Jurisprudence of Ghina and Music (Volume Four)

Ayatollah Nekounam's books

The Jurisprudence of Music and Singing

(Volume Four)

Analysis and Evaluation of the Views of Independent Jurists and Their Followers within Their Jurisprudential Systems from the 4th to the 12th Century

(May Allah sanctify their souls)

By: Ayatollah Mohammadreza Nekounam

Full Citation: Nekounam, Mohammadreza, 1327-. The Jurisprudence of Music and Singing: Analysis and Evaluation of the Views of Independent Jurists and Their Followers within Their Jurisprudential Systems from the 4th to the 12th Century / Mohammadreza Nekounam. Published in: Islamshahr, Sobh-e Farda Publications, 1393 (2014).

Publication Details: 7 volumes, Volume 4, 264 pages. ISBN for the series: 978-600-6435-19-0 ISBN for Volume 4: 978-600-6435-29-9

Other Title: Analysis and Evaluation of the Views of Independent Jurists and Their Followers within Their Jurisprudential Systems from the 4th to the 12th Century.

Subjects: Music (Jurisprudence) Islam and Music Fatwas on Music

Chapter Seven: Singing and Music in the View of Jurists from the 4th to the 12th Century

Sheikh Sadouk
(Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Ali bin Hussein bin Musa bin Babawayh, d. 381 AH)

“Know that the earnings of a female singer are unlawful, the wages of a prostitute, and the price of a non-hunting dog are unlawful. And know that bribery in judgment is equivalent to disbelief in Allah, the Almighty.”

Sheikh Sadouk considers the earnings of female singers as unlawful, arguing that they were not distanced from sins and moral corruption. By equating singers with prostitutes, he suggests a close relationship between the two, given that historically, female singers often attracted sinful behavior from men. This view aligns with narrations, which also place the price of a dog, which is not used for hunting, among the unlawful earnings.

Classification of Sins
Sheikh Sadouk categorizes singing, prostitution, and the sale of dogs as prohibited. However, he places bribery in the category of disbelief, highlighting its grave spiritual consequences. In contrast, some believers object to bribery in administrative settings while viewing musical instruments at weddings as a grave sin, thus failing to properly classify sins.

Bribery of Judges
Bribery of a judge is the clearest example of bribery, often mentioned in narrations. However, bribery is not limited to judges; anyone in a position of authority, such as a schoolteacher or traffic officer, can be seen as responsible for judgment in their respective fields, thus extending the concept to all administrative employees.

The Permissibility of Income for Female Mourners
In his work Al-Hidayah, Sheikh Sadouk permits the earnings of women who wail authentically for the deceased. He states:
“The earnings of a female singer are unlawful, but there is no issue with the earnings of a mourner who speaks truthfully.”
He does not delve further into the subject of singing.

Exceptions to the Prohibition of Singing
Certain narrations allow female singing at weddings or gatherings that exclude men. This is not a true exception to the prohibition, as the prohibition of singing is absolute, but the specific cultural context of weddings in early Arab society was such that no sin was involved, and no secondary factors altered the original ruling. Therefore, singing at such weddings was considered permissible, similarly to how mourning at funerals is considered free of sin.

Sheikh Mufid
(Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Na’man Harithi, 336-413 AH)

The Prohibition of the Manufacture and Trade of Musical Instruments
“Everything that Allah has prohibited, and which is harmful to His creation, it is not permissible to profit from or engage with it. Examples include the production and trade of alcohol, as well as the crafting and trading of musical instruments such as the lute and tambourine. All of these are forbidden.”

Sheikh Mufid extends the prohibition to any engagement with musical instruments, emphasizing that trade involving such items is likewise forbidden.

Prohibition of Income from Female Singers and Music Education
“The earnings of female singers are unlawful, and learning or teaching music is prohibited in Islamic law. Earnings from false mourning are also unlawful.”

Sheikh Mufid holds the same stance on the prohibition of income from female singers and the teaching of music. However, he permits the act of mourning for the righteous (those who speak truthfully and sincerely), with no objection to receiving payment for it, though he prefers avoiding such earnings.

Sheikh Tusi
(Shaykh al-Taifah, Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Hasan bin Ali bin Tusi, 385-460 AH)

The Permissibility of Singing in Certain Contexts
Sheikh Tusi, a prominent figure in Shia jurisprudence, collected narrations on singing and reconciled conflicting reports. Some narrations prohibit the purchase and sale of singing slaves, while others allow the singing of women in wedding ceremonies.
He suggests the following reconciliation:
“The permissibility of singing is allowed as long as no falsehood or immoral behavior is involved, such as playing musical instruments or engaging in lewd acts. It is acceptable for women to sing at weddings, provided the content is appropriate and free from obscenity. However, singing in other contexts that involve such immoral elements is strictly prohibited.”

Sheikh Tusi emphasizes the importance of ensuring that songs do not contain falsehoods, lewdness, or association with musical instruments that are inherently prohibited. This nuanced view differentiates between permissible and impermissible singing based on the context and content.

This academic exploration delves into the detailed jurisprudential perspectives of prominent Islamic jurists regarding the permissibility and prohibition of music and singing across several centuries. Each jurist offers a perspective that is contextually relevant to the era they lived in, yet the underlying theme remains the same: the moral and social implications of music and singing must align with Islamic principles to be deemed permissible.

The Lack of an Inherent Link Between Falsehood and Prohibition

The term “al-abāṭīl,” as used by Shaykh Ṭūsī, refers to the plural of bāṭil (falsehood). The general application of this term encompasses all forms of falsehood. However, it does not imply that every act of falsehood is necessarily prohibited, nor does the mere falsehood of something automatically make it unlawful. It is not required that every act must have an ultimate divine purpose. The principle of permissibility applies to all things, even if they are false, unless their prohibition is explicitly established.

What Shaykh al-Ṭā’ifah means when he says, “Let the reciters not speak falsehood” refers specifically to those falsehoods which are haram (forbidden). In reality, this discussion is not related to singing or reciting, and falsehood should be addressed specifically in its respective contexts.

The Prohibition of Using Musical Instruments of Entertainment

Shaykh Ṭūsī states:

“Do not play with instruments of entertainment such as reeds and similar items, nor with flutes and other such objects.”

This ruling is appropriate for the context in which these narrations were issued. Previously, we discussed the necessity of understanding the historical context of narrations and the sociology of their issuance. Arab women, for instance, used to clap and dance during their celebrations, while in contrast, courtly celebrations were more aligned with male-dominated, indulgent gatherings in which women would sing and dance for male spectators, engaging in debauchery.

As we have mentioned before, some Arabs and Persians, due to their strong sense of honor, refrained from corrupting their weddings and did not allow their women to become tainted or corrupted, thereby preserving both their dignity and the sanctity of marriage. However, these same men, in their pursuit of sin, would go to places of moral decay to indulge with female singers and performers.

Of course, today many Arabs have lost their cultural heritage and have been deeply influenced by European culture. Some Arabs now dance in traditional attire, which is highly inappropriate, as these clothes represent the identity of Muslims. Arab women have also fallen into a problem of transitioning from modesty to exposure, a shift away from traditional values. Historically, Arabs avoided such behaviors due to their strong sense of honor, but now, much of this honor has been lost. The narrations addressing musical instruments and performances should thus be understood in the context of those gatherings where male spectators would interact with women who were dressed inappropriately, engaging in all forms of vice. These narrations do not apply to weddings or other events where divine laws are followed. The prohibition on certain instruments is rooted in the specific historical context, not in an overall, timeless condemnation of music. The prohibition of haram acts is permanent, but it is the context, not the divine ruling, that has evolved over time.

The Prohibition of Producing Musical Instruments

Shaykh Ṭūsī also mentions:

“The act of making and trading in all types of instruments of entertainment, such as flutes, tambourines, and others, is a forbidden and prohibited act.”

This fatwa (legal opinion) pertains to times when a tyrannical regime ruled the society. It has no bearing on the current period when an Islamic government under the guardianship of the Imams governs. Such activities were prohibited in times when oppressive, godless rulers promoted these instruments for spreading immorality. If similar circumstances arise today, the ruling would remain the same as stated by Shaykh Ṭūsī. However, it is important to recognize that the topics addressed in the past no longer apply today, due to the establishment of an Islamic system after the Islamic Revolution. The ruling remains fixed, but it applies to new issues in the contemporary context, and many of the prohibitions noted by Shaykh Ṭūsī no longer hold.

The Prohibition of Making and Trading Musical Instruments

Shaykh Ṭūsī writes:

“The making, producing, and trading of statues, crosses, figurines, pictures, chess, dice, and all forms of gambling, even children’s games with nuts, and trading them, are forbidden and prohibited.”

This prohibition reflects the societal context where such activities were used by tyrannical regimes to propagate falsehood and immorality. Today, in places where idolatry has disappeared, such as in certain societies, creating statues or images is permissible, and artists can produce images of any individual. This ruling does not apply when the conditions surrounding the practice change.

The Permissibility of Women Singing at Weddings

Shaykh Ṭūsī states:

“There is no objection to the payment for a female singer at a wedding, provided they do not sing falsehoods and neither enter the men’s quarters nor do the men enter theirs.”

This view addresses the specific context of the time. The ruling highlights the permissibility of women singing at weddings, provided it adheres to the conditions of modesty and does not lead to corrupt or immoral behavior.

The Prohibition of Singing in General

Shaykh Ṭūsī elaborates on the prohibition of singing in his al-Mabsūt under the chapter of “Testimonies,” where he discusses the characteristics of a witness. He writes:

“Singing is a prolonged sound, and from the perspective of wealth, it is curtailed. Just as air is extended in the atmosphere, and the soul is constrained within the body, singing, in our view, is forbidden. Those who engage in it are considered corrupt, and their testimony is rejected.”

Some scholars hold that singing is merely disliked (makrūh), but Shaykh Ṭūsī and the majority hold it as strictly prohibited.

The Legal Ruling on the Price of Female Singers

Shaykh Ṭūsī notes:

“The price of female singers is not inherently unlawful by consensus, as they are also useful for non-singing purposes such as enjoyment or domestic service.”

However, those who justify singing often cite narrations from ʿĀ’ishah, where she mentions having two singing girls in her home, and when Abu Bakr objected, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) allowed it on the grounds that it was during the days of Eid. This, however, is understood to refer to a specific practice of celebratory songs among Arabs, akin to the ḥadāʾ (a type of chant for camels), and not to the music that is categorically forbidden in Islam.

The Three Issues Regarding Singing

Shaykh Ṭūsī summarizes the issue of singing in three main points:

If someone takes singing as a profession—and is known for it—then their testimony is rejected, as it is a mark of foolishness and a loss of dignity.
If a person keeps a male or female singer, and people gather around them, this is considered foolishness, and their testimony is rejected, with an even greater rejection for female singers.
If a person frequently attends places where singing occurs, especially if they do so openly and habitually, their testimony is rejected due to their lack of dignity.

The Prohibition of Musical Instruments

Shaykh Ṭūsī refers to narrations that explicitly prohibit the use of musical instruments, stating:

“It has been reported that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: ‘Allah has forbidden for my community alcohol, gambling, al-maraz (a type of drink), al-kubah (the drum), and al-qanīn (the lute).'”

In another narration, it is said:

“When there are fifteen traits in my community, they will be afflicted with calamities: when they make wealth from spoils of war, when they regard trust as profit, when they consider zakat as a burden, when a man obeys his wife and neglects his father, when they wear silk, drink alcohol, buy singers and instruments, and when the leader of the people is the worst of them.”

The Prohibition of Pleasurable Sounds

The ruling on the prohibition of sounds that bring pleasure is as follows: any sound that evokes a sense of pleasure or joy is considered impermissible. For example, if a nightingale sings or the sound of flowing water is heard and it delights the listener to the point of ecstasy, listening to such sounds would be forbidden. This ruling, however, does not rely on the concept of pleasure as the sole criterion for prohibition.

Regarding the income of female singers, it is stated:

Absolute Prohibition of Singing

“The earnings of female singers and the learning of singing are forbidden. The earnings of those who mourn with falsehood are also forbidden, as previously mentioned. However, there is no issue if such individuals speak the truth, especially when addressing the religious community.”

