John Yahya Ederer’s Article On The Permissibility of Music

Question

Introduction by Hazrat Mufti Ebrahim Desai Daamat Barakaatuhum:

Answer

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullāhi wa barakātuh.

We are not familiar with Imam John Yahya Ederer or his scholarly credentials. However, we have undertaken a study of the article in reference, “Regarding the Permissibility of Music”[1].

In this article, Yahya Ederer attempts to show that there is legitimate scope for disagreement on the Shar‘ī ruling of musical instruments. In the following, we will present our observations on some of the pertinent points of the article. In the course of our discussion, we hope to shed light on some serious flaws in Yahya Ederer’s methodology and conclusions, on the basis of which we advise caution in reading his articles.

The Views of the Four Madhhabs

Yahya Ederer begins his article by saying:
Unfortunately, he has not presented any evidence for this claim. We will show below that there is absolute consensus that musical instruments are, in general, harām. The only legitimate disagreement is over certain exceptions to this general rule.

Here are some statements declaring consensus from within each of the four madhhabs (schools of jurisprudence):

In the Hanafī madhhab, Ibn Nujaym (d. 970) states:
Note: When makrūh is used without qualification in the books of Hanafī fiqh, it means makrūh tahrīmī.[3]

In the Mālikī madhhab, Abu l-Walīd ibn Rushd al-Qurtubī (d. 520 H) writes:
He goes on to mention the disagreement over other instruments, but only in the context of a wedding.

In the Shāfi‘i madhhab, Ibn Hajar al-Haythamī (d. 973 H) said:
In the Hanbalī madhhab, al-Mardāwī (d. 885) said:
Hence, all jurists belonging to the four madhhabs agree musical instruments are, in general, prohibited. Yahya Ederer, unfortunately, did not cite any evidence for his claim that some scholars of the four madhhabs said that they are only makrūh (tanzīhī) or that they are permissible on condition the songs are not immoral. In fact, the statements quoted above directly refute this claim.

The Consensus of the Jurists

Yahya Ederer then writes:
The early scholars have explicitly stated that there is consensus on the general prohibition of musical instruments.

Imām Muhyī al-Sunnah al-Baghawī (436 – 516 H), the great Shāfi‘ī scholar of hadith and fiqh, said in his Sharh al-Sunnah:
Hāfiz Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalī (736 – 795 H) mentions:
From amongst the later scholars, the great Shāfi‘ī jurist, Ibn Hajar al-Haythamī, said in a work devoted to this subject:
The only exceptions to this consensus are opinions of individuals whose views are not admissible in Sunnī scholarly consensus, due to their heterodox positions. Examples, famously, include Ibn Hazm and Ibn Tāhir al-Maqdisī[10], who both belonged to the Zāhirī (literalist) school of thought[11]. The scholars have not accepted their marginal opinion as an acceptable ijtihād. For example, the Shāfi‘ī scholar of hadith and fiqh, Hāfiz Ibn al-Salāh, referred to Ibn Hazm’s view as “his corrupt (fāsid) view on musical instruments.”[12] And the Hanbalī scholar, Ibn al-Qayyim, refers to it as “his invalid/rejected (bātil) view on the permissibility of musical instruments.”[13]

Moreover, it is obviously incorrect to claim that research conducted in the fourteenth and fifteenth century of Islām can override the consensus that was established in the early generations.

The Views of Some Scholars

Yahya Ederer further writes:
Unfortunately, as with many of his other claims, he did not substantiate this assertion. Moreover, it is not clear whether this statement is in reference to songs accompanied by musical instruments or songs not accompanied by them.

He then produces a list of the names of scholars who purportedly subscribed to the view of the permissibility of musical instruments. He attempts to demonstrate thereby that there is no consensus that musical instruments are impermissible. These names, however, are either inaccurate and, therefore, do not belong on the list, or are inadmissible when assessing scholarly consensus. We will present our observations on a few of the fifteen names he cited.

He mentions:
‘Abdullāh ibn Ja‘far was a young Sahābī, the son of the cousin of Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), Ja‘far ibn Abī Tālib (radiyAllāhu ‘anh).

