The Hadith of Musical Instruments and Ibn Hazm’s Criticism of It

The Shaykh : If it were in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, and if single-narrator reports did not establish doctrine, what do you say when there is a hint of criticism? This is what happened to the Hadith of Musical Instruments, which is in Sahih al-Bukhari with the wording:

The Shaykh : They found that Ibn Hazm al-Zahiri wrote a treatise titled Al-Mala'ih (Entertainments). I was in Damascus at the time, and I wrote a treatise refuting him; because he weakened this hadith and others on one hand, and on the other hand, he argued with authentic hadiths for the permissibility of singing and musical instruments. Unfortunately, that was a draft, and I do not find it in my library now. The point is, they get agitated and insist that Ibn Hazm criticized this hadith and attributed a defect to it, claiming it is broken between al-Bukhari and his teacher named Hisham ibn 'Ammar. I say, in such a case, as I learned when I was young, a drowning man will cling even to the threads of the moon. That is their nature; as soon as they see a word containing criticism of a hadith, they consider it a criticism and a hint of defect in it. They do not care whether al-Bukhari narrated the hadith or someone else did, nor do they care that those who came after al-Bukhari approved of this hadith and its authenticity. Once so-and-so spoke about it, they consider him a person of bias. They are people of bias because, if they were not, they would pause. What does pausing mean? It means that, by Allah, this hadith has the possibility of being authentic, but he cannot distinguish between authentic and weak; because we may not be able to say that he is a specialist in the science of jurisprudence, let alone in the science of hadith. But on the other hand, I am extremely strict, and I agree with that, regarding the young people now who prohibit and permit merely because they see a hadith and say, "He, and al-Tantawi, and al-Qaradawi, and so on." My brother, this is knowledge, and every knowledge has its specialists. You have not studied jurisprudence. Their speech is correct, but they forget themselves. They think of themselves as jurists. Well, we have sealed the blank for you that you are jurists, but are you scholars in hadith? They cannot say that. Why do you not ask the specialists? Why do you say what you do not do? This contradicts the Noble Qur'an. The point is, this hadith is, in reality, undoubtedly authentic. Because the defect that Ibn Hazm held onto, and those who followed him, is that al-Bukhari did not say "Hisham ibn 'Ammar narrated to us." He did not say that. This is a precision in narration. Al-Bukhari said: "Hisham ibn 'Ammar said." Who is Hisham ibn 'Ammar? He is one of al-Bukhari's teachers. And usually, when he narrates from Hisham, he says "Hisham ibn 'Ammar narrated to us" or "Hisham ibn 'Ammar narrated to me." Why did he say here "Hisham ibn 'Ammar said"? So, he did not hear from Hisham ibn 'Ammar. So, this is a valid defect on the surface. This is a defect, and it can be described as a break between al-Bukhari and his teacher; because he did not say "narrated to me," he said "Hisham said." But there are things that prevent scholars of hadith from saying this is a defect. One of them, without leaving the circle of al-Bukhari, as for others, it is by leaving the circle of al-Bukhari or al-Bukhari's narration in this hadith. They say, if we say that al-Bukhari did not hear this hadith from his teacher Hisham ibn 'Ammar because he said "Hisham said," that means two things, not just one. The first thing is that al-Bukhari is a tadlis practitioner (one who conceals a defect in a chain), and this is what they said or hinted at. It is implied from them; they did not say al-Bukhari is a tadlis practitioner, they said it is implied that if al-Bukhari is a tadlis practitioner. Because who is the tadlis practitioner? He is the one who narrates from his teacher what he did not hear from him in a form that allows the possibility that he heard it. If he said "narrated to me" and did not hear it, he would be a liar. But if he said "said" or "from so-and-so," it is possible he heard from him and possible he did not. What is this called? Tadlis. But has anyone before or after said that al-Bukhari is a tadlis practitioner? We have never heard of that at all. So, the second thing that is implied from this, and this is what I read, is that it is obligatory for these people not to accept any hadith where the student says "from his teacher" and does not say "narrated to me" or says "so-and-so said." Because most narrations come this way. It is not that most narrations come in a continuous chain from the beginning of the sanad (chain of narration) where the student says "so-and-so narrated to me," "so-and-so narrated to me," "so-and-so narrated to me." It must break at some point in the chain of explicit narration until he says "from so-and-so" or "so-and-so said." So, is this called tadlis? The scholars said, if it is known that someone is a tadlis practitioner, his hadith is not accepted until he explicitly narrates. But if he is not known for tadlis, it is the same for us whether he said "narrated to me" or "from so-and-so." Both expressions are carried on the assumption of connection and hearing. What does al-Ghazali want with this word? What does he want with knowledge? What he wants is for a person to stay awake night and day to study one hadith and come up with the result: one word, "Authentic." This dead man does not deserve condolence. They do not do this work, never. They want to make it an easy target. What is the easy target? If the mind accepts it, this hadith is authentic. If the mind does not accept it, throw it to the winds. They do not realize that this contradicts faith. This is regarding al-Bukhari's narration from Hisham, attributing a defect to the hadith due to a break between al-Bukhari and Hisham. There is no break; because there is no difference for us in a trustworthy, non-tadlis practitioner whether he said "so-and-so narrated to me" or "so-and-so said" or "from so-and-so." All of it is carried on the assumption of connection. We will step out a little from the circle of al-Bukhari. The hadith came from paths other than al-Bukhari. The narrator says, "Hisham narrated to me." Why do we get agitated with al-Bukhari because he did not say "narrated to me"? This is someone other than al-Bukhari, a trustworthy person, who said, "Hisham narrated to us..."