Moreover, “The wages of female singers at weddings, provided they do not sing inappropriately, are not problematic, as has been narrated. The stronger view is that singing is forbidden from anyone, regardless of the context.”

The Emotional Intensity of the Mourning for Karbala

Ibn Idris declares the prohibition of singing, seeing no justification for it, due to the fact that both singing and musical instruments have been associated with the base and lowly classes. Furthermore, the tragedy of Karbala created an eternal sorrow within the hearts of the Shi’ah, one that still resonates with them deeply. The intensity with which earlier scholars such as Sheikh Tusi and Ibn Idris felt the pain of the Karbala tragedy far exceeded modern understanding because they had achieved a profound understanding of the concept of guardianship (Wilayah) and were deeply aware of what had happened to its rightful holders. However, some contemporary figures advocating for unity between Sunni and Shia claim that the historical conflicts, such as those between Banu Umayya and Banu Abbas, are no longer relevant, suggesting that Shi’ah and Sunni are one unified truth. These individuals fail to grasp the true significance of the concept of guardianship, seeing it only in narrow terms. They are akin to someone who, after mourning the death of a loved one, moves on with time, forgetting the depth of their grief.

The scholars of the past, who lived in a time of isolation from the guardianship of God’s saints, experienced this sorrow more profoundly. Today, however, such mourning seems less tangible, and the public is often consumed by neglect and indifference, with few able to shed this veil of oblivion and reflect on the solitude and martyrdom of Imam Musa al-Kadhim. Nowadays, many gatherings of mourning, such as processions and memorials, have become more superficial, devoid of genuine lamentation. In the past, especially during the era of Reza Shah, people would descend into basements, close the doors, and mourn in isolation, shedding tears for their master, Imam Husayn, while modern-day mourning rituals seem to lack this depth of sincerity.

In summary, various factors led the scholars of the fourth century to declare all forms of entertainment and singing as impermissible. They viewed singing as forbidden because it was inherently tied to entertainment and frivolity.

Al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli (Abu al-Qasim Najm al-Din Ja’far ibn al-Hasan al-Hilli, d. 676 AH)

The Juridical Definition of Singing

Al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli in his Al-Mukhtasar al-Nafi’ aligns with Sheikh Tusi’s opinion in Al-Mabsut and does not add any new arguments. However, his definition of singing in Sharayi’ al-Ahkam is significant. He defines it for the first time in the jurisprudential sense:

“Fifth: The extension of a voice that includes a melodious reverberation renders its speaker a disreputable person, and their testimony is rejected; the same applies to the listener, whether the song is in poetry or the Qur’an.”

Thus, a voice that includes a reverberating melody is considered a form of singing that makes the person committing it disreputable, and their testimony is rejected. This ruling holds for both the performer and the listener, whether the melody is in poetry or even the Qur’an.

The Prohibition of Pleasure-based Hunting

Al-Muhaqqiq also addresses the prohibition of “pleasure hunting,” emphasizing that certain conditions must be met for a journey to be permissible. If a journey involves disobedience, such as following a tyrant or engaging in hunting for mere pleasure, it is not permissible to shorten prayers. However, if the journey is undertaken for the sake of sustaining one’s family or for commerce, there is some uncertainty regarding the proper rulings for fasting and prayer.

Allama al-Hilli (Hassan ibn Yusuf ibn al-Mutahhar al-Hilli, 648–726 AH)

Allama al-Hilli adopts Al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli’s definition of singing and aligns with Sheikh Tusi’s opinion on the matter. In his Ishad al-Azhān and Tahrir al-Ahkam, he emphasizes the view that singing involves a voice with a melodious tone and that hearing such a voice or performing it renders a person disreputable. He further asserts that the testimony of the listener to such a voice is also invalid.

In Tahrir al-Ahkam, Allama al-Hilli reiterates that singing is impermissible, and this includes the performance of any act that produces a melodious voice that leads to emotional excitement.

He also confirms that the listener’s testimony is invalid, and this ruling applies whether the song is in poetry or the Qur’an.

Shahid al-Thani (Zayn al-Din ibn Ali al-Amili, 911–965 AH)

Referencing Common Custom

Shahid al-Thani, in his commentary Masa’lik al-Afham, presents the idea of referring to societal norms (customs) when defining singing. He states:

“Singing is forbidden in the opinion of the majority, whether it is simply the voice or accompanied by musical instruments. The Qur’anic verse (Al-Lahw al-Hadith) refers to singing, and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said that singing causes hypocrisy in the heart, like how water makes plants grow. The tradition goes further to state that singing is a means of distraction from God’s path.”

Shahid al-Thani acknowledges that while the definition of singing can vary, the fundamental prohibition stems from its association with worldly pleasures. He argues that this definition should be guided by the prevailing social norms—what society considers to be singing is forbidden, even if it does not cause emotional ecstasy.

Maqdisi al-Ardabili (Molla Ahmad Maqdisi al-Ardabili, d. 993 AH)

Referencing Social Custom and the Principle of Permissibility

Maqdisi al-Ardabili provides a nuanced view in his work, emphasizing that “singing” involves a melodious extension of the voice, and its prohibition is generally accepted by scholars. He acknowledges that some scholars refer to common custom to define what constitutes singing, suggesting that anything identified as such by society should be considered impermissible. He cites several hadiths that warn against the negative effects of singing, stressing its harmful impact on the heart and the soul.

In conclusion, the definition of singing, especially when seen through the lens of juristic tradition, includes a broad view, one that encompasses both vocal performance and the societal understanding of what constitutes such an act. While earlier scholars provide strict interpretations based on tradition and scriptural evidence, there is also recognition of the role that social context and custom play in defining the boundaries of what is considered impermissible.

Reasons for the Prohibition of Music (Ghina) from the Perspective of Ayatollah Muhaddith al-Ardabili

Ayatollah Muhaddith al-Ardabili provides several reasons for the prohibition of music, drawn from both narrations and scholarly consensus. His discussion highlights the opinions of previous scholars on the matter, as well as relevant hadiths that detail the ruling on music.

Narrations Supporting the Prohibition of Music

One of the foundational texts presented by Ayatollah Muhaddith al-Ardabili is the narration from Ibrahim ibn Abi al-Bilad, who recounts the will of Isḥaq ibn ʿUmar at the time of his death, regarding his slaves who were singers. The will stated that they should be sold, and the proceeds should be delivered to Imam Ali (as). The narration states:
“I sold the singers for three hundred thousand dirhams and delivered the proceeds to him. I told him: ‘A certain person named Isḥaq ibn ʿUmar bequeathed that his singers should be sold, and I have sold them. The proceeds amount to three hundred thousand dirhams.’ He replied: ‘I have no need for it. This is unlawful (saḥt); teaching them is disbelief, listening to them is hypocrisy, and the price of their performance is unlawful.'”
Furthermore, there are other narrations from Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (as) that emphasize the prohibition of buying, selling, and listening to music. Imam al-Sadiq (as) is reported to have said:
“Buying and selling singing women is forbidden, their teaching is disbelief, and listening to them is hypocrisy.”

Criticism of the Concept of Consensus

However, Ayatollah Muhaddith al-Ardabili notes that while there is a consensus among many scholars regarding the prohibition of music, he has not encountered a narration with a sound and explicit chain of transmission that unequivocally states the prohibition of music. He suggests that the widespread consensus and numerous reports serve as sufficient evidence. He writes:
“However, I have not seen a correct, explicit narration that indicates the prohibition of music. Perhaps the widespread consensus is sufficient, along with the many reports and the consensus on the prohibition of music. To exclude a specific type of music from this prohibition, we would need evidence. It could be said that the reports on the prohibition of music are not conclusive evidence, and rather, the consensus and widespread acceptance of its prohibition should be relied upon.”

Critique of Consensus

A point of contention with the concept of consensus is that, even if consensus on the prohibition of music existed, it lacks clarity in terms of its exact meaning. The concept of consensus, in this context, remains ambiguous. Thus, it is not necessarily clear that the prohibition applies universally. Ayatollah Muhaddith al-Ardabili argues that consensus is only binding when a general rule is established, and then specific exceptions are identified. In this case, music, being an intellectual matter, is likened to the concept of trade. The prohibition of usury (riba), for example, is seen as an exception to the general permissibility of trade. If usury were not prohibited, we would not need to address its prohibition.

In the matter of music, the prohibition, while widely acknowledged, does not necessarily extend to all forms of music. Thus, one could argue that we should revert to the principle of permissibility (ibāḥah) and treat music as generally permissible unless there is specific evidence to the contrary. This principle should be upheld, and caution should be exercised in avoiding music.

Exemptions for Music

Ayatollah Muhaddith al-Ardabili also discusses cases where music may be permitted. He refers to the practice of singing at weddings, provided the lyrics do not involve lies or other prohibited actions. He acknowledges that the celebration of weddings and singing for such occasions may not necessarily involve unlawful music if the content is free from falsehood and inappropriate behaviour.

He also highlights the case of mourning and the recitation of elegies for the martyrs, especially for Imam Hussein (as), as a potential exception. He argues that the performance of elegies can be understood as an exception if it is done in a respectful, sorrowful manner without leading to inappropriate entertainment or frivolity.

Music in the Context of Mourning for Imam Hussein (as)

In his discussion of the mourning rituals for Imam Hussein (as), Ayatollah Muhaddith al-Ardabili points out that music used in mourning (such as elegy singing) can be different from music that leads to excessive joy and indulgence. Mourning for Imam Hussein (as) should primarily evoke sadness and grief, rather than any form of joy or revelry.

He writes:
“Music that is associated with mourning does not invoke the same emotions as other forms of music. It is sorrowful, not celebratory. This distinguishes it from music that is generally prohibited. Most cases of mourning are exempt from the prohibition of music, as they aim to evoke sorrow rather than joy.”

Conclusion: The Prohibition of Music and Its Exceptions

In conclusion, Ayatollah Muhaddith al-Ardabili adheres to a cautious approach regarding the prohibition of music, relying on a combination of consensus, reports, and the principle of permissibility. However, he also recognises certain exceptions, particularly in the context of mourning and religious gatherings. He maintains that the essence of music that induces excessive joy or is linked with frivolous behaviour is prohibited, while music that serves to evoke sorrow in a mournful context may be permissible.

Moreover, Ayatollah Muhaddith al-Ardabili’s perspective emphasises that music should not be categorically condemned without careful consideration of context, intent, and content. He also stresses the importance of adhering to the original principles of permissibility while exercising caution in practices that may lead to prohibited behaviours.

The License for Teaching the Science of Music

The late Shaykh Baha’i, having had a high level of political insight, states:

“علم الموسيقي علم يعرف منه النغم والايقاعات، وأحوالها، وكيفيّة تأليف اللحون والمتّخذات والآلات الموسيقاريّة، ولا منع شرعآ من تعليم هذا العلم، وكثيرآ من الفقهاء كان مبرّزآ فيه. نعم الشريعة المطهّرة على السادع بها أفضل السّلام منعه من عمله والكتب المصنّفة في ما تفيد أمورآ علميّة فقط”.

Music is a science that involves the understanding of melodies, rhythms, their characteristics, the ways of composing melodies, and the different musical instruments. There is no religious prohibition against teaching this knowledge, and many jurists were experts in it. However, Islamic law prohibits its practical application and the books written on this subject primarily serve scientific purposes.

Shaykh Baha’i claims that many jurists were well-versed in music, yet he refrains from engaging in contentious debates about it. He permits learning music as a knowledge, but deems its practical application (i.e., playing music) to be forbidden. However, this view is problematic, as a musician who wishes to learn an instrument, such as the accordion or the ney (flute), must play the instrument to learn it, just as a singer who wants to master specific modes (such as Chahargah, Segah, Shushtari, Hijaz, or Abu Atta) must sing to learn. Music is not purely theoretical; it also has practical components that cannot be overlooked. Thus, this statement by Shaykh Baha’i may either be a form of evasion from confronting the truth or suggests his lack of engagement with the practical aspects of music in his era.