The book in reference, al-‘Iqd al-Farīd, was authored by Abū ‘Umar Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Rabbih (246 – 328 H), on the topic of Arabic literature and history. The report in question commences as follows:
This is an extremely defective narration. Firstly, the author does not mention that he heard this narration from Sa‘īd ibn Muhammad al-‘Ijli. Secondly, there is no biographical information available with regards to Sa‘īd ibn Muhammad al-‘Ijli, so he is unknown. And thirdly, the transmitter of this report, al-Asma‘ī, was born at around the year 130 H, many decades after the deaths of Mu‘āwiyah (d. 60) and ‘Abdullāh ibn Ja‘far (d. 80). Hence, there is long gap between him and the incidents he describes. The report is, therefore, completely unreliable. All other reports of this nature from ‘Abdullāh ibn Jafar are even more spurious than this one.[15]

Next on the list, Yahya Ederer mentions:
Imām al-Ghazālī stated clearly in his Ihyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn that string instruments and flutes are, in general, prohibited in the Sharī‘ah.[16] He also said: “The Iraqi flute, all string instruments, like the lute, cymbal, rebab, the Persian lute and [other instruments] besides them are harām.”[17] He further said: “Listening to string instruments from the one who plays them [even] without a concordant, pleasant rhythm is harām.”[18] Hence, it is clear Imām al-Ghazālī, in line with the consensus of the scholars, agreed on the prohibition of musical instruments.

The only unconventional view found in al-Ghazālī’s writings is that he allowed a certain type of flute, known as the “reed flute”. However, this was regarded as a shādhdh (marginal, rejected) position by the scholars of his madhhab.

The great Shāfi‘ī jurist, al-Adhra‘ī, said:
Another name Yahya Ederer mentions in his list of scholars is:
Al-Shawkānī does not take the position that musical instruments are permissible in the book in reference. Rather, his aim was to refute the claim that there is consensus on the impermissibility of listening to songs. Although he produces valid evidences for his claim with regards to songs that are not accompanied by musical instruments, the evidences he cites to substantiate this claim for musical instruments are invalid for a number of reasons, which we cannot enumerate in this short answer.

Yahya Ederer also mentions on the list:
‘Abdul Ghanī al-Nāblusi (d. 1143 H) was a late Hanafī scholar. He belonged to a group of Sūfīs that deemed musical instruments permissible. The Sūfīs who subscribed to this view were condemned by the early scholars. Hence, along with the Zāhrīs, the Sūfīs who upheld this view are also inadmissible in the scholarly consensus on this subject. Hāfiz Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalī quotes al-Qādī Abu l-Tayyib al-Tabarī (348 – 450 H): “The belief of this group [of Sūfīs] is opposed to consensus…The position of this group is opposed to what the scholars have agreed on, and we seek protection in Allāh from bad fortune.”[20]

Yahya Ederer also mentions in the list of scholars:
This is a misattribution to Imām al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salām. Ibn ‘Abd al-Salām has clearly stated that musical instruments are prohibited in his well-known work, Qawā‘id al-Ahkām.[21] Ibn Hajar al-Haythami has also rejected this attribution to Imām al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salām.[22]

Proofs from the Qur’ān

Yahya Ederer then discusses some of the proofs for the prohibition of musical instruments. He says:
There are, in fact, at least four verses of the Qur’ān, in the commentary of which, some exegetes referred to the prohibition of music. These are: 31:6, 17:64, 53:61 and 25:72.[23]

Regarding verse 31:6 (“among men are those who purchase idle talk, without knowledge, to mislead [men] from the path of Allāh”), Yahya Ederer says:
In fact, the predominant interpretation of this verse is that it refers to singing. In Imām al-Tabarī’s Tafsīr, the following exegetes are quoted, stating the verse refers to ghinā’ (singing): ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās, Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh, Mujāhid ibn Jabr and ‘Ikrimah[24]. Similarly, Ibn Abī Shaybah narrates this interpretation in his Musannaf from Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, ‘Ikrimah and Habīb ibn Abī Thābit.[25] It should be noted Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn ‘Abbās (radiyAllāhu ‘anhum) are the greatest of the exegetes from the noble Sahābah, as Ibn Kathīr notes in the introduction to his Tafsīr.[26] It is, therefore, incorrect to downplay the significance of this interpretation.

