Tafsir of Luqman 31:6

(And of the people)—meaning some people, or a portion of them—(is he who purchases the idle talk)—meaning the one, or the group, who purchases. This is based on the premise that the point of benefit and the primary intent is their being characterized by what is contained in the conjunctive clause (the silah) or the description (the sifah), rather than their being the specific individuals mentioned. The sentence is a conjunction to what preceded it in meaning, as if it were said: "Among the people there is a guide who is guided, and among them is a misguider who is misguided." Alternatively, it is a narrative conjoined to a narrative. It has also been said that it is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for the actor of the reference (the demonstrative pronoun)—meaning: "Reference is made to the verses of the Book while they are guidance and mercy, and at that state, there is among the people one who purchases, etc."

As for (idle talk): according to what has been narrated from al-Hasan, it is everything that distracts you from the worship of Allah the Exalted and His remembrance—from evening conversations, jests, myths, singing, and the like. The genitive construction (idafah) is of the "explanatory" (bayaniyyah) type if "the talk" is intended to mean "the reprehensible talk," as in the hadith: "Talk in the mosque consumes good deeds just as livestock consumes grass." Or it is "partitive" (tabi'iyyah) if "the talk" is intended to mean something more general, based on the school of some grammarians like Ibn Kaysan and al-Sirafi. They said: the addition of what is a part of the following noun is in the sense of "partitive," as indicated by the occurrence of separation (fasl) between them in their speech. However, the position held by most later scholars, which was also adopted by Ibn al-Sarraj and al-Farisi—and this is the more correct view—is that it is in the sense of the preposition lam (belonging to), as Abu Hayyan detailed in Sharh al-Tashil and as the commentator of al-Luma' mentioned.

It is narrated from al-Dahhak that "idle talk" is shirk (polytheism); it is also said to be magic. Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Abi al-Dunya, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and al-Hakim (who authenticated it), as well as al-Bayhaqi in Shu'ab al-Iman, narrated from Abu al-Sahba' that he said: "I asked 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud about the saying of Allah the Exalted: (And of the people is he who purchases idle talk), and he said: 'It is, by Allah, singing.'" Many have interpreted it this way.

The best interpretation is one that encompasses all of this, as we mentioned from al-Hasan; this is what is necessitated by the narration recorded by al-Bukhari in al-Adab al-Mufrad, Ibn Abi al-Dunya, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan, from Ibn 'Abbas, who said: "Idle talk is singing and its likes." In all these cases, "purchasing" is a metaphor for choosing it over the Quran and substituting it for it.

Ibn 'Asakir narrated from Makhul regarding the saying of Allah the Exalted: (he who purchases idle talk), that he said: "The singing slave girls." Adam, Ibn Jarir, and al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan narrated from Mujahid that he said regarding it: "It is purchasing a male singer or a female singer, and listening to him or to the like of him among falsehood." In a narration mentioned by al-Bayhaqi in the Sunan from Ibn Mas'ud, he said regarding the verse: "It is a man who purchases a slave girl to sing to him by night or by day."

It is widely known that the verse was revealed concerning al-Nadr ibn al-Harith. In a narration by Juwaybir from Ibn 'Abbas, [he states] that he bought a singing girl, and he would not hear of anyone intending to embrace Islam but that he would take him to his slave girl and say: "Feed him, give him drink, and sing to him," and he would say: "This is better than what Muhammad (may Allah bless and grant him peace) invites you to regarding prayer, fasting, and fighting before him," so [the verse] was revealed.

In Asbab al-Nuzul by al-Wahidi, it is narrated from al-Kalbi and Muqatil that he [al-Nadr] would go out as a merchant to Persia and purchase the stories of the non-Arabs (al-A'ajim), and in some narrations, the books of the non-Arabs, and he would recite them and narrate them to the Quraysh, saying to them: "Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) narrates to you the stories of 'Ad and Thamud, while I narrate to you the stories of Rustam and Isfandiyar and the tales of the Chosroes," so they would find his stories pleasant and abandon listening to the Quran, and so [the verse] was revealed. It is also said that it was revealed concerning Ibn Khatal, who bought a slave girl who would sing satires. The fact that the verse was revealed about whoever was mentioned does not negate the [general] plural form in the saying of Allah the Exalted thereafter: (For those is a humiliating punishment), as is not hidden from the intelligent.

According to most of these narrations, "purchasing" is used in its literal sense, and some of them require an expansive metaphorical interpretation or a combination of the literal and the metaphorical, as is evident to one who contemplates carefully. Making the female singer and her ilk the very essence of "idle talk" is a form of hyperbole, just as "women" in the saying of Allah the Exalted: (Beautified for people is the love of desires: of women) is made the very essence of beauty itself.

In al-Bahr, it states: If by "idle talk" one intends that which can be purchased, such as singing slave girls and the books of non-Arabs, then the purchase is literal, and the statement is elliptical, omitting a noun—meaning: "He who purchases the substance of idle talk."

Al-Khafaji (may Allah have mercy on him) said: There is no need for estimating [the word] "substance," because since the singer was bought for her singing, it is as if the buyer is buying the singing itself; so contemplate this.

According to the majority, the verse contains a condemnation of singing in the highest degree. The traditions and the words of many righteous scholars have converged on condemning it absolutely, not just in specific contexts. Ibn Abi al-Dunya and al-Bayhaqi in al-Shu'ab narrated from Ibn Mas'ud that he said: "When a man mounts his beast and does not mention the name of Allah, a devil rides behind him and says: 'Sing.' If he is not skilled, he says: 'Wish.'" They both also narrated from al-Sha'bi that he said: From al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, that he was asked about singing, and he said to the questioner: "I forbid it for you and dislike it for you." The questioner asked: "Is it forbidden?" He said: "Look, my nephew, when Allah the Exalted distinguishes truth from falsehood, in which of the two will He place singing?" They also narrated from him that he said: "May Allah the Exalted curse the singer and the one sung to."