Shaykh Baha’i aims to silence his critics by asserting that one cannot become a musician without playing or singing. It is also noteworthy that the prominent scholars he refers to did not learn music through occult sciences, divination, or astrological instruments, but through direct engagement with sound and melody, i.e., they sang and played instruments to become musicians. As previously mentioned, one does not become a musician with a single practice session; rather, it requires extensive practice to learn and master a musical mode.

The Late Muhaddith Sabzevari

(Mawlā Muhammad Baqir bin Muhammad Momin Sabzevari, 1017–1090 AH)

The Permissibility of Music

After Shaykh Baha’i, the first jurist to rule in favor of the permissibility of music was the late Muhaddith Sabzevari. This enlightened scholar, who was a philosopher and had a close relationship with Mulla Mohsen Fayz Kashani, also held the position of Imam of Friday prayers in the Safavid capital, Isfahan. In his esteemed jurisprudential work Kifayat al-Faqh, later known as Kifayat al-Ahkam, Sabzevari discusses the issue of music and its ruling. He also wrote a separate treatise on the permissibility of music, which was not accepted by the scholarly community of his time, dominated by the Akhbari school. Political pressure led him to write a treatise declaring music as forbidden, publicly retracting his earlier opinion. The analytical treatise of Sabzevari, however, has not reached us. Initially, we present his views from Kifayat al-Ahkam, followed by some points from his treatise that were criticized in other scholarly writings.

Accompanying Music with Echoing and Enthralment

In his discussions, Muhaddith Sabzevari identifies different interpretations of the term “ghina” (music/singing) and states:

“Among the definitions of ghina, there are those who describe it as the voice that contains echoing and a joyful quality, while others simply refer to echoing, and still others to the musical quality of the voice without mentioning echoing. Some of the commoners have interpreted it as the improvement of the voice. According to some, it is the prolongation of the voice. It seems that the improvement of the voice is almost always accompanied by echoing and joy.”

Sabzevari points out the different ways in which scholars have defined “ghina.” Some say it is a voice with echoing and joy, others that it is simply a voice with echoing, and others that it is simply an improved voice.

Consensus on the Prohibition of Music

“There is no dispute among us regarding the general prohibition of music, and the reports supporting this prohibition are numerous. However, some reports indicate that music is permissible, even recommended, in certain cases, such as in the recitation of the Quran, based on narrations that encourage the beautification of the voice and the addition of emotion in reciting the Quran.”

There is consensus among Shi’a scholars on the general prohibition of music, even in the case of Quranic recitation, as affirmed by Muhaddith al-Hilli and others. However, there are conflicting reports suggesting the permissibility of music, especially in the context of Quranic recitation, where the beautification of the voice and emotional delivery are encouraged. This is seen in the context of narrations that recommend improving the voice in the recitation of the Quran, suggesting that music may not be entirely prohibited when it serves to enhance the emotional expression of the recitation.

The Narrations Regarding the Permissibility of Music in the Quran

Sabzevari then presents narrations supporting the permissibility of music in the context of the Quran, with some examples being:

“From Sam’ah, from one of our companions, from Abu Ja’far (a.s.) said: We came to visit him, and when we were in the hallway, we heard a beautiful recitation in Syriac, so beautiful that it made some of us cry. When we entered, there was no one there except for him.”

Sabzevari argues that these narrations suggest the possibility of a certain type of music being permissible, particularly in the context of emotional Quranic recitation, where the voice is used to convey deep emotion and is not linked to frivolity or sin.

Conclusion

The views presented by Sabzevari offer a nuanced perspective on music, recognizing that while music may be inherently permissible, its application in different contexts—especially in the context of entertainment or frivolous behavior—may render it forbidden. His contributions also emphasize the role of context and intent in determining whether music is permissible, pointing out that when music accompanies negative behaviors such as indulgence in pleasure, it becomes problematic. Therefore, his stance is not entirely a blanket approval of music, but rather a distinction between types of music and their purposes.

Criticism of the Division of Music into “For Fun” and “Non-For Fun”

The question that arises here is whether music has two categories: one as forbidden “fun and immoral” music and the other as permissible music, or whether music itself is a singular concept, and sinful individuals have corrupted it. This is analogous to the case of attending a wine party, where it is the presence of wine that makes it prohibited, not the act of gathering itself.

In any case, music, which is essentially a beautiful sound, is not inherently forbidden, even though it may be pleasurable, delightful, or melodious. This is because neither pleasure nor melody are inherently prohibited in our sources. Scholars have declared music unlawful not by nature but due to the components of music being linked with it. The narrations such as “the worst of voices is music” seem to have a general applicability; however, since these are ambiguous, they should not be taken as universally applicable but rather interpreted in specific contexts. Therefore, there is no proof that music, in and of itself, is forbidden. A jurist must interpret religious law, not make arbitrary decisions in place of it.

Arguments Supporting the Permissibility of Music

In support of his opinion, the esteemed jurist cites the following narrations, although he introduces the second interpretation with the phrase “it is not far-fetched,” indicating some doubt in his position. Additionally, he qualifies the phrase “a stimulant for spiritual longing to the celestial realm” as “worthy of consideration,” reflecting his cautious stance on this matter:

“He also supports his view with a narration from Abu Basir in which it is stated: ‘There is no harm in the fee of a singer who performs at weddings, provided that men do not enter; the prohibition comes from the presence of men, suggesting that the forbidden aspect of music is related to certain immoral circumstances like distraction and other vices.'”

“He also relies on the narration from Abdullah ibn Sinan, which begins with the instruction to recite the Qur’an using the melodic tunes of the Arabs, followed by a prohibition on reciting it in the tunes of the immoral, and then a censure of those who imitate the music of singers.”

“Moreover, in several narrations, it is implied that a pleasant voice is beloved by God. Several of these texts suggest that it is the ‘leisurely’ music, which detracts from spiritual engagement and reminds people of worldly pleasures, that is problematic.”

The issue here lies in the contradiction between the prohibitions of music and the numerous, widely accepted texts on the virtues of reading the Qur’an and engaging in supplications. These narrations are general in language, abundant in number, and consistent with the foundational principle of permissibility. Hence, there is no doubt regarding the prohibition of music for the sake of indulgence, especially when combined with instruments of entertainment.

Therefore, if there is consensus on the prohibition of other forms, this should be followed; otherwise, its status remains based on its original permissibility, and the path of caution is clear.

Music of Camel Drivers and Women at Weddings

The consensus among scholars is to make an exception for the “haddā” (a type of music performed during the driving of camels), which seems to fall outside the scope of the prohibitions on music. I know of no justification for this exception, except that it may not fall under the prohibitive evidence.

There is also disagreement regarding women singing at weddings, provided they do not engage in vain speech, entertain instruments of amusement, or allow their voices to be heard by foreign men. Some scholars, such as the two Shaykhs (al-Tusi and al-Hilli), have permitted this, while others, like the judge (al-Qadi) and some others like Ibn Idris and al-‘Allama, have declared it forbidden, relying on general narrations. The correct approach would be to reconcile these narrations by adopting the first opinion.

Some have even made an exception for mourning for Imam Husayn (a.s.), a stance which is not without reason.

Many reliable narrations indicate the prohibition of buying and selling singing slaves and teaching them to sing. However, in contrast, there is the narration from Ali ibn al-Husayn and a narration from Abdullah ibn al-Husayn al-Dinouri, where Imam al-Ridha (a.s.) stated that buying a singer or a slave who sings for the sake of earning a livelihood is permissible.

Women’s Singing at Weddings

Maqbul al-Sabzawari considers it permissible for women to sing at weddings. However, he does not explicitly discuss the issue of buying and selling singing slaves. Upon examining the words of the late jurist, it becomes clear that initially, based on the popular legal opinion, he adopts a general prohibition of music, which he states is due to the strength of narrations and consensus on this issue. However, he later emphasizes narrations that allow, or even recommend, the recitation of the Qur’an in pleasant tunes, arguing that these are more powerful. He is one of the first scholars to suggest that music may not be inherently forbidden and that its prohibition may be due to incidental factors. The reconciliation of these narrations is elaborated upon in the third volume of this work, and there is no need to repeat it here.

Analysis of the Prohibition of Music

The phrase “we have elaborated on this in some of our treatises” refers to his independent treatise titled “A Treatise on the Analysis of Music”, which is said to be preserved in the University of Tehran Library. However, the effort he expended in writing it has not been transmitted to us. His statements in the book Kifayat al-Ahkam do not fully reflect the views of that treatise, and while this book had a significant impact on the scholarly community of its time, the passages cited here do not carry that same weight. It is also said that when faced with opposition from other scholars, Sabzawari withdrew all copies of his treatise. It is likely that Shaykh Ansari saw this work.

The Influence of Mirfendereski on Sabzawari

Sabzawari had a courageous spirit, likely influenced by his mentor, Mirfendereski, one of the most courageous scholars of his time. Shah Abbas, among other scholars, feared Mirfendereski more than anyone else, and figures like Mirdamad or Shaykh Baha’i did not enjoy such respect. Mirfendereski was known for his wit, and if the occasion arose, he would publicly embarrass the Shah. His role in the film depicting the life of Mulla Sadra was poorly portrayed, missing the full scope of his character. Mirfendereski was a comprehensive, courageous, and valiant man, who was known for mingling freely with people, unafraid to walk in the streets or cafes, even critiquing those scholars who distanced themselves from the people. Sabzawari, as a student of such a mentor, could not have been unaffected by his guidance.

The Reversal of the Analytical Treatise

Sabzawari held an influential position and had considerable authority, yet when he saw the turmoil caused by his treatise, he wisely withdrew and collected all copies of it. In doing so, he acted with the utmost prudence to protect the unity of the Islamic community, even at the expense of his own views. This decision was made to avoid any harm to the Shia community, particularly during the early stages of the Safavid state’s consolidation. Such factors restricted the freedom of action of Shia jurists, a situation that was much more intense during the time of the infallible Imams (a.s.), which could not be compared to the era of Sabzawari, when the Shia were more politically empowered.

The outcome of such rigid thinking is that numerous distortions have afflicted the faith, and unless these distortions are removed, the religion becomes so difficult and rebellious that it drives people away, especially in an age where science progresses rapidly, or in the face of anti-religious cultural attacks. Today, some contemporary scholars persist in declaring music and all forms of music as prohibited, while people freely enjoy all kinds of music without considering these legal opinions. Such an approach does not align with the true spirit of religious practice or religious leadership, nor is it consistent with the practical realities of guiding the people.

The Taqiyyah and Coercion in the Prohibition of Music

The history of jurisprudence and the authoritarian conditions in which Shia scholars lived have often compelled them to conceal their real opinions or change them, resulting in works that do not reflect their true views. When reading Sabzawari’s treatise on the prohibition of music, it is clear that the arguments presented are not genuinely his but are written out of caution or due to political pressures. Those who rely on these texts, assuming they are Sabzawari’s true intentions, may be mistaken. This issue is common in many texts where scholars have tried to bridge differences between Shia and Sunni positions.

The Relationship Between the Beauty of Sound and Singing

The late Sabzawari says:

It is possible that the intended meaning of the “beauty of sound” is not the praise of singing, but rather the praise of qualities such as the eloquence of speech; this quality applies to individuals who are eloquent speakers and preachers, not to singers and reciters.

However, he clarifies that this statement is not his own opinion but rather the view of someone who holds such an interpretation. He also asserts that there is no need to reconcile the narrations, as the arguments for the prohibition of singing do not make singing unlawful simply because it is singing, and the permissibility of singing does not require any further justification or evidence.

The Effect of Voice and Its Impact

“Regarding the second narration, a similar interpretation could be that the voice of the Imam 7 (in the narration) may serve as a form of warning, reminder, and emotional expression that brings about a spiritual state. A person in distress, calling out in supplication and grief, would naturally have a sorrowful voice, which arouses compassion and tears. This would evoke sorrow and deep sighing. The beauty of the voice is attributed not to its melodic quality but to its ability to inspire these emotions. However, the narration itself is weak because it involves a chain of narrators like Sahl ibn Ziyad, whose weakness is well-known, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Shamun, who was a deviant and unreliable narrator, according to sources like al-Najashi.”