Yahya Ederer goes on to state:
Unfortunately, he did not cite any source to prove that the majority of exegetes said this verse refers to the singing “of Jahiliyya.” Al-Qurtubī only cited exegetes who said the verse refers to “singing” (ghinā) in general, and he later differentiates, in his explanation, between immoral singing and singing that is devoid of immorality. Regarding Imām al-Qurtubī’s comment on “the disliked nature of singing”, this is in reference to singing alone that is not accompanied by musical instruments. Moreover, “disliked” is often used in the meaning of harām.[27]

As for the reason for the revelation of the verse, even assuming the report Yahya Ederer refers to is sound, it would not detract from the general interpretation recorded from the Sahābah and Tābi‘īn. The established principle of exegesis is: “Consideration is given to the general wording [of a verse] and not the specific cause [of its revelation].”

Furthermore, regarding the interpretation of “singing”, al-Qurtubī said, “This is the loftiest (a‘lā) of what was said about this verse.”[28] Meaning, the imāms from the Sahābah and Tābi‘īn who mentioned this interpretation were amongst the greatest and most authoritative exegetes. Al-Qurtubī also says “singing” is the most preferred (awlā) interpretation because of these authoritative statements from the early exegetes[29].

The Proofs from Hadith

Yahya Ederer writes:
The assertion that there are only a “couple” of hadīths showing the prohibition of musical instruments is incorrect. We will mention four authentic hadiths here:

First, Imām al-Bukhārī narrated in his Sahīh that Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:
The hadīth is authentic according to Imāms al-Bukhārī, al-Ismā‘īlī, Ibn Hibbān, Ibn al-Salāh, Ibn Jamā‘ah, Ibn Kathīr, Ibn al-Mulaqqin, al-Irāqī, Ibn Rajab, al-‘Aynī, al-Asqalānī, al-Sakhāwī and others.[31]

Ibn al-Qayyim said:
Second, Imām Ahmad narrated with his chain to Ibn ‘Abbās (radiyAllāhu ‘anhumā) that Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:
The editors of Musnad Ahmad, led by Shaykh Shu‘ayb al-Arnā’ūt, concluded: “Its isnād (chain of transmission) is sahīh (rigorously authentic).” The hadīth was also collected by Imāms Abū Dāwūd, Ibn Hibbān, al-Tahāwī, Abū Ya‘lā, al-Bayhaqī and al-Tabrānī.

Third, Imām Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah narrated from Qays ibn Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubādah (radiyAllāhu anh) that Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:
Its editor, Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwāmah, has explained that its isnād is hasan (authentic).

Fourth, Diyā al-Maqdisī (567 – 643 H) narrates in his al-Ahādīth al-Mukhtārah that Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:
The editor, ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Duhaysh, mentions that its isnād is hasan.[36] Al-Bazzār (d. 292) also narrated it in his Musnad.[37] Hāfiz Nūr al-Dīn al-Haythami (d. 807 H) said: “Al-Bazzār narrated it and its men are trustworthy.”[38]

There are many more hadīths on the topic. Muftī Muhammad Shafī‘ has enumerated 32 hadiths in his Ahkām al-Qur’ān on the prohibition of singing and musical instruments.[39]

