Continuation of the answer to the question: "Who permits non-excessive singing?"

The Shaykh : Now, here, when the question came, read the question so that you pay attention to the insinuation, in case it was not intentional.

The questioner : There are those who say that listening to music is permissible if it is not accompanied by obscene singing, arguing that there is no definitive Qur'anic text or hadith text that forbids listening to it if it is free from obscene speech. How do you respond to that with a comprehensive, scientific, and convincing answer?

The Shaykh : Or a definitive hadith? This is not scholarly speech. If the speaker means what he says, he is misleading the people, because he contradicts all the scholars of the Muslims, who do not require certainty in the rulings. For example, is singing forbidden or permissible? It is not necessary for there to be a text that is definitive in its establishment and definitive in its meaning. It is sufficient for it to be probable in its establishment and probable in its meaning. So, after this clarification of this term, that certainty is not required in the rulings of the Shari'ah, and that probability is sufficient, and you know that what is meant by probability is the predominant probability. Now, we are here agreeing to obey Allah, to study the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Do we have certainty, each of us regarding the other, that he is a Muslim, that he is a believer in Allah and His Messenger? Or do we have only appearances? Let us be frank: we have nothing more than the appearance, and Allah takes care of the inner realities. So, do we deal on the basis of this appearance and trust one another, or do we say, "No, since there is no certainty, we do not trust one another"? We cite these examples for people so that they may reflect. If we raise the word "certainty," or if we raise the trust in the predominant probability, all the interests of the people would be paralyzed. We are now dealing on the basis of the predominant probability. We do not have certainty; we do not have a revelation descending from the sky to inform the Messenger (peace be upon him) that so-and-so is a hypocrite, and so-and-so is a hypocrite. Even the hypocrites: the Lord of the Worlds has a text in the Noble Qur'an that there are hypocrites, and our Lord knows them, but you do not know them, while He knew some of them. How did He know them? Through revelation from the sky. But the divine wisdom required that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) know some of them and not know the rest. So, dealing in this world, not only in the rulings of the Shari'ah, but the interaction of people with one another, is based on the predominant probability. Thus, this interaction itself is based on the principle of trust in the predominant probability in narrations and in meanings as well. So, for example, we do not say that the scholars of the Muslims—I do not say all of them, but at least the majority of them—prohibit gold and silk for men. We ask the one who wrote this question regarding singing or musical instruments: Is there a definitive text prohibiting silk and gold for men? I answer him with this condition: Definitive? I say, no, there is no definitive text, neither in the Qur'an nor in the Sunnah. In fact, the people of desires may extract from the Book and the Sunnah what indicates the permissibility of gold and silk for men, let alone for women. This is because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said: So, I wore a turban made entirely of silk. This is adornment. This is more adornment than that. Why do I prohibit it, when Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: So, there is no definitive text prohibiting gold and silk. But what is the position of the scholars of the Muslims regarding these two types? Prohibition. Where did they take the prohibition from? The Sunnah. Is the Sunnah here definitive or probable? Probable, because there is no mass-transmitted hadith prohibiting gold for men, and there is no mass-transmitted hadith prohibiting local or animal silk for men, and so on. Most of the rulings of the Shari'ah are established by the authentic hadith that provides the predominant probability. Now, do we not have hadiths prohibiting musical instruments? Yes. But the people of desires today hide behind the word "certainty." And I say, we do not have a definitive hadith, but the probable hadith is sufficient for us, because this is how the scholars of the Muslims argue with the authentic hadith that is probable in its establishment. If we know this fact, there is a hadith in "Sahih al-Bukhari" from the narration of Abu Malik al-Ash'ari. Because we have two Ash'aris from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) who are famous, one more famous than the other: Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, who was good at reciting the Qur'an, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would listen to him because of the sweetness of his recitation, until he said to him one day: So Abu Musa (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "If I had known that, I would have polished it for you with a fine polish." This is Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, who is more famous than Abu Malik al-Ash'ari. And Abu Malik al-Ash'ari is the one from whom Imam al-Bukhari narrated the hadith. He said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: meaning the private parts. This hadith is in "Sahih al-Bukhari," and it has another path outside of al-Bukhari, so it increases in strength upon strength. I do not want to delve