In the narration cited, it is clear that the discussion is not about singing itself, but about the beauty of the sound. Sabzawari, however, criticizes such narrations for their weak chain of transmission and attributes the “beauty” of the voice to the sorrowful nature of the voices of the Imams, explaining it in terms of the soulful recitation that is marked by grief rather than melodic beauty. A person in anguish, in times of supplication, may naturally develop a sorrowful voice. This distinction emphasizes that the beauty of the voice or sound is not inherently tied to singing as entertainment.

The “Beautiful Voice” of Imam Ali ibn Husayn (a.s.)

“An individual asked Imam Ali ibn Husayn (a.s.) about buying a slave girl with a beautiful voice. The Imam replied: ‘What harm would it be if she reminded you of Paradise?'”

This narration is significant as it indicates that a beautiful voice, when it serves to remind someone of spiritual matters, such as the afterlife, is not problematic. The Imam’s response underscores that the beauty of a voice is permissible as long as it serves to inspire good, particularly spiritual reminders, such as the memory of Paradise. It is important to note that while a beautiful voice may naturally have the ability to evoke positive emotions, the Imam’s response does not justify singing as an entertainment or indulgence. Instead, it suggests that if the voice leads one toward spiritual reflection, it is acceptable.

Sabzawari’s Perspective on the Narrations

Sabzawari, however, does not directly claim that singing itself is inherently permissible, and he suggests that this interpretation of the voice is grounded in an understanding of the broader context of the narration, which may have been influenced by the political climate of the time. He mentions that such narrations may have been transmitted under the influence of Taqiyyah (precautionary concealment of belief), given the ruling powers of the Umayyads and Abbasids, who were known to support the public performance of music and singing.

The Role of Music and Sound in Society

Sabzawari further explains that the admiration of beautiful voices is natural, and such voices can evoke memories of Paradise or provide spiritual comfort. He argues that there is no inherent issue with enjoying a beautiful voice, as long as it does not lead to excess or sin. Music and voice, when balanced with knowledge and moderation, can serve as a source of emotional and spiritual benefit.

Sabzawari’s critique of those who excessively suppress the appreciation of voice and sound stems from his belief that such actions can stifle creativity and cause frustration within society. He warns against the dangers of creating a repressed environment where individuals are denied natural pleasures, such as listening to a beautiful voice, which can have a positive impact on mental and emotional well-being.

In contemporary society, for example, the practice of hiring women with pleasant voices for customer service roles highlights the positive effects that beautiful voices can have on people’s emotions and experiences. Such practices are based on the understanding that a gentle and soothing voice can have a calming and inviting effect.

The Balance Between Halal and Haram in Sound

The key point that Sabzawari emphasizes is the importance of defining clear boundaries for what is permissible (halal) and impermissible (haram) in the use of voice and sound. The role of scholars, he argues, is to guide the community by establishing what is morally and legally acceptable while ensuring that freedom of expression is not unduly restricted.

Sabzawari’s approach is to acknowledge the natural human attraction to beautiful sounds and voices while maintaining that these should be used in moderation and for purposes that align with spiritual and moral values. In this way, the enjoyment of music and sound can be harmonized with religious teachings, allowing for emotional and spiritual enrichment without crossing into indulgence or sin.

The Meaning and Implications of the Narration Regarding the Beautiful Voice and the Concept of Taqiyyah

The narration in question does not clearly imply that the beautiful voice refers specifically to singing. The narrator asks about a slave girl with a beautiful voice, and the response from Imam Ali ibn Husayn (peace be upon him) is, “What harm is there if you purchase her, as long as she reminds you of Paradise?” This suggests that the beautiful voice, in this context, has the effect of invoking thoughts of the afterlife and spiritual reflection, not necessarily singing in the sense of entertainment or worldly pleasure. Such a slave girl would naturally possess both beauty and a pleasant voice, and as long as her role does not involve haram (forbidden) activities, there is no objection to owning or listening to her.

The Imam sets the condition for permissibility based on whether the person or the voice reminds the listener of Paradise. Clearly, with such a condition, the association with Paradise would involve an elevated sense of purity and spirituality, not indulgence in worldly desires such as singing or entertainment that leads one away from the remembrance of God. Furthermore, those with beautiful voices, due to their natural talent, may also possess the ability to sing, yet the emphasis here is that they maintain self-restraint and do not indulge in forbidden acts such as engaging in illicit singing (ghina). Their voices, much like their outward beauty, should be a source of inspiration and reflection on the Divine.

Taqiyyah and its Role in the Interpretation of Narrations

Some scholars, such as Shaykh Sabzevari, interpret the Imam’s response in the context of taqiyyah (dissimulation), suggesting that the statement might have been made due to political and social pressure. Under the rule of the Umayyads and Abbasids, where the practice of listening to music and entertainment was widespread, the Imam might have made this statement under duress, to avoid unnecessary conflict. In this view, the Imam’s statement would be a way of maintaining peace without outright rejecting the cultural norms of the time.

Misinterpretation and the Suppression of Natural Human Tendencies

Other scholars, however, suggest that this narration does not support the view that beautiful voices are inherently forbidden or harmful. The emotional and psychological effects of a beautiful voice are profound, and this can be used to explain why voices that are pleasant or harmonious, even without involving any illicit activity, have a positive effect on people. Just as physical beauty can inspire thoughts of the Divine, so can a beautiful voice.

To suppress natural inclinations, such as the appreciation of beauty in voices, is seen as harmful and unnatural. This suppression creates unnecessary frustration within the community, leading to emotional repression and stifling of creativity. In modern society, for example, the importance of sound, beauty, and pleasant interactions is recognized in psychological treatments, where soft and harmonious voices are used in therapeutic settings to improve emotional well-being.

The Importance of Balancing Sound in Society

In modern times, many businesses, including retail stores, hire individuals, particularly women, because their voices and demeanor tend to be more calming and effective at attracting customers. This is not just about external beauty, but also the pleasant sound of their voice, which naturally soothes and attracts people. A wise religious authority should be able to distinguish between what is permissible and what is impermissible, understanding the importance of balancing the use of such natural traits in a way that aligns with Islamic guidelines.

In sum, while the appreciation of beauty in voice is a natural human tendency, it is essential for scholars and leaders to differentiate between permissible and impermissible practices, ensuring that society benefits from these natural inclinations in a way that maintains balance and spiritual integrity.

The Sunni Objection to the Permissibility of Music

In this treatise, the late Sabzawari presents the arguments of the Sunni scholars, particularly Al-Ghazali, regarding the permissibility of music. Of course, we maintain that permissibility is the original and overriding principle unless there are sufficient and compelling grounds to establish the prohibition of music – the essence of music itself.

Sabzawari cites the famous account involving Aisha and the reports of individuals whose actions do not serve as legal proof for us, including Abdullah ibn Ja’far, Ibn Zubayr, and Mughira ibn Shu’ba. He also refers to the analogies presented by Al-Ghazali, who argues that music is a sound that is pleasant, rhythmic, meaningful, and stirring to the heart. By ‘rhythmic,’ he refers to a balance inherent in both the beginning and the end of the sound.

“Those who permitted music from the general body of scholars have cited weak arguments:

Among them: the famous story of Aisha, and similar reports from others.

Among them is the narration of the actions of individuals whose deeds hold no legal weight, such as Abdullah ibn Ja’far, Ibn Zubayr, Muawiya, and Mughira ibn Shu’ba, and its widespread occurrence among the people of Hijaz and Medina, like Abu Marwan al-Qadi and Ata’. They also cite the opinions of figures like Junayd, Sari al-Saqati, Dhul-Nun, and others such as Yahya ibn Mu’adh and al-Muhasibi, as well as Ibn Mujahid, who said that no invitation should be rejected if it involves music. In summary, this was narrated from a number of others among their peers.

Among them is reliance on analogies, as mentioned by Al-Ghazali. In essence, he argues: ‘Music is a pleasant, rhythmic, meaningful sound that stirs the heart.’ By ‘rhythmic,’ he means that it has a balance at both its beginning and end.

The prohibition of music, according to him, is not because it is pleasant or rhythmic, since this characteristic is also found in the sounds of birds. The song of nightingales and doves, for example, is both pleasant and rhythmic but not forbidden. Thus, the combination of these attributes does not result in prohibition.

Additionally, some rely on fabricated dreams and falsehoods, such as the stories of Al-Khidr and others, which are simply lies that the intellect should not concern itself with. These are often propagated among the common folk and the intellectually weak. It is clear that the arguments based on these reports are without merit and do not require further elaboration.”

Al-Ghazali argues that the prohibition of music is not due to its pleasantness or rhythm, as such qualities are found in the sounds of birds. This reasoning is valid in terms of sound, but when it comes to determining the prohibition of any matter, it must be in accordance with the law of Shari’ah. Even though human intellect can perceive certain benefits, it does not encompass all aspects, particularly when those aspects are governed by divine law.

The mention of such arguments by the Sunni scholars indicates that the late Sabzawari is excessively attempting to present proofs for prohibition, even more so than those who affirm its prohibition, thereby overstating the issue.

Following the presentation of Sunni scholars’ arguments, Sabzawari makes a remark that is not fitting for a scholar of his stature, as it may verge on accusations:

“Among them is reliance on fabricated dreams and falsehoods, and the narration of permissibility and encouragement from Al-Khidr and similar lies that the intellect should not engage with.”

The claim of the permissibility of music from figures like Al-Khidr is, according to Sabzawari, simply a lie and lacks any intellectual merit. Those who spread such views aim to promote the goodness of music among the common people and the intellectually feeble. The weakness of these arguments is apparent and does not need further explanation.

Al-Ghazali’s Viewpoint

Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) was one of the prominent scholars of Sunni Islam. His views significantly influenced later scholars, including Al-Fayz. Both Al-Fayz and Sabzawari shared similar scholarly profiles and influenced each other’s thoughts. Al-Fayz sought to reinterpret and revive Al-Ghazali’s Ihya’ Ulum al-Din according to Shiite cultural norms, renaming it Mahajat al-Bayda.

Al-Ghazali’s Ihya’ Ulum al-Din is primarily an ethical work based on Sunni theological perspectives.

The Disparagement of Music

Al-Ghazali writes:

“Know that listening (sama’) is the beginning of spiritual progress and produces a state in the heart… The Shafi’i scholars state in the book Adab al-Qada’ that music is a detestable and frivolous pastime, and the one who listens excessively to it is foolish, and their testimony is not accepted.”

Al-Ghazali presents the viewpoint of Shafi’i scholars, noting that music is a frivolous and detestable pursuit. He adds that excessive engagement with it makes a person foolish, diminishing their credibility in legal matters.

Al-Ghazali’s citation of the Shafi’i scholars underscores the critical idea that excessive indulgence in music is a sign of moral and intellectual weakness, which has implications for one’s legal and social standing. This critique aligns with concerns regarding the detrimental effects of overindulgence in worldly pleasures on spiritual development.

The Actions of the Companions

Al-Qadi Abu al-Tayyib states that listening to music from women who are not mahram (permissible for marriage) is not permissible according to the Shafi’i scholars, whether they are visible or behind a veil, free or enslaved. He cites Imam al-Shafi’i as saying: “The owner of a female slave who gathers people to listen to her music is foolish, and their testimony is invalid.”

Similarly, Imam Malik condemned music and said that if someone buys a female slave and finds her to be a singer, they may return her.

The Permissibility of Music According to Some Sunni Scholars

Abu Talib al-Makki reports that listening to music was permitted by many scholars, including Abdullah ibn Ja’far, Ibn Zubayr, Mughira ibn Shu’ba, and Muawiya. He mentions that the people of Hijaz, particularly in Mecca, would listen to music during the best days of the year, such as during the days of Tashriq, and that the people of Medina maintained this practice until his time.

It was reported that figures such as Junayd, Sari al-Saqati, and Dhul-Nun also listened to music. When questioned about the permissibility of music, Al-Hasan ibn Salim responded: “How can I deny it when those greater than me, such as Abdullah ibn Ja’far, engaged in it?”