Answering Objections to the Hadīth of Sahīh al-Bukhārī

Yahya Ederer proceeds to criticise the hadīth of Sahīh al-Bukhārī:
With regards to the claim that the hadīth of Sahīh al-Bukhārī is mu‘allaq (meaning, there is a gap between al-Bukhārī and the first narrator of the chain), and is, therefore, not an official hadīth of his collection, the scholars of the sciences of hadīth (‘Ulūm al-Hadīth) have not accepted this claim. The reason for this is that Hishām ibn ‘Ammār, who al-Bukhārī narrates this report from, is amongst his teachers. Al-Zarkashī said:
Furthermore, regarding this very hadīth, Hāfiz Ibn al-Salāh, says:
Furthermore, regarding the second point in Yahya Ederer’s comment, that there was uncertainty over the name of the Sahābī, this does not affect the authenticity of a hadīth, as all Sahābah are reliable. In refuting Ibn Hazm’s claim that the uncertainty over the name of the Sahābi affects the authenticity of the hadīth, Hāfiz Ibn Hajar said in Taghlīq al-Ta‘līq:
He also mentioned in Fath al-Bārī:
Furthermore, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī says:
Unfortunately, however, Yahya Ederer attempts to find weaknesses in the chain of this hadīth, in direct opposition to the imāms of the science. He writes:
There is no disagreement over the connectedness of the chain through other routes besides al-Bukhārī’s. Hāfiz Ibn al-Salāh said:
Hāfiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī mentions 9 reliable transmitters of hadīth besides al-Bukhārī who narrated it from Hishām ibn ‘Ammār, clearly stating they heard it directly from him[46].

Moreover, other collectors of hadīth narrated this hadīth from Hishām ibn ‘Ammār with connected and unbroken chains; for example, Ibn Hibbān[47], al-Bayhaqī[48], al-Tabrānī[49] and others[50].

Yahya Ederer then proceeds to present criticism of the first narrator in the chain, Hishām ibn ‘Ammār:
Hishām ibn ‘Ammār’s memory changed when he became aged and elderly, meaning some years prior to his death in the year 245 H, as stated by Abū Hātim al-Rāzī[51]. However, Imām al-Bukhārī heard from Hishām ibn ‘Ammār some decades before his death.[52]

Moreover, he was not accused of changing the text of hadīth. What, in fact, this is referring to is that in the period of senility, Hishām ibn ‘Ammār became prey to “talaqqun.” Meaning, when informed that a certain wording of a hadīth was narrated by him, he began to accept that it was his narration, despite not having heard it in that way. This, however, as mentioned earlier was only during his old age.

Regarding the claim that Hishām ibn ‘Ammār said, “the Qur’an has words from Gabriel and Muhammad ﷺ and is created speech,” this is a gross misunderstanding of what is mentioned in Mīzān al-I‘tidāl. What is in fact narrated from Hishām ibn ‘Ammār is the statement: “The utterance of Jibrīl and Muhammad of the Qur’ān is created.”[53] Meaning, the act of Jibrīl and Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) of reading the Qur’ān was created by Allah. This is in accordance with the accepted belief of Ahlus Sunnah that Allāh created us and our actions. Hishām ibn ‘Ammār certainly did not say the Qur’ān has words from Jibrīl and Muhammad, or that the Qur’ān itself is created speech.

Nonetheless, Imām Ahmad (rahimahullāh) did not approve of using these types of statements, even if in reality, they are true. Al-Dhahabī said shortly after relating this statement from Hishām ibn ‘Ammār: “There is consideration and scope for the statement of Hishām.”[54] And he said elsewhere:
Hence, these are not valid criticisms of Hishām, especially after considering the facts that he is a narrator found in Sahīh al-Bukhārī and the four Sunans; he was a khatīb of the central Mosque of Damascus; Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn described him as “trustworthy” (thiqah) and extremely intelligent; al-‘Ijlī described him as “trustworthy”; al-Nasā’ī said: “there is no fault in him”; al-Dāraqutnī said: “reliable, of immense stature”; and Abū Hātim said: “reliable”.[56]

Furthermore, there is another authentic route to the hadith, bypassing Hishām.[57]

Yahya Ederer says:
We did not find anywhere that Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī considered Hishām ibn ‘Ammār weak. In fact, his assessment of Hishām in his Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb is: “Reliable (sadūq), a Qur’ān-teacher, he became elderly so became prey to talaqqun. Hence, his earlier hadīths are more authentic.”[58] In this assessment, Ibn Hajar does not even concede that his later hadiths were faulty, but only that his earlier hadīths were “more authentic.” And it has been mentioned above that al-Bukhārī heard hadīth from him some decades before his death.

