysarani, al-Qaysarani.

The Shaykh : Al-Qaysarani, I do not know it.
He says: It contains many hadiths that support the permissibility of listening to singing and music, and he weakens the hadiths that deny this; please provide a brief reference to the book and its author?
The point is that I do not have the book, nor do I know the book and its author; otherwise, if I knew the book and its author, I would have recognized them. [Everyone laughs!] The point is that what is mentioned in this question is that it contains hadiths supporting the permissibility of listening. There is a book, perhaps older than this one, which is the book of Ibn Hazm al-Zahiri.

Another questioner : "Tawq al-Hamamah" (The Collar of the Doves).

The Shaykh : Yes?

Another questioner : "Tawq al-Hamamah," I think.

The Shaykh : No, it is purely about the permissibility of entertainments.

The questioner : This is older.

The Shaykh : This is older.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : The book of al-Qaysarani exists...

The Shaykh : Five hundred? Then you and the Shaykh agree.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : You agree with him, meaning.
The point is that I think, because this is a strange name, if it were old, I would have known it. The point is that Ibn Hazm has a book on the permissibility of entertainments.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, no, it is a specific book. "Tawq al-Hamamah" is a literary book, and it contains things that are appropriate to mention and things that are not appropriate to narrate, but the book "Ibahat al-Mala'ih" (The Permissibility of Entertainments) is specific to this topic.
And in the book "Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din" (The Revival of the Religious Sciences) by "Muhammad al-Ghazali," there is a specific book on listening, called the Book of Listening, and he also leans toward the Sufi inclination to permit musical instruments, but based on the opinion of those who say: with a good intention. The point is that there are absolutely no hadiths in the Sunnah that permit musical instruments in the Sufi manner, and by the Sufi manner I mean that they incorporate musical instruments into the remembrance of Allah. We may find someone like Ibn Hazm; Ibn Hazm is not a Sufi, in fact, he is in one camp and the Sufis are in another. The Sufis have laxity, while he has rigidity, and this is the opposite of that.
So Ibn Hazm may... some hadiths from which the permissibility of listening to musical instruments for entertainment is inferred, whereas the Sufis incorporated musical instruments and deemed them permissible in the remembrance of Allah - Mighty and Majestic -; therefore, it is impossible for there to be a hadith that permits musical instruments in the Sufi manner. There may be a hadith that is understood by Ibn Hazm and others to permit some musical instruments for entertainment only, but it is not permissible to link this to the remembrance of Allah - Mighty and Majestic -. As for the hadiths that prohibit singing, which Ibn Hazm weakens, and this person appears to be a follower of him in that; this is an error.
Yes?

Another questioner : ... Ibn Hazm ...

The Shaykh : No, no, this can never be.
So I say: The one who weakens it is one of two things: either he did not have comprehensive knowledge of everything that came regarding the prohibition of musical instruments on one hand, or he did not have comprehensive knowledge of the chains of the hadith that he weakened on the other hand. This is the case with Ibn Hazm, who is an Imam, whereas this person is an obscure figure; no matter who he is, he is not an Imam among the Imams of the Muslims. It is sufficient that I have passed through this age without hearing of such a thing; if he were a commentator, we would have heard his name in books of tafsir, or a hadith scholar in hadith, or a jurist among the Hanafi and Shafi'i jurists. He is merely one of these authors. As for Ibn Hazm, he is an Imam with weight in knowledge, in narrating hadith, and in his argumentation for jurisprudential issues, despite his known eccentricity in the Zahiri school. So Ibn Hazm fell into this error; he came to a hadith of al-Bukhari and weakened it because al-Bukhari said: "Hisham ibn 'Ammar said." Hisham ibn 'Ammar is a shaykh among the shaykhs of al-Bukhari. Al-Bukhari did not say, as is his custom in all the hadiths of his book: "Hisham narrated to me" or "Hisham ibn 'Ammar narrated to us." He did not say that; rather, he said: "Hisham said." So Ibn Hazm considered this chain broken.
And this is negligence on his part, and I do not say ignorance, because we see that he always and forever argues with hadiths that do not explicitly state hearing or narration, but rather the narrator says: "From so-and-so, from so-and-so, from Abu Hurayrah, from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)." He says: This is a valid hadith, even though it is a connected narration (mu'annan), and it may be a reported narration (mudallas); that so-and-so said, that so-and-so said, that so-and-so said, without "narrated to me," yet he argues with it. Why? Because all the narrators are trustworthy.
And another condition is necessary, and no one among them is known to be a deceiver (mudallis); because if a deceiver says: "From," his hadith is dropped. At that point, we say to him: What is the matter with you, Ibn Hazm, that you argue with the shaykhs of al-Bukhari who narrate with "from" (an), and then you stop here and declare the hadith broken between al-Bukhari and his shaykh because he did not say: "Narrated to me," but rather said what? "Hisham said." Well, is he a deceiver? If al-Bukhari had been a deceiver, we would have treated him as we treat all deceivers, but al-Bukhari is not known for deception. So there is no difference between al-Bukhari saying: "Hisham said" or "Hisham narrated to me" or "I heard Hisham"; just as there is no difference between Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib saying: "From Abu Hurayrah" or "Abu Hurayrah narrated to me" or "I heard Abu Hurayrah," there is no difference; because he is trustworthy, and the deceiver is not like al-Bukhari. This is answer number one.
And there are many, many examples, among which is that if al-Bukhari did not hear this hadith from Hisham, there are other memorizers who may have narrated the hadith from Hisham explicitly stating the narration, and that is sufficient for the believers; so this hadith is valid. If this author included the hadith of al-Bukhari, which itself is: , if he included this hadith and then weakened it, he is a follower of Ibn Hazm, and Ibn Hazm, as you know... is in the greatest error in this.
...