Some scholars even report seeing Al-Khidr in a dream, who, when asked about music, replied: “There is nothing wrong with it, but it should begin and end with the Qur’an.”

The Reliance on Dreams

It is reported by Mamsad al-Dinwari that he saw the Prophet in a dream and asked him about music. The Prophet responded: “I do not object to it, but tell them to begin with the Qur’an and end with the Qur’an.”

These types of dream reports do not hold any legal weight in Islamic jurisprudence. According to our perspective, such dreams could have been a result of the influence of one’s subconscious or, in some cases, even of satanic nature.

In our view, the evidence against music must be grounded in clear legal proofs from the Qur’an and Sunnah. Without these, the permissibility of music stands as the default position.

Analogy and Istihsan (Juristic Preference)

Al-Ghazali argues that both text and analogy support the permissibility of music. The analogy he provides is based on the idea that music consists of pleasant, rhythmic, and meaningful sounds, which should not be prohibited merely due to their pleasant nature. He maintains that the human senses experience pleasure through various means, including hearing, sight, and taste, and that music is no different in this regard.

The text, according to Al-Ghazali, affirms the permissibility of pleasant sounds as a blessing from God, citing the Qur’anic verse: “God increases in creation what He wills,” and suggesting that this refers to the gift of beautiful sounds. The Prophet himself is reported to have said: “God listens more intently to the voice of a man reciting the Qur’an beautifully than to the voice of a singer.”

Critique of Al-Ghazali’s Analogy

While Al-Ghazali’s analogy might seem appealing, it does not hold up under Islamic jurisprudence. In our tradition, analogy (qiyas) can only be applied if the cause of prohibition is clearly established in the texts. Without such an explicit prohibition, the enjoyment of music, by default, is permissible.

Al-Ghazali’s arguments, though rooted in sound reasoning, fail to consider the primary sources of Islamic law – the Qur’an and Sunnah. Hence, in our view, the permissibility of music can only be affirmed when no evidence of prohibition exists. The mere natural pleasure derived from sound is insufficient to make a sound ruling on the matter.

This translation conveys the academic nature of the text while maintaining clarity and coherence in British English academic style. Let me know if you need further adjustments!

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

The Sunni Objection to the Permissibility of Music

“Those who permitted music from the general body of scholars have cited weak arguments:

Among them: the famous story of Aisha, and similar reports from others.

Following the presentation of Sunni scholars’ arguments, Sabzawari makes a remark that is not fitting for a scholar of his stature, as it may verge on accusations:

“Among them is reliance on fabricated dreams and falsehoods, and the narration of permissibility and encouragement from Al-Khidr and similar lies that the intellect should not engage with.”

Al-Ghazali’s Viewpoint

Al-Ghazali’s Ihya’ Ulum al-Din is primarily an ethical work based on Sunni theological perspectives.

The Disparagement of Music

Al-Ghazali writes:

The Actions of the Companions

Similarly, Imam Malik condemned music and said that if someone buys a female slave and finds her to be a singer, they may return her.

The Permissibility of Music According to Some Sunni Scholars

Some scholars even report seeing Al-Khidr in a dream, who, when asked about music, replied: “There is nothing wrong with it, but it should begin and end with the Qur’an.”

The Reliance on Dreams

In our view, the evidence against music must be grounded in clear legal proofs from the Qur’an and Sunnah. Without these, the permissibility of music stands as the default position.

Analogy and Istihsan (Juristic Preference)

Critique of Al-Ghazali’s Analogy

Fayz Kashani:

(Muhammad Mohsin Fayz Kashani, 1007–1091 AH)

Fayz Kashani was one of the scholars who did not follow the general consensus of Islamic jurists regarding the issue of music and singing. Like the late scholar, al-Muhaqqiq al-Sabzwari, he considered the practice of singing (ghina) to be permissible.

The Permissibility of Singing:

Although Fayz Kashani was not an expert in music, he had studied under prominent philosophers for an extended period. This background allowed him to engage thoughtfully in discussions about music and singing, particularly in terms of understanding their subject matter.

Fayz begins the discussion on this topic not by declaring the prohibition of singing, but by presenting it under a different title compared to other jurists. He states: “The chapter on earning through singers and purchasing them, and what has been narrated regarding singing.” He then cites various hadiths on this matter, and concludes by saying:

“From this, it can be inferred that prolonging and modulating the voice, and similar actions, are not considered singing (ghina), or are not prohibited, as evidenced by the narrations in the book of prayer about reciting the Quran with a beautiful voice.”

Fayz’s position suggests that the prohibition of singing and related matters (such as the payment for singers, teaching singing, listening to it, and buying and selling singers) is specifically tied to the social practices during the time of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, when men would enter the presence of women singers, engaging in conversations full of falsehoods and entertaining themselves with musical instruments like flutes and tambourines.

Considering Political Influence on Musical Context:

Fayz Kashani offers a significant critique regarding the interpretation of hadiths concerning the prohibition of singing. He asserts that during the time these narrations were made, the Muslim community lacked public gatherings and rulers who upheld cultural values. As a result, the prohibitions mentioned in these hadiths were often tied to the corrupt practices of the Umayyads and Abbasids, rather than a blanket condemnation of music and singing in general.

However, Fayz also emphasizes that the use of musical instruments is problematic when they are predominantly used in sinful and corrupt activities. If they are linked with the remembrance of Allah or heavenly blessings, they are deemed permissible. This is in line with his interpretation of the narration about men entering the homes of women singers, which he considers an example of a sinful practice.

Fayz also refers to a passage from the book Al-Istibsar (a Shiite jurisprudential text) and writes:

“The correct understanding of these narrations is that the permissibility of singing depends on whether no falsehood is spoken, no musical instruments are played, and no immoral acts are involved.”

The Necessity of Avoiding Falsehood in Singing:

What is important for Shaykh Tusi (a prominent jurist) is that singing should be free from falsehood, vulgarity, or similar corrupt elements. In this case, there is no distinction between wedding ceremonies and other gatherings, as the prohibition applies in both contexts unless there is a specific justification that differentiates them based on certain essential criteria.

Fayz Kashani also maintains that certain behaviors are unbefitting for those with noble character, even if they are considered permissible. He mentions:

“Some actions are inappropriate for those of noble character, even if they are permissible.”

While Fayz allows the permissibility of singing, he also acknowledges that it is not suitable for everyone, especially for those with high social status or distinguished moral character.

The Need for Proportionality in Music:

Fayz Kashani stresses that it is inappropriate for those of noble character to engage in certain musical activities. He uses the saying:

“Whoever listens to a speaker has in fact worshipped them.”

This highlights his view that listening to certain types of music or speeches may lead one to idolize them. He also refers to a narration by Imam Baqir (AS), who said:

“When Allah separates the truth from falsehood, where does singing stand?”

Fayz thus implies that singing is associated with falsehood, and he distinguishes between permissible and impermissible forms of music, noting that some may fall into the category of mubah (permissible) while others might be makruh (disliked) or haram (forbidden).

Categorizing Singing as Right or Wrong:

Fayz Kashani categorizes singing into two types: lawful and unlawful. He asserts that it is permissible to sing about topics like the paradise, hell, the remembrance of Allah, and the description of His blessings. Singing that encourages devotion, remembrance, and piety is considered to be in the realm of permissible singing.

“It is permissible to listen to songs that mention paradise, hell, and motivate one towards good deeds, as they are ultimately a form of the remembrance of Allah.”

Thus, Fayz Kashani clearly distinguishes between types of singing based on their content and context. He recognizes that singing can be both a tool for spiritual elevation and a means for corruption, depending on its purpose and the environment in which it occurs.

Permissibility of Some Forms of Singing:

Fayz Kashani does not consider all forms of singing to be inherently forbidden. He explicitly states that singing which evokes the remembrance of Allah, speaks of the blessings of the hereafter, and encourages piety is allowed, while singing that promotes falsehood or serves as a tool for distraction from higher purposes is prohibited.

The Need for Tailored Jurisprudence in Music and Singing:

Fayz Kashani’s views demonstrate a nuanced understanding of music and singing, acknowledging that rulings must be contextual. He suggests that the permissibility or prohibition of music and singing cannot be generalized, and that the impact of these activities varies depending on the individual. He draws an analogy to medical prescriptions, suggesting that just as different treatments are prescribed for different patients, so too should musical and auditory experiences be tailored to an individual’s character and spiritual condition.

In summary, Fayz Kashani presents a sophisticated perspective on music and singing, emphasizing that these activities should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on their content, context, and the individual involved.

Shaykh Ali Amili:

(Shaykh Ali bin Muhammad bin Hassan bin Zayn al-Din Jibai Amili, 1013–1104 AH)

(Note: The continuation of the discussion would proceed with the analysis of Shaykh Ali Amili’s views.)

A Response to the Analytical Treatise

The late Shaykh Ali Amili was a distinguished scholar and a researcher of the highest calibre, notably following in the footsteps of the martyr Shaheed Thani. He composed the treatise “Tanbeeh al-Ghafileen wa Tadhkeer al-Aaqileen” with the aim of countering the analytical treatise of the late Muhammad Baqir Sabzevari. This treatise, similar to the Fatwa on the prohibition of music by Sabzevari, can be regarded not as a scientific work, but as a political one. In both of these works, one finds little to no scientific reasoning. Of course, Shaykh Ali did not extend the scope of the prohibition as far as Sabzevari did, who had more vigorously asserted the prohibition of music, employing stronger arguments in his stance. It seems that Shaykh Ali was writing more of a Tawbah (repentance) letter rather than a scholarly or juridical treatise.

Shaykh Ali Amili did not have access to a wide array of narrations regarding music and song, as he himself admits. He states: “هذا ما حضرني الآن من الأحاديث التي على تحريم الغناء” (This is what I currently have at my disposal from the narrations concerning the prohibition of music). However, it is surprising that, despite having only a small number of such narrations, he zealously criticises Sabzevari and seeks to admonish him.

In discussing the narrations on the prohibition of music, Shaykh Ali Amili quotes four narrations which emphasise the recitation of the Qur’an in the style of the Arabs. The first narration is taken from Usul al-Kafi, another from Majma‘ al-Bayan, a third from Al-Nihayah by Ibn Athir with the phrase (wa fi al-hadith), and the fourth from Jami‘ al-Usul. The fact that these narrations are taken from such works suggests that Shaykh Ali did not have access to a great number of narrations and had not referred to more authoritative hadith collections. We have previously discussed the internal critique and the scope of the implications of these narrations in Volume 3 of our study. Here, we will merely highlight the method of entry and reasoning employed by Shaykh Ali.

The Confusion between Music and Music Style

Shaykh Ali Amili writes:

“Muhammad ibn Ya’qub, may God have mercy on him, narrated from Ali ibn Muhammad, from Ibrahim al-Ahmar, from Abdullah ibn Hammad, from Abdullah ibn Sinan, from Abu Abdillah (AS) who said: The Messenger of God (PBUH) said: ‘Recite the Qur’an with the tunes of the Arabs and their voices, and beware of the tunes of the people of sin and the great sinners, for there will come people after me who will recite the Qur’an in a manner resembling music and wailing, whose throats will not pass the recitation, their hearts will be turned away, and the hearts of those who like their way will be affected.'”

In Volume 3, we have stated that this narration speaks about the manner of reciting the Qur’an, but Shaykh Ali Amili, by introducing the term ghina (music), seeks to infer the prohibition of music from it. There is a distinct difference between the style of music and the concept of music itself.

All four narrations that Shaykh Ali Amili uses to argue his case carry the same message and meaning.

Confusion between Melody and Pleasure

Shaykh Ali, following the interpretation of Jami‘ al-Usul, asserts that melody (Lahn) equates to pleasure (Tarb). However, one must note that melody (Lahn) refers to the description of sound, while pleasure (Tarb) refers to the emotional effect or delight caused by the sound, and the sound is the causal agent of it.

He claims that the style of recitation by readers in contemporary gatherings is similar to non-Arabic styles. We have previously stated that the Qur’an should not be recited in the manner of song, but this does not equate to a prohibition of music itself.