Yahya Ederer then briefly mentions about the text of the hadith:
We have mentioned earlier, quoting Ibn al-Qayyim, that the narration certainly does prove musical instruments are prohibited. Ibn al-Qayyim said:
The Mālikī jurist, Ibn al-‘Arabī, said in commentary of this hadith:
In both meanings, the implication is clear, that all the things mentioned in the hadīth (i.e. illicit intercourse, wine, silk and musical instruments) are harām, but some people will regard them, or will treat them, as halāl.

Yahya Ederer then says:
Unfortunately, this too is a completely baseless and unsubstantiated claim. We traced both sources Yahya Ederer mentions. In the reference of Kashf al-Astār, far from saying ‘Atiyyah ibn Qays is weak, al-Bazzār says: “There is no fault in him.” (lā ba’sa bihī).[61] In the terminology of narrator-critics, the phrase, “There is no fault in him” is equivalent to the grading, “sadūq” (reliable), which describes reliability in both ‘adālah (integrity) and dabt (precision).[62] And in al-Jarh wa l-Ta‘dīl of Ibn Abī Hātim al-Rāzī he narrates from his father (Abū Hātim al-Rāzī) that ‘Atiyyah ibn Qays is “suitable (sālih) in hadith”[63], which in Abū Hātim’s usage is ambiguous[64].

The narrations of ‘Atiyyah ibn Qays are included in all six famous collections of hadīth. Ibn Hibbān included him in his work on trustworthy narrators, al-Thiqāt, and Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī referred to him as “trustworthy” (thiqah)[65]. Moreover, Imām al-Tirmidhī said about a narration transmitted only through ‘Atiyyah ibn Qays: “It is a hasan sahīh hadith.”[66] Hence, the claim that ‘Atiyyah is not reliable due to his memory is an unfounded assertion.

Yahya Ederer says:
We have mentioned previously that there are many other hadīths on the topic, three of which were quoted earlier.

The Doors of Ijtihād

Yahya Ederer says, lamenting the history of Islamic scholarship:
We do not agree that this is a correct representation of the evolution of Islamic scholarship and jurisprudence. Ijtihād was only closed at the highest level, that is, ijtihād in the meaning of complete command over the sources of Sharī‘ah, freeing the mujtahid of the need to refer to any other authority or school. Ijtihād at lower levels, however, was always in operation. This included ijtihād which reassessed the evidences of the school, sometimes even opposing the opinion of the founders of the school. For example, in the Hanafī madhhab alone, after Imām Abū Hanīfah, Imāms Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybānī, Abū Yūsuf, Hasan ibn Ziyād, Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl, al-Tahāwī, ‘Isām ibn Yūsuf, Ibn Rustam, Muhammad ibn Samā‘ah, Abū Sulaymān al-Jūzjānī, Muhammad ibn Muqātil, Nusayr ibn Yahyā and others were all qualified mujtahids affiliated to the Hanafī school, who independently assessed the evidences, and even reached conclusions contrary to the founder of the madhhab[67]. Jurists of a similar rank are found in all madhhabs.

Moreover, taqlīd (adherence to a school of jurisprudence) does not hamper an honest appraisal of evidences. Muqallids of the madhhabs have always honestly assessed the evidences of their respective schools systematically and in full detail. Examples include Hāfiz al-Zayla‘ī’s Nasb al-Rāyah, Hāfiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī’s Talkhīs al-Habīr and others.

Furthermore, in light of the errors we have highlighted in the article under scrutiny, we are justified in being sceptical of the “research” Yahya Ederer says he has conducted. The implication in the paragraph quoted above is that Islāmic scholarship was stagnated throughout the Muslim world for most of its history, and only now is it seeing some advancement. As humble students of Sharī‘ah, we know this to be incorrect.

