Shaykh Asrar Interview

Yeah ok, I just posted the link - WITH A CLEAR DISCLAIMER
Anyway, yes there may be big generalisations but there are other points and the whole thing cannot be discredited.

Allahu Alam

 

such as these assumptions:-

QUOTE: Ibn al-Qushayri also states (from p. 72 in the same source): In this verse God has joined lahw (amusements with musical instruments) together with tijara (business or trade) using the grammatical particle wa (and) which means that the law and ruling that applies to one of them must apply to the other since they are joined together. We know that Muslims unanimously agree that tijara (business or trade) is permissible. Thus, in this verse the Quran is maintaining the status quo as far as the ruling regarding musical instruments is concerned since they were part of the Arab customs and culture before Islam. It is implausible to suggest that the Prophet might have prohibited musical instruments (before this incident took place) and yet when the musical troupe passes by the door of the Masjid God chooses not to reveal a single verse at that very moment clearly and finally stating that musical instruments and music are prohibited (haram) but instead He chooses to merely scold and reprimand (itaab) the people who left the Prophet standing while they went to listen to the musical troupe. It is also impossible to imagine that the Prophet would choose not to clearly state through sunna his ruling regarding music after this Friday incident. UNQUOTE

see how he links lahw with tijarah, and comes to the conclusion that they should be classed together as "permitted". the author forgot that even trade is forbidden at the time of khutbah.

 

the honesty and clarity of quotes is unbelievable.

 

I think the link is an excellent answer on musical instruments and one can not argue with the sources cited and the Scholars being mentioned. However, I would add that it would be safer to go with the majority opinion here and to rule out most musical instruments but there is some solid weight behind those who argue that not all music is haraam.

https://islamictext.wordpress.com/music-azhar-fatwa/

PS SKIP THE PHOTO PLEASE- IT APPEARS AS YOU LOAD THE LINK STRAIGHT AWAY

Allah Knows Best

 

دیکھ تو دل کہ جاں سے اٹھتا ہے
یہ دھواں سا کہاں سے اٹھتا ہے

گور کس دل جلے کی ہے یہ فلک
شعلہ اک صبح یاں سے اٹھتا ہے

Kindly, list the mistakes, and wrong/aberrant positions of you peer.

 

This is more inline with the wahhabi deobandi reasoning with blanket quote of hadith "every bidah is misguidance", a wahhabi-deobandi would argue the same way like abu hasan.

But a sunni would read the statements of Fuqaha -- hanafi sadaat -- who are researchers and verifiers of this matter here http://ia802701.us.archive.org/35/items/rodoudach3ariya/idahdalalat.pdf but i guess my pir can never be wrong, i will do my best to defend my pir o murshid

 

PS: I never suggested anyone to do personal ijtihad. that route is dangerous.

there are several chains to the SAME hadeeth clarifying that the thigh was not exposed on purpose. and several hadeeth that prove that the thigh is Awrah.

I was not referring to "Haraam" things becoming "Halaal" due to the change of circumstances; in fact it was the opposite - that the ruling changed from "allowed" to "prohibited" - for example the prostration of reverence, use of alcohol etc.

 

only the duff was allowed - circumstances and context are clearly explained in the hadith.
and duff is allowed.

one cannot extrapolate it to mean that an orchestra is allowed.

 

that is no argument at all.

the Prophet (peace be upon him) has informed us that in the end times no one will be safe from the "touch" of usury.

for example, we cannot escape money that has been exchanged as riba - so what do you suggest we do?

 

Then that is a matter of personal Ijtihad as to whether that applies here or not and must be based on the usul of each Madhab. But to clarify, are you suggesting that it may have been allowed in some circumstances but now the ruling has changed. To make that decision one must understand the reasons for the prohibition and whether allowing the practice leads to evil. As mentioned, the details of the prohibition appear to be where the music is accompanied by haraam and in haraam settings, or where music may lead to haraam. So where there is no danger of this, then one allows it based on the situation of course.

I use the example of Imam Malik who argued that the Awra cannot include the thighs because there is an instance where the Messenger of Allah pulled up his garment whereby the narrator (Hazrat Anas Radhi Allahu Anh) says He could see the Whiteness of His (SalAllahu Alaihi wa Salim's) Thigh. (Bukhari)

Imam malik argued that had if it been haraam to expose the thigh then it would NEVER have been done by the Messenger of Allah (SalAllahu Alaihi Wa Sallim) and I argue that the same is for musical instruments and music, that had music in and of itself been prohibited then nothing of it would have been allowed.

Of course, there are counter arguments and strong evidence against but one needs to also understand the world we live in in that we cannot escape certain things no matter what and these rulings allow us due to necessity to live our lives in some degree of comfort. Wherever we go unfortunately, we cannot escape music (TV, shopping centres, markets, shops, neighbors, children, schools, events, etc)

This is my understanding and of course Allah Knows Best

 

there are a lot many things, for which the rulings changed, and sometimes gradually.

 

Nearly all the Hadith on this topic that prohibit music refer to where it is accompanied with haraam and in a haraam setting in and of itself. Thus the Scholars who allowed it clearly understood the prohibition to mean where the music is in a bad environment and accompanies bad acts like drinking alcohol. Not however, that music itself is haraam. This is because if music was haraam by itself then it would have never been allowed in any shape or form. The duff is a musical instrument is it not?

Allahu Alam

 

Exactly, that is so beautifully summed up. Now, we have a choice. Either we let people's nafs dictate what happens or we speak out publicly with why these practises must be stopped. People should be educated that Sama has strict conditions and it is NOT ENTERTAINMENT ( Astaghfirullah)

 

It is not mere public vs private that is a requisite for a valid sama'. Even in Kashf ul Mahjoob is is mentioned that the attendies of the sama' must be of such level that there hearts are never absent from the Zikr of Allah ﷻ.


One must Be brutally honest with people when it comes to these terms.


Allah knows best

 

I have read one of an-Nabulusi's treatises on music and he defended the Mevlevi ("whirling dervish") use of the ney flute in their sema.

AFAIK, an-Nabulusi did defend the use of musical instruments in sema, but he placed a lot of restrictions on this allowance. The modern habit of turning it into a public performance is obviously contrary to what the scholars who allowed this meant.

 

If I may add my 2 cents, Sama can be with music and without music.

to be decisive, the Sama referred by Imam Abdul Ghani and Imam Junaid is it with Music or without Music ?

 

this whole thing of generalisation - transposing duff for instruments and mere vocals for music and orchestra and accusing ulama of permitting it is an old trick and sleight of hand.

samaa didn't mean opera or a concert; mazamir didn't mean orchestra music.

just like sayyarah didn't mean a ferrari.
laban didn't mean yoghurt.
sayyid didn't mean 'mister'.


---
but hey who's looking? and who cares?

 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=983757088388875