Confusion between False Sound and Music

Shaykh Ali Amili brings forward verses and interpretative narrations, but we have explained before that these verses and their interpretative narrations do not indicate the prohibition of music simply because it is music. They only prohibit music that is associated with falsehood and vice.

Confusion between Associated Sins and Music Itself

Shaykh Ali also brings up narrations regarding the prohibition of female singers and the prohibition of buying and selling them as part of his argument for the prohibition of music. However, we have stated that the prohibition of such music is due to the association of female singers with illicit activities such as promiscuity and the social disorder caused by these associations, not because of the act of singing per se.

Moving Away from a Scholarly Approach

In this book, rather than engaging in scholarly debate, Shaykh Ali adopts a more polemical stance, likening the late Sabzevari to an ignoramus and misguided individual, and even accusing him of following the ways of the Nasibis. He speaks of the danger to the faith arising from the introduction of such thoughts. Such approaches in scholarly discussions do not only prevent academic dialogue but also limit the space for independent and innovative thinkers and the generation of new knowledge. He writes:

“As for the remaining narrations that are supposed to indicate permissibility, even to the extent of recommending it in the Qur’an, this is a mere presumption that should not be paid heed to, especially by those who have followed the path of the Nasibis, simply out of imitation, to gain popularity, and who seek to increase their following out of a desire for false leadership and the fleeting world.”

Shaykh Ali appears to allude here to the Sufis and dervishes who, during the Safavid era, gained power and enjoyed considerable freedom. He accuses those advocating for the permissibility of music of doing so to attract followers, and of lacking proper scholarly qualifications.

The Issue of Permissibility of Music in Certain Circumstances

Shaykh Ali Amili addresses the narrations that permit music in specific circumstances, claiming that:

“As for the narration ‘Recite the Qur’an’… it is explicit in its prohibition of music in the Qur’an, with great severity, and it calls down a curse on those who engage in it and like it.”

He suggests that the essence of these narrations shows a clear prohibition of music in all its forms, disregarding the context and exceptions that may apply.

Scholarly Expression of the Late Allameh Ameli

Tone (Lahn) has various meanings and is a homonym, which means that it can be used for recitation but not in a melodic or musical tone. There is no problem with reciting the Holy Qur’an with tone, just as recitation with modulation and elongation is permissible. The only thing to avoid is reciting it with musical intonations. Given this explanation, one must ask, did you leave anything for music that you now forbid?

He considers tone to be a form of modulation, variation in sound, and an enhancement of recitation, poetry, and music. He emphasizes that understanding the Arabic language is very difficult and requires a high level of literacy and knowledge, which some people lack. One must understand the meanings and expressions, the truth and the metaphor, the absolute and the restricted, the general and the specific, and the way to reconcile contradictory narrations and the figurative expressions of the Qur’an in order to extract rulings. He states:

“Everything should be done in the best possible manner, and the word of God should be recited in the most beautiful way, adorned with refinement, modulation, and melody, to make an impact on the hearts.”

Our argument aligns with this scholarly research of Sheikh Ameli, which posits that the Qur’an should be recited in a way that does not diminish its sanctity. It should not be recited in foreign tones or in the particular modes of Persian music, nor should it resemble the buzzing sounds used by Jewish singers. Instead, it should be recited in the proper style, that is, in a measured and deliberate manner (Tartil). The nature of the Qur’an demands that it be recited in the most proper way possible. Thus, if one cannot recite it with a voice as beautiful as that of Prophet Dawood, at least it should be recited with the best voice possible to convey the message adequately.

A beautiful voice is inherent, and using this inherent quality during recitation can make it more impactful on the heart. To achieve this, one should use the appropriate tone, recite it in an Arabic style, and maintain a good voice. It is preferred that someone who does not have a particularly good voice should recite it as well as they can and add a sense of sorrow, empathy, or lamentation to their voice.

This approach is also applicable when reading elegies, praises, eulogies, and other forms of poetry, which should be recited with a pleasant voice so that the listener not only does not reject it but is positively impacted by it.

It must be acknowledged and fairly stated that Sheikh Ameli presents these ideas very scholastically. Although the late Sabzevari, who was a philosopher, did not present these ideas as beautifully as in his Tahrimiya treatise, it is unfortunate that the intention behind Sheikh Ameli’s approach is problematic.

In summary, Sheikh Ameli’s view is that modulation, elongation, and variation in recitation are not problematic. Also, joyful music (Tarab Farhi) is permissible, just as sorrowful or uplifting music (Tarab Hazani) is not problematic. One should ask, how many forms of music exist that have various meanings and states? What other meanings can joy (Tarab) have except happiness and delight? Moreover, what distinguishes the joy caused by listening to the Qur’an from that caused by listening to non-Qur’anic music, where one is allowed, but the other is not?

Sheikh Ameli, much like the late Sabzevari, holds the view that music is permissible. Although the Tahrimiya treatise of Sabzevari has not reached us, it is evident from his statements that he has no problem with music, unlike the stance of Sabzevari, who seems to be embroiled in polemics and responses against accusations made about him.

In conclusion, Sheikh Ameli does not believe there is a problem with joyful music, melody, tone, elongation, or variation in the recitation of the Qur’an. Music and melody, which are not associated with sinful behaviors or immoral individuals, do not become impermissible by virtue of their form. Instead, it is only the music associated with sinful behaviors—such as the music of those who engage in immoral activities—that is impermissible.

He explains that any form of recitation that leads to an elevated emotional state—whether through sorrow, joy, or reflection—should not be considered problematic as long as it does not emulate the musical styles of sinful individuals or the types of music that are prohibited by Sharia.

Prohibition of Music by the People of Sin

Sheikh Ameli equates impermissible music with the singing of people of corruption and sin, stating that the impermissibility of music lies in the type of music performed in places of immorality. He writes:

“If this is understood, then it is clear that it is not forbidden in terms of tone when the Qur’an is recited beautifully with a good voice or when it is recited with sorrow or lamentation, as long as it is not accompanied by the tone of people of immorality or the musical patterns common in sinful gatherings. The hadith is clear that the singing mentioned in the Qur’an is not the same as the musical tones associated with the songs of the immoral.”

Sheikh Ameli claims that the Qur’anic recitation with a beautiful voice is not considered impermissible music, unless it is performed in a style associated with corrupt music. He explains that when the Qur’an is read beautifully—such as with a soothing and reflective tone—it does not lead to the same kind of “joy” or “ecstasy” that one might experience from listening to music, particularly the kind performed by people of sin and vice.

He adds that music associated with people of sin is a forbidden kind of music, and this is the only form of music that is impermissible. He stresses that not all music is forbidden—only that which originates in sinful, immoral contexts, such as parties, taverns, and gatherings of the corrupt. Therefore, the ruling on music in general is more expansive and nuanced than a simple prohibition based on form alone.

In this way, Sheikh Ameli offers a nuanced view of music, distinguishing between various forms and contexts, and asserting that the Qur’an itself does not become impermissible due to being recited with a pleasant voice, as long as it does not follow the patterns of immoral or sinful music.

Unbalanced Narratives

“It has been reported by a reliable source that my late father, when visiting the shrine of Imam Hussain (AS), would see the Quran reciters reading the Quran in the usual manner. Consequently, he either returned or covered his ears to avoid hearing them, fearing the resemblance to singing. How can this be reconciled with the idea of music being permissible or recommended in the Quran? This is not evidence, but it seems to endorse music as an accepted cultural practice. In prayer, he would perform his prayers in a manner that no one could follow him, keeping himself sanctified and free from what those who call to themselves are involved in, as the poet beautifully said:

‘These noble qualities are not two cups of milk That are mixed with water and turn into urine.’

… We ask Allah for guidance for us and our believing brothers and for a good end. This is all that the situation demands from this brief note, which intends only to offer advice to those who accept it and lean toward the truth, leaving behind all else.”

Narratives without Basis

It has been reported by a trustworthy individual that my late father, Martyr Shahid, when visiting the shrine of Imam Hussain (AS), would notice Quran reciters reading the Quran in the customary manner. Consequently, he would either return or cover his ears so as not to hear them, in fear of a resemblance to singing.

This claim lacks foundational evidence and should not be attributed to great scholars like Martyr Shahid. Not only in his case, but also regarding great figures like the revered Abdul-Azim al-Hasani, similar superstitions have been spread. I recall hearing as a child that it was said that Abdul-Azim would cover his head with his cloak to avoid remembering the world, lest he see the greenery by the roadside. We, as children, found this strange, wondering why Allah would create greenery and grass solely for animals to avoid it.

I also remember an individual, though not highly learned, who presented himself with such airs, as if he were the Prophet Georgees himself. When loudspeakers were introduced at the shrine of Abdul-Azim al-Hasani, he stopped visiting, claiming that the shrine had become polluted with instruments of entertainment. When told that Ayatollah Borujerdi in Qom also used a loudspeaker in his lectures, he retorted, ‘I have no concern with others.’

I recall hearing that Ayatollah Borujerdi was extremely ascetic and refrained from wearing a ring due to his piety. I was surprised by this claim, for I knew that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Imam Ali (AS), and other Imams wore rings, sometimes several at once. As a result, I went to Qom as a child to see for myself. When I arrived, I saw that Ayatollah Borujerdi wore a ring and, in addition, rode in a coach, coming and going like a monarch.

Political and Superficial Attitudes

One of the factors that contributed to the conflict between Sheikh Ali Ameli and Sheikh Sabzevari was the latter’s appearance and his philosophical inclinations. On the other hand, Sheikh Ali’s reliance on narrations and his distant relationship with the ruling monarch led to a political and scholarly confrontation. This conflict turned a scientific matter into a political one, and false accusations were made against him.

Unfortunately, political interference and false narratives have not been limited to the conflict between Sheikh Ali and Sabzevari, but have repeatedly affected Islamic scholarship, and the colonizers will never cease their interference. As has happened in the past, the struggles between the narrativists and the theorists have caused many disasters, and it will continue to do so. We have outlined the history of the conflict between narrativists and theorists in our book titled What Do the Narrativists and Theorists Say?

However, it should be noted that both the narrativists and theorists were not in conflict with each other; rather, it was external parties who fanned the flames of the dispute. As evidence of this, we see today that the Hadaiq book, which was written by a narrativist, is printed in the best quality in the schools of the theorists.

Music and Singing in the Quranic Context

In his independent treatise titled Risālat al-Ghinā (“The Treatise on Singing”), Sheikh Har Ameli addresses the issue of the permissibility of singing in the recitation of the Quran. He begins with a narration reported by al-Kulaynī in his al-Kāfī, where Imam al-Ja’far al-Sādiq (AS) is quoted saying:

“Ya Abu Muhammad, recite the Quran in a way that your family can hear you and embellish your recitation with a beautiful tone, for Allah loves a sweet, melodious voice in the Quran.”

This narration has been used by some to argue for the permissibility of singing. However, Sheikh Har Ameli criticizes this interpretation, stating that this narration is weak due to its contradiction with the Quranic verse: “And among the people is one who buys idle talk to lead others astray from the way of Allah.” He also critiques the narration for its weak chain of transmission, pointing out that some of its narrators, like Ali ibn Abu Hamza, have been accused of lying.

Twelve Criticisms of the Narration

Sheikh Har Ameli presents twelve reasons why the narration in question cannot be relied upon:

It contradicts the Quranic injunction against “idle talk.”
It opposes the authentic traditions from the Prophet (PBUH) and the Imams (AS), which prohibit music.
The chain of narration is weak, with unreliable narrators.
It conflicts with the consensus (ijmāʿ) of the Shi’a and the teachings of the Imams (AS).
The narration aligns with the opinion of the Sunni scholars, making it suspect.
The narration is open to misinterpretation, further weakening its argument.
It goes against the precautionary principle (iḥtiyāṭ), which should be observed when there is doubt.
It violates the foundational principle that music is generally forbidden unless proven otherwise.
It contradicts the established rules for interpreting religious texts.
It conflicts with the fundamental beliefs of the Shi’a school of thought, which considers music impermissible.
It contradicts other clear, specific evidence that forbids music.
It conflicts with all the preceding points, making it untrustworthy.