In the Sunan, from Ibn Mas'ud, he said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) said: "Singing grows hypocrisy in the heart just as water grows herbs." Ibn Abi al-Dunya narrated the like of it from him, and al-Daylami narrated it from Abu Hurayrah and from Anas, but Ibn al-Qattan weakened it, and al-Nawawi said it is not authentic, and al-'Iraqi said: "Its elevation (attribution to the Prophet) is not authentic because its chain contains someone who is not named," yet there is an indication that its suspension (waqf) on Ibn Mas'ud is authentic, and it is in the position of an elevated report (marfu'), as the like of it is not said by personal opinion.

Ibn Abi al-Dunya and Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Abu Umamah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) said: "No one raises his voice with singing but that Allah the Exalted sends two devils to him, who sit on his shoulders and strike his chest with their heels until he stops."

Ibn Abi al-Dunya and al-Bayhaqi narrated from Abu 'Uthman al-Laythi that he said: Yazid ibn al-Walid al-Naqis said: "O Banu Umayya, beware of singing, for it diminishes modesty, increases desire, and destroys manliness; it acts on behalf of wine and does what drunkenness does. If you must do it, then keep women away from it, for singing is the caller to adultery."

Al-Dahhak said: "Singing is a waste of wealth, a cause of anger for the Lord, and a corruption of the heart."

Sa'id ibn Mansur, Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Tabarani, and others narrated from Abu Umamah from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) that he said: "Do not sell singing girls, do not buy them, do not teach them, and there is no good in trading in them; their price is forbidden. It is concerning such that this verse was revealed: (And of the people is he who purchases idle talk) up to the end of the verse." In a narration by Ibn Abi al-Dunya and Ibn Mardawayh from 'A'ishah, she said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) said: "Indeed, Allah the Exalted has forbidden the singing girl, her sale, her price, her teaching, and listening to her," then he read: (And of the people is he who purchases idle talk). This and its likes return to the condemnation of singing.

It is said: Singing is the spy of the heart and the thief of manliness and intellects; it infiltrates the very depths of the hearts and discovers the secrets of the souls. It creeps into the house of imagination and spreads the passion, desire, foolishness, and levity that are planted therein. You see a man upon whom is the mark of dignity, the splendor of reason, the brightness of faith, and the gravity of knowledge—his speech is wisdom and his silence is a lesson—yet when he hears singing, his intellect and modesty diminish, and his manliness and splendor depart. He deems pleasant what he formerly found repugnant; he reveals secrets he used to hide, and he transitions from the splendor of silence and stillness to excessive speech, delirium, and shivering as if he were possessed. He might even clap his hands and strike the ground with his feet; this is what wine does, and so on.

Scholars have differed regarding its ruling. Its prohibition has been narrated from Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him), Qadi Abu al-Tayyib, al-Qurtubi, al-Mawardi, and Qadi 'Iyad.

In al-Tatar Khaniyyah: "Know that singing is forbidden in all religions." It is mentioned in al-Ziyadat that a bequest for male and female singers is an act of disobedience according to us and according to the People of the Book. It is narrated from Zahir al-Din al-Marghinani: He said, "Whoever says to a reciter of our time 'Well done' (ahsanta) upon his recitation, he has committed disbelief." The authors of al-Hidayah and al-Dhakhirah named it a major sin. This is regarding singing to people on occasions other than the two Eids and weddings. This includes the singing of the Sufis of our time in mosques and during invitations, using poetry and adhkar while mixing with people of desires and beardless youths—in fact, this is more severe than any singing, for it is done with the belief that it is an act of worship. As for singing alone using poetry to repel loneliness, or during Eids and weddings, they have differed; the correct [view] is to forbid it absolutely in this time. End quote.

In al-Durr al-Mukhtar: "Singing to oneself to repel loneliness is not objectionable according to the general [scholars], based on what is in al-'Inayah, and al-'Ayni and others authenticated it. He said: 'If it contains exhortation and wisdom, it is permissible by consensus.' Some permitted it at weddings, just as hitting the tambourine is permissible. Some permitted it absolutely, and some disliked it absolutely." End quote. In al-Bahr: "The school holds its absolute prohibition, so the disagreement is severed." In fact, the apparent text of al-Hidayah is that it is a major sin, even if [done] to oneself. The author of al-Musannaf affirmed this and said: "The testimony of one who listens to singing or sits in its gathering is not accepted." End quote from al-Durr.

Imam Abu Bakr al-Turtushi mentioned in his book on the prohibition of sama' (listening to singing) that Imam Abu Hanifah dislikes singing and considers it one of the sins. Likewise is the school of the people of Kufa: Sufyan, Hammad, Ibrahim, al-Sha'bi, and others—there is no disagreement among them regarding that. We know of no disagreement among the people of Basra in disliking it and forbidding it. End quote. It seems his intent by "dislike" (karahah) is prohibition (hurmah), as the predecessors often intend prohibition by "disliked," as in the saying of Allah the Exalted: (All of that is ever, in the sight of your Lord, detested [makruhan]).

He (may Allah have mercy on him) also quotes therein from Imam Malik that he forbade singing and listening to it, and said: "If a man buys a slave girl and finds that she is a singer, he has the right to return her due to the defect." And [he mentioned] that he was asked what the people of Medina permit regarding singing, to which he replied: "It is only done among us by the corrupt." He also quotes the prohibition from a group of the Hanbalis, as narrated by the commentator of