A final point is that the two examples he mentions of scholars who did assess the evidences for themselves from the later period, Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Suyūtī, both considered musical instruments harām.[68]

Answering Proofs for the Permissibility of Musical Instruments

Yahya Ederer presents some proofs for the permissibility of musical instruments. We will assess a few of them here. He writes:
This has not been authentically attributed to ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr (radiyAllāhu ‘anhumā). There is no evidence for this in any of the well-known biographies of ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr, and there is no chain of transmission for this report.[69] Hence, the attribution is spurious. Yahya Ederer continues:
This was narrated by Ibn Tāhir, al-Khatīb and Ibn ‘Asākir with their chains. There are a number of issues with the chain of transmission, including weak narrators and discontinuity. Hence, the report is not reliable.[70] As for Ibn Tāhir’s assertion that there is no disagreement over the veracity of the report, it was not accepted by the scholars.[71]

Yahya Ederer says:
Regarding the last point, Yahya Ederer has misread what Hāfiz Ibn Hajar mentioned in Fath al-Bārī. Ibn Hajar is not citing a hadīth, but is referring to a statement recorded from Abū ‘Uthmān al-Nahdī, one of the senior Tābi‘īn, who lived in the days of Jāhiliyyah and converted to Islām at the hands of the senior Sahābah. It was Abū ‘Uthmān al-Nahdī who said: “I entered the house of Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī and I have not heard a cymbal, lute or flute, more beautiful than his voice,”[72] not Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). Abū ‘Uthmān is referring to the music he heard in Jāhiliyyah.

Furthermore, the commentators of the hadīth, including Ibn Hajar, have rejected the notion that the hadīth is referring to Dāwūd (‘alayhissalām) playing the flute. “Mizmār” (flute) is used in the hadīth as a metaphor for a nice voice.[73]

Yahya Ederer further writes:
As we have clarified earlier, all schools are unanimous that musical instruments are, in general, disallowed. There are only a few exceptions, like beating drums on the occasion of a wedding or Eid. Unfortunately, Yahya Ederer did not give any references for his claim that prominent Shāfi‘īs allowed trumpets, flutes and tambourines.

Moreover, it is not permitted to use analogy (qiyās) to deduce rulings on issues that are expressly stipulated in Shar‘ī texts, as stated in the works of Usūl al-Fiqh[74], and as Yahya Ederer himself suggests. The hadīth from Sahīh al-Bukhārī discussed earlier expressly prohibits all musical instruments. Hence, the use of analogy here is invalid.

Condemnation of Marginal Opinions

Concluding his article, Yahya Ederer says:
A person is obligated to follow authentic scholarship. Imām Muhammad ibn Sīrīn (d. 110 H) said:
A person seeking Islāmic knowledge and, in particular, the rulings of Sharī‘ah, must consult accepted authorities in jurisprudence. He may not pick and choose at his fancy from any and all opinions.[76]Yahya Ederer continues:
This argument is misplaced. It is true that when there is legitimate disagreement, there shall be no rebuking. However, it has not been proven that the disagreement here is legitimate. We have already seen that the scholars have not accepted Ibn Hazm’s view on the permissibility of musical instruments. Ibn al-Salāh and Ibn al-Qayyim have referred to it as a “corrupt” or “invalid/rejected” view. Hāfiz Ibn a-Salāh said in regards to this very subject:
Following rare and isolated juristic opinions which were rejected by the vast majority of the jurists has been considered a gateway to heresy by the scholars, as alluded to in this statement of Ibn al-Salāh. Imām al-Awzā‘ī said:
Sulaymān al-Taymī said:
Concluding Remarks

We hope that it is clear from the foregoing discussion that Yahya Ederer’s methodology and conclusions in this article are deeply flawed. There are also a number of obvious blunders in many points of his research. Based on these reasons, we strongly advise caution in reading his articles.

Finally, it should be noted that this is not a personal attack on Yahya Ederer or his scholarly credentials. Rather, the purpose is to draw attention to what we feel are serious misrepresentations of Islāmic scholarship and the dangerous implications of them, so readers may be careful to not take everything that is mentioned on the website referred to in the question at face-value.


And Allah Ta‘ālā Knows Best

Zameelur Rahman

Student Darul Iftaa
UK

Checked and Approved by,
Mufti Ebrahim Desai

www.daruliftaa.net

---

[1] www.suhaibwebb.com/society/entertainment/regarding-the-permissibility-of-music/

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

---

Taken from HERE