Conclusion of Sheikh Har’s Treatise

Sheikh Har Ameli concludes that the overwhelming evidence from various Islamic traditions and principles clearly supports the prohibition of music. He urges his readers to reject the narration in question and rely instead on the established rulings that align with the Quran and the traditions of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Imams (AS).

This translation captures the academic tone and depth of the original text, focusing on the scholarly discussions around music, its permissibility in Islam, and the interplay of politics and religion in the works of Islamic scholars.

The Purity and Simplicity of the Scholars of the Past and Their Strong Religious Zeal

Indeed, he says: “I do not have access to many books on this matter at the moment…” This sentence reflects the purity and sincerity of this learned scholar. Shia scholars, in their simplicity, sincerity, and piety, lived in such a way that similar qualities could only be found among the saints. Sheikh Hur, for instance, says:

“Since I do not have many books on this topic at hand, I will suffice with mentioning a few narrations and will not extend the discussion further.”

One of the characteristics of the simplicity of past scholars was that their religious zeal would immediately manifest, and they would become angry on behalf of the religion. Of course, an angry individual is not always in control of themselves and may not make a sound decision. To discern the correct ruling, they would have to consider the context and time in which these narrations were issued—an era which we discussed in the third volume of this book.

At the conclusion of his presentation of the arguments, some of which are hadiths prohibiting music, Sheikh Hur says:

“From the aforementioned hadiths, it is clear that music is prohibited, and the abundance of evidence, the widespread nature of the texts, and their consistency and authenticity indicate that this is an established consensus among both usuliyyah (theologians) and akhbariyyah (narrative scholars). And God knows best.”

One might assume that the context of the time led Sheikh Hur to speak in this manner, but it must be noted that these great scholars did not possess the modern principles of jurisprudence. Therefore, they overlooked detailed methodological and philosophical analyses when interpreting narrations.

In fact, scholars before the eleventh century did not write extensively on music and singing. However, with the rise of the Safavid dynasty and the subsequent social liberalisation, especially with the influence of the Sufis, the people became more inclined towards music and singing. Consequently, jurists began to write more extensively on this subject, offering their detailed legal opinions. Scholars like the late Sabzevari and Fayz al-Kashani discerned the subtleties in this matter and did not categorically deem music and singing as forbidden. They demonstrated an understanding of the times and issued opinions that were more nuanced, but due to their open-mindedness and historical awareness, they faced criticism.

The Prohibition and Grave Sin of Singing

In the eighth chapter, Sheikh Hur reiterates his previous statements, and we feel compelled to include them here to avoid accusations of overlooking the opinions of past jurists and providing an unjustified allowance for singing.

“The Eighth Chapter: Some Insights Gleaned from the Hadiths on the Prohibition, Exaggeration, and Emphasis.”

“Whoever looks at the aforementioned hadiths and the established evidence with a clear mind and fairness, abandons fanaticism and unfounded claims, and disregards blind following of the elite and the noble, seeking only the truth without engaging in pointless disputes, will undoubtedly come to the clear and certain knowledge that the general prohibition of music is present in both the Quran and the sayings of the infallible Imams (peace be upon them). What we have mentioned is but a fraction of the much larger body of evidence, a drop in the ocean. Among these hadiths, there is so much emphasis that no further elaboration is needed. Do you not see that some of them indicate that the avoidance of music and refraining from listening to it are characteristics of the worshippers of God, who are praised for avoiding fornication and other forbidden acts? These qualities are interpreted as signs of true worshippers, and some even suggest that the ‘servants of the Merciful’ are exclusively those who possess such traits. This implies that anyone who engages in singing is not part of the group of the faithful, but rather belongs to the faction of Satan, and thus, this suggests the prohibition.”

“Furthermore, there are hadiths that say both the listener and performer of music are deserving of punishment and wrath, their prayers will not be answered, and they will not be accompanied by angels. These hadiths also state that entering a house where music is being played makes one deserving of punishment, and that the angels do not enter such a house, whether music is playing or not. These severe warnings and threats are evident and should be clear to any discerning person.”

“Moreover, some hadiths categorise music as one of the major sins for which God has promised hellfire, as is mentioned in the glorious Quran, which states: ‘Falsehood does not come to it from before it or from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, Praiseworthy’ [41:42]. It also mentions that those who indulge in music are misguided, mock the religion of God, and are worthy of disgraceful punishment. What could be a greater exaggeration or threat than this? How could a rational person, fearing God, ever say after this, ‘Some people of the general public have permitted it, and I will follow them in this’?”

Anyone who looks at these narrations and the past evidence with careful consideration and fairness, abandoning fanaticism and blind adherence to the opinions of the elite, will reach the irrefutable conclusion that music is entirely prohibited, whether it is found in the Quran or elsewhere, as this is a clear teaching of the school of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).

Some of the hadiths prohibit music, and refraining from listening to it is presented as one of the characteristics of God’s servants, who are praised for avoiding fornication and other prohibited actions. One verse of the Quran has been interpreted in this way, and in fact, the ‘servants of the Merciful’ are exclusively those who embody these traits. This verse suggests that anyone who engages in music is not part of God’s party but belongs to Satan’s, thereby implying the prohibition of music.

Some narrations also state that both the listener and performer of music are deserving of punishment, and their prayers will not be accepted. Additionally, there are reports that entering a house where music is played makes one deserving of God’s wrath, and angels will not enter such a house at any time.

Music is considered one of the major sins in the Quran, and anyone who engages in it is misled, mocks God’s religion, and deserves disgraceful punishment.

The Claim that the True Nature of Music is Unknown and the Appeal to the Principle of Permissibility is Fundamentally Flawed

As for the claim that the true nature of music is unknown, and the justification based on the principle of permissibility, this is clearly erroneous. The correct texts and definitive evidence point to the prohibition of music and the command to avoid it. The Quran itself affirms this in the verse: ‘Avoid the impurity of idols and avoid false speech’ [22:30], as discussed earlier.

Therefore, every responsible individual is commanded to avoid music in all its forms.

The analysis of the late Mirluhi’s writings reveals that his arguments are no more than those presented in the earlier works on the topic, such as the Tahrimiyyah treatise and the writings of Shaykh Hur al-‘Amili in Arabic. In fact, it seems as if he has simply provided a translation of these two treatises. Here are some examples:

“It is surprising that some people consider this hadith as evidence of the permissibility of singing in the Qur’an, and even as an argument for its desirability, due to the fact that the word ‘lahn’ in the Arabic language means ‘sweet voice,’ which is interpreted as singing. They are unaware that if a sweet voice were simply to mean singing, then when the authentic hadiths declare singing as absolutely forbidden, and other hadiths declare that singing is forbidden in the Qur’an—along with the upcoming hadith, God willing—the word ‘lhn’ would need to be understood both in its literal and figurative sense. Why, then, would one interpret the word ‘lhn’ in the hadith as referring to singing, which would contradict the authentic hadiths and the clear Qur’anic verses, and be in opposition to the views of the scholars of the Imami sect and the consensus of the Shia community, may Allah’s peace be upon them all?” [121]

We have critiqued these claims earlier, and our intention here is merely to provide readers with historical insights into legal writings and the views of scholars, ensuring that we are not accused of overlooking the opinions of past jurists. Therefore, we are compelled to mention these perspectives.

Ignoring the Ambiguity and Vague Nature of the Hadiths on the Prohibition

It should be noted that in logical reasoning, conclusions are dependent on the weakest premises, and the only certain conclusions we can draw from ambiguous premises are those that match the clear elements within them. In jurisprudence, if the provided arguments are ambiguous, we cannot infer more than the clear and definite points that can be deduced. The claim of the inherent prohibition of singing and music must be thoroughly examined from all its aspects, and a prohibition can only be ruled if the arguments supporting it are proven to be valid. However, the hadiths on the prohibition—whether interpretative or otherwise—are not unequivocal, and thus we can only definitively establish the prohibition on conventional forms of singing in an illegitimate context, like those performed in forbidden places or gatherings, but not on singing per se.

It should also be acknowledged that political motives have influenced this discussion, with jurists simultaneously engaging in disputes with both Sunni scholars like Ghazali and Sufis. Additionally, the Akhbari scholars had dominance over the seminaries, and the few Usuli scholars did not involve themselves in this dispute. As a result, Akhbaris claimed that Usuli scholars were in agreement with them, while Usulis were hesitant to enter this conflict but simultaneously sought to restrict the growing influence of the Sufis, who had recently gained political power.

The treatises by the late Mirluhi and Shaykh Hur al-‘Amili deviate from scientific methodology and have not remained immune to the influences of political agendas. We must also recognize that Shah Abbas Safavi, during his reign, employed a “divide and rule” strategy, manipulating both Akhbari scholars and Sufis alike. Despite his many virtues, anyone who did not align with him was subject to harsh punishment. Therefore, the views and ideologies he supported should not be disregarded in the writings produced during his era.

Mohammad ibn Mohammad Darabi; (Alive around 1130 AH)

Defending the Analytical Treatise

After the publication of the late Sabzawari’s Analytical Treatise, one of the works defending his position on singing was Maqamat al-Salikin by Mohammad ibn Mohammad Darabi, a student of Shaykh Baha’i.

Darabi refers to his book Shakhah Guli Az Laleh Quds and discusses love, joy, and bliss. In the field of jurisprudence concerning singing and music, he does not present any new ideas but simply reiterates the views of al-Shahid al-Thani. He considers singing to be forbidden, but does not classify pleasant voices and elegiac singing as forms of forbidden singing. He states that if singing were to fall under the forbidden category, then it would be permissible in certain contexts. He leaves the identification of what constitutes forbidden singing to the discretion of social custom. Darabi’s work is conservative in tone, and as such, he avoids being labeled as misled or deviant, just as Sabzawari had.

Ambiguity in the Definition of Singing

“After thorough investigation, it becomes clear that the precise and well-established meaning of ghina cannot be derived from the dictionary, and even if a legitimate legal definition existed, it does not hold a specific definition in religious law. In fact, the term ghina does not have a fixed legal meaning and its use in legal texts is often ambiguous. This is because jurists have differed widely in their definitions of ghina, and extracting a common meaning among them is challenging due to the variation in terms and conflicting interpretations. Therefore, it is necessary to resort to customary understanding in the absence of a legal or established definition.” [122]

It is important to note that not only ghina but generally no term used in religious texts has a fixed legal definition; all words in religious discourse have conventional, linguistic, and customary meanings. The purpose of religion is not to establish a new definition but to address the application of specific instances.

In this statement, Darabi clarifies that jurists do not have an exclusive definition of ghina, and they are merely conveying what lexicographers have written. In the absence of a fixed legal or customary definition, Darabi suggests referring to popular usage and social customs.

The Impact of Politics and Jurisprudence

Darabi’s treatise also highlights the influence of politics on the scholarly discussions surrounding music. Both Akhbari and Usuli scholars found themselves caught in these political struggles, and Darabi himself was cautious in taking sides, opting to avoid the pitfalls of sectarian disputes. His work reflects a moderate approach, seeking to find a balance between the differing perspectives of jurists and scholars of his time.

In conclusion, the issues surrounding music, singing, and its legal status in Islamic jurisprudence have been shaped by both historical and political contexts. Jurisprudential opinions on these matters reflect a range of views, with Darabi and others in this tradition seeking to navigate between tradition, legal theory, and contemporary realities.

Regarding the Permissibility of Music

In the current context, another reason that justifies the permissibility of singing in certain forms can be inferred when no sin accompanies it. For instance, situations where Heaven or the origin is remembered. This has been supported by a Hadith which implies that music is permissible, except when it involves sin, such as in the case of singing that includes forbidden elements.

Evidence for the Permissibility of Singing and Use of Musical Instruments

From the aforementioned Hadith, it becomes clear that a beautiful voice in any form, whether in repetition or modulation, is permissible as long as it is not associated with sin. One might argue that a beautiful voice is permissible only when it is not associated with any sin. In this case, if the voice is melodious and causes sadness but lacks repetition, modulation, and emotional stirring, it is not permissible. This, in essence, is the definition of “ghina” (singing), which is widely accepted as impermissible.

It is well-known and widely agreed upon that when the Prophet, peace be upon him, returned victorious from a battle, bringing prosperity and joy to the city of Medina, women would play the “daf” (a kind of drum) on rooftops and in the streets, singing songs of celebration. The Prophet did not forbid this practice; some traditions even suggest that he was pleased with it. There is also a Qur’anic verse that indicates general joy: “Let them rejoice in this…” (Quran 10:58), which implies that joyous songs and actions expressing happiness are permitted.

Additionally, a narration found in Sahih collections mentions that when the Prophet returned from a victory, an Ethiopian woman requested permission to sing and celebrate. The Prophet replied that she should keep her promise, and she proceeded to sing in front of him. This tradition has been documented by the opponents of the view that music is impermissible.

The Sound of the Prophet’s Family

Regarding the narration, “Return your voice with the Quran”, this is an example of “ghina”. It is understood that a pleasant voice alone is not sufficient for a sound to be categorized as “ghina” unless it involves modulation and repetition. Hence, a melodious voice with modulation is equivalent to “ghina” according to Islamic jurisprudence.

However, it should be noted that upon further investigation, it becomes evident that a precise and definite meaning for “ghina” is not easily found in lexicons. Furthermore, even if “ghina” were to have a specific legal definition, it remains unclear, as Islamic scholars have differing opinions on what constitutes it. Therefore, it is difficult to derive a unified definition based on the various interpretations of the scholars.

The Legal Status of “Ghina” Based on Context

Some scholars argue that what is legally permitted or forbidden depends on the context and intent. For instance, certain scholars maintain that songs that remind one of God, Paradise, or the afterlife are permissible, whereas songs associated with sinful intentions or inappropriate content are not. These differences stem from a wide range of interpretations of the hadiths.

The View of Sheikh Yusuf Bahrani

Sheikh Yusuf Bahrani, a prominent scholar of the 12th century, in his work “Al-Hadaiq al-Nadhira” (The Radiant Gardens in the Laws of the Pure Lineage), considers “ghina” as an impermissible act when listed among the sinful actions. He states that “ghina” involves singing that includes both repetition and emotional stirring, and this is considered impermissible unless it fits within the permissible categories, such as songs of worship, remembrance of God, or those that encourage piety and good deeds.

The Principle of Absolute Prohibition of Singing

According to some scholars, “ghina” in its essence is impermissible, regardless of whether it includes any external negative elements, such as musical instruments or improper behavior. Bahrani’s viewpoint, supported by several other scholars, stresses that the prohibition applies universally and that no form of singing should be considered permissible unless it aligns directly with religious texts or customs that encourage devotion to God.

The Debate over the Definition of “Ghina”

While some scholars have made efforts to reconcile conflicting hadiths, the majority of scholarly opinion leans toward the view that “ghina” is impermissible. This is based on both clear textual evidence from the Qur’an and Hadiths as well as the practices of the Prophet. Thus, attempts to present “ghina” as permissible in certain cases (for example, when associated with religious texts or positive remembrance) are often seen as weaker arguments.

Critique of the View Advocating the Permissibility of Singing

The interpretation that “ghina” may be permissible under specific circumstances is critiqued by scholars like Bahrani, who argue that it contradicts the overall guidance of the Qur’an and Hadith, which discourage entertainment that could divert one from the remembrance of God. Furthermore, the concept of “ghina” has become associated with sinful acts in many contexts, especially during the periods of Umayyad and Abbasid rule, when music and singing were often linked to debauchery and immoral behavior.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the views on the permissibility of singing and music are complex and depend on the context, content, and intent of the performance. While some scholars argue for the possibility of musical expression in particular circumstances, the predominant scholarly consensus remains that “ghina” is impermissible in most cases, especially when it involves emotional stirring or sinful behaviors.

Breaking Down the Beautiful Voice from the Voice of “Ghina” (Singing)

Sheikh Bahrani believes that the Hadiths encouraging the use of a beautiful voice in the recitation of the Qur’an do not imply any connection to the voice of “ghina” (singing), and it is possible for a beautiful voice to be distinct from “ghina.” He considers this matter to be clear and evident.

A researcher, however, does not take anything for granted as obvious and strives to scrutinize popular beliefs and even widely accepted facts, refusing to be swayed by their popularity. The use of the phrase “And this—thanks to God Almighty—is clear” indicates a departure from the scholarly method. Those who repeat such views neither understand what a beautiful voice truly is nor do they grasp the concept of “ghina”; they merely engage in the processing of words. Such phrases also discourage others from critiquing the matter, as any opposition is easily dismissed as ignorance.

It is true that all Shia scholars, whether Akhbari (traditionalist) or Usuli (rationalist), have esteemed status and spiritual purity. However, the sanctity of the soul in non-infallible figures is not the complete cause of intellectual infallibility.

Singing in the Recitation of the Qur’an

As for the narratives that may suggest the permissibility of singing with the Qur’an, such as the one transmitted in Majma’ al-Bayan from Abdul-Rahman ibn Sa’ib, where he reports that Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas greeted him saying, “I heard that you recite the Qur’an beautifully.” Abdul-Rahman replies, “Yes, thanks to God,” to which Sa’d replies, “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘The Qur’an was revealed with sorrow, so when you recite it, cry; if you do not cry, try to make yourself cry and sing it, because whoever does not sing the Qur’an is not one of us.'”

In Majma’ al-Bayan, it is mentioned that some have interpreted the term “taghanni” (singing) as meaning to enrich oneself with the Qur’an, and most scholars interpret it as enhancing the voice and inducing sorrow. The critique of such interpretations was mentioned previously. This Hadith speaks of reciting the Qur’an, not of deriving material gain from it. It is surprising that such an interpretation comes from any figure, especially from great jurists.

The Issue of Pleasantness and Success in Voice

In Kifayat al-Ahkam, after discussing the matter, it is suggested that improving the voice while reciting the Qur’an and singing it is recommended, and that contrary opinions were not widely known among earlier scholars.

In contrast, Al-Hada’iq criticizes this view, asserting that such a narration is from a common (non-scholarly) source and cannot serve as evidence. Furthermore, it contradicts other narrations which prohibit reading the Qur’an in a musical or “ghina” style, recommending instead a beautiful and sorrowful recitation, which is not to reach the level of singing.

However, there is no inherent contradiction between these narrations, as they address two different matters. In issues of “ghina” and music, one must provide proof to establish a prohibition. The critiques of narrations permitting singing do not inherently weaken the argument against its permissibility.

Bahrani considers a beautiful voice and “ghina” to be distinct, but in continuity: as a voice becomes more beautiful and pleasing, it becomes “ghina.” The question arises: is the pleasantness of a voice equivalent to sinful acts like adultery? Is Islam a religion of hardship and sorrow, which would disallow any joyful expression? This view, however, lacks support in Qur’anic and Hadith texts and may reflect personal preferences or cultural biases.

Ignorance of Musicology

The criticisms from some scholars like Sheikh Sabzvari, who claims that prohibitions on singing in the Qur’an refer specifically to musical or lewd styles practiced by the wicked, are examined. Sabzvari refers to a narration from Abdullah ibn Sinan that instructs reciting the Qur’an with “Arab melodies” and warns against reading it with the “melodies of the corrupt.”

However, if this means reading the Qur’an alongside musical instruments, no one would attempt such an act. If it refers to a reading done in the manner of “ghina” (singing), this would be the very act that is prohibited, regardless of the singer’s piety. As noted earlier, the use of “melody” does not strictly equate to “ghina,” but can refer to linguistic nuance in Arabic as well, as noted by the scholar in Majma’ al-Bahrain.

Sheikh Bahrani’s views, when critiqued, suggest that those advocating for the permissibility of “ghina” in the Qur’an have misunderstood the nature of “ghina” and the context of the religious texts involved.

In conclusion, the key issue is the distinction between a pleasant voice and “ghina.” A voice is simply beautiful when it is pleasing to the soul, regardless of whether it is simple or enhanced. While it is true that excessive beautification of the voice can lead to a state of ecstasy and even dance, the act of dancing, by itself, is not prohibited. One cannot use the act of dancing to justify the prohibition of music or “ghina” itself.

Furthermore, some of the statements on “ghina” come from those who are not familiar with the technical aspects of music, and thus their conclusions on the subject are sometimes based on misconceptions. For a full understanding, one must look at the issue from both a jurisprudential and musical perspective.

On the Prohibition of the Purchase and Sale of Singing Slaves in Islamic Jurisprudence

The second narration suggests that the purchase of a singing slave is essentially for commercial purposes, driven by the pursuit of profit and benefit, which is uncontested, as confirmed by most scholars. The prohibition, however, is related to buying and selling such slaves specifically for the purpose of singing.

In Al-Masālik, it is reported that a number of scholars, including Allama in al-Tadhkira, have declared singing to be absolutely prohibited. This view is also found in al-Mukhtalif, as narrated by Abu al-Salāh and also attributed to Ibn Idris, citing general prohibitive narrations on the matter of singing.

Among the exceptional cases, according to the prevailing opinion, is the singing of women at weddings, provided that no men enter the area, their voices are not heard by non-mahram men, and they refrain from speaking inappropriately or engaging in vain activities.

However, those who cite these narrations to justify the permissibility of singing—claiming that the prohibition is solely related to another matter, such as the entrance of men—misunderstand the text. The specific condition mentioned in the narration about the woman who sings at weddings indicates that the permissibility is contingent on the absence of male presence, which in turn implies that the prohibition is specifically due to that issue. This is not a general justification for the permissibility of singing.

Regarding narrations that suggest the wages of a singer (male or female) are harām, the prohibition pertains to their earnings from singing itself, not to the purchase or sale of them per se.

Moreover, in transactions, something may be included as part of a deal, yet professions like carpentry or singing cannot be regarded as an integral part of what is being sold. For example, one cannot set part of the price of a car based on its colour, as colour is a characteristic, not an object of ownership. Similarly, singing, being a characteristic or description, cannot be the object of a sale. Therefore, if someone purchases a bird with the intention of benefiting from its pleasant voice, but later discovers it is mute, they may return it, as the description (the voice) was central to the purchase. The same logic applies to a singing slave: the transaction would be invalid if the sale is predicated on the characteristic of singing rather than the essence of the slave itself.

The issue of prohibiting singing in Islamic jurisprudence has been extensively debated. Some scholars declare singing to be universally harām, with exceptions being considered in very specific cases, such as at weddings, provided that the conditions mentioned above are met.

However, it is essential to clarify that if something is intrinsically prohibited, like singing, which is prohibited in and of itself, it cannot be exempted from this prohibition in certain circumstances. Just as injustice (ẓulm) is inherently prohibited, regardless of time, place, or person, so too is singing, in its essence, universally prohibited.

What has been discussed here addresses the critiques of late jurists such as Al-Muhqiq al-Bahrāni on the opinions of Fayd al-Kashani and Muhqiq Sabzawari. As shown, none of these critiques provide a convincing or scholarly solution, and Al-Muhqiq al-Bahrāni’s understanding of singing and music was not as comprehensive as might be expected from a jurist.

آیا این نوشته برایتان مفید بود؟

بلی 0 خیر 0

Reasons for the Prohibition of Music (Ghina) from the Perspective of Ayatollah Muhaddith al-Ardabili

Narrations Supporting the Prohibition of Music

Criticism of the Concept of Consensus

Critique of Consensus

Exemptions for Music

Music in the Context of Mourning for Imam Hussein (as)

Conclusion: The Prohibition of Music and Its Exceptions

The License for Teaching the Science of Music

The Late Muhaddith Sabzevari

The Permissibility of Singing:

Considering Political Influence on Musical Context:

The Necessity of Avoiding Falsehood in Singing:

The Need for Proportionality in Music:

Categorizing Singing as Right or Wrong:

Permissibility of Some Forms of Singing:

The Need for Tailored Jurisprudence in Music and Singing:

آیا این نوشته برایتان مفید بود؟

مصباح الانس

Library

Significant Sciences and Perspectives (Volume One)

The Scroll of Love

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید لغو پاسخ

آهنگ فعلی

آرشیو آهنگ‌ها

تصویر فعلی

آرشیو تصاویر

غزل