into the hadithic aspect here now. It is sufficient for us now to say, in answer to this question, that there are authentic hadiths among the scholars of the Muslims that prohibit musical instruments called ma'azif in all their types and forms, including those modern instruments that were not known before. Because the harm in extracting instruments of amusement in many and very many forms and colors has increased in this time. For example, this instrument, and praise be to Allah, I did not remember its foreign name that they make this. Of course, yes, it can be called a blower, but where is it... The important thing is that this instrument can be included under the name of ma'azif, and it is more of a trial than the 'ud and what is called the violin, and so on. So the word ma'azif: everything on which one plays is included in this name that came in the hadith of al-Bukhari. Then there are many, many other hadiths, among them what is in "Musnad Imam Ahmad" (may Allah have mercy on him) from the hadith of Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with them both). He said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: That is, the drum. It is sufficient for you to know the prohibition of the other instruments by the principle known to jurists as qiyas al-awla (analogical reasoning by stronger evidence). If the drum, and in the context of blame, in some languages, one says so-and-so is a drum, meaning hollow, meaning empty. If the drum is forbidden in Islam, what about the soft instruments that stir the souls and move desire and longing, and so on? If there were not the comprehensive term ma'azif for all types of playing, if this term were not there, sound legal intellect would independently prohibit what is other than the drum by the principle of qiyas al-awla. How much more so when the authentic text and clear intellect meet in prohibiting the modern instruments known today? So we have hadiths prohibiting musical instruments, even if they were not accompanied by any of the words that are not permissible to utter, let alone to sing with. Because uttering them is sufficient to stir sin and harm and damage, let alone if it is accompanied by singing. Then we say, in truth, with regret, once: you will not find, forever, a singer who is mindful of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Give me a singer who does not associate with women who display their adornment. If it is sufficient for you, people, to know and apply the Gospel wisdom. The Gospel, as you know, was revealed by Allah to the heart of Isa (peace be upon him), but with the days, they distorted and changed and altered it, except that there remained traces indicating the prophethood of Isa (peace be upon him). Among them, it came in the Gospel that the disciples, Isa (peace be upon him) admonished them one day and reminded them that after him there would be a Prophet, the last of the prophets, and he is Ahmad, and he is Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and before him there would be false prophets. They said, "O Isa, how do we know the truthful from the liar?" So he answered with wisdom, saying, "By their fruits you will know them." You will know the truthful prophet from the false prophet by the fruit that is harvested from him by those around him. If they harvest from him good character, mindfulness of Allah, and obedience to Allah, then this is proof that his prophethood is truthful. And if they harvest from him the opposite, exactly as is the case always with false prophets, then this is practical proof that these are liars. So now we say: Suppose that we do not have, neither an explicit text nor a strong analogy, in prohibiting musical instruments. Look at the effects of what I do not know if it is correct to call them "tarabin" or "tarabin" or what? I know "mutarribin" (singers) and "tarabin" (musicians), perhaps "tarabin" is better. Look at the effects of these people. Few of them maintain the five daily prayers. Few of them maintain, if they maintain the five daily prayers, that they perform them in the mosques with congregation. Where would he perform them while he is heedless and distracted behind the music, behind seeking money, and so on? Let alone his association with women who display their adornment, loose women, and singers, and so on. I do not say that these matters are not still present among Muslims today, and among those we referred to earlier as being looked upon as being among the callers to Islam. Yes, callers to Islam, but what Islam is this? You know from the previous introduction what is the Islam that we should call to: it is that which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and his noble Companions were upon. What is the way to know what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was upon? This is also an opportunity, and this is a new thought, to know the falsity of linking the rulings of the Shari'ah to definitive evidence. How can we know the Salafi life that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions lived by definitive evidence? Where are these definitive evidences? We barely find good hadiths, let alone authentic ones, from the totality of which we know the life that he (may peace and blessings be upon him) lived. If Allah says: Then we are obligated to know the path of the believers. What is the way to know the path of the believers? We have no way except these hadiths that provide probability, and they reject them on the pretext that they do not provide certainty. And therefore, "All good is in following those who came before, and all evil is in the innovation of those who came after."