The questioner : In the same hadith?

The Shaykh : In the same hadith, but not al-Bukhari.

The questioner : But in the same hadith?

The Shaykh : Yes, and then, my sir, more than that. We have eliminated al-Bukhari and his teacher. The hadith came from a path other thanThe Shaykh : his path. It came from a path other thanThe Shaykh : Hisham ibn 'Ammar. But it requires research, and their time and the philosophy by which they manage their entire lives do not help them. They research, and their soul, which is inclined to evil, does not allow them to ask the specialists and scholars. Because this is their mindset, and it does not honor them... and they become scholars in tafsir (exegesis), and in jurisprudence, and in hadith, and in everything. So, if we asked so-and-so from the scholars of hadith, "What is your opinion of this hadith?" Does that mean all people did not understand? That this is not known in the science of hadith? And is that a disgrace for the Muslim scholar? The answer is no. But, unfortunately, the Muslim scholar now, in the time when he found that he knows the value of specialization, knows the value of specialization in all sciences except the science of Islam, except the science of Islam. One thing reminds of another. How do people not accept that it is said about a famous person that he is not a scholar in tafsir, or not a scholar in hadith, or in any other science? I remember well that one of the senior Muslim Brothers in Damascus, and unfortunately, one thing reminds of another, no offense to the Muslim Brothers, but a student of the great Shaykh, the dangerous guide, the Shaykh of Shaykhs of the Naqshbandiyyah in Syria, Ahmad Kiftarou. A student of his, a obedient, submissive student, submissive to Sufi guidance: "Whoever says to his Shaykh 'why' will never succeed." Submissive to his Shaykh who teaches his murids (disciples) the murid is between the hands ofThe Shaykh : like a dead person between the hands of the washer. Does he have movement? Does he have will? They transferred this verse from the Messenger to whom? To the Shaykhs. He is a Muslim Brother, and at the same time, what is he? A student and murid of Shaykh Ahmad Kiftarou. And this is one of the defects of the group, because the group's call is to gather, to pack, to corral, to bring the Salafi to the Khalafi to the Sufi to the Shi'i, as long as he testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. We have no objection to that. The important thing is, one day he came to me to present the following idea: "What do you think, Professor? We want to print a book of sayings of Hasan al-Banna (may Allah have mercy on him), but we want to print it with your takhrij (tracing of hadiths to sources)." And I, as you know, Abu 'Abdullah, do not joke, especially this is an amazing job. (He laughs)The Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him) — Well, I also do not want to deceive people, nor do I want them to regret the work after it is done; rather, I do not want *I* to regret the work. I told him: I am willing, but I want to draw your attention to something before you are surprised by it. He said to me, "Go ahead." I said to him, "My brother, I know the Muslim Brothers; I did not add anything to that. Of course, I said that they are an emotional group, meaning they love Hassan al-Banna and hold him in high esteem, and so on, and he is worthy of that. But when I want to publish his message, I want my scholarly and hadith-based personality to be evident. I want to say, 'This is authentic, this is good, this is weak, this is denounced, and this is fabricated.' I think your group does not have the readiness to accept such commentary and such criticism of the message of their first guide, Hassan al-Banna. Therefore, I am willing; if you agree to publish and you see that the message is printed like this, I have no objection. This is the guest's face. Why? Because Hassan al-Banna himself, like al-Ghazali, enumerates... Where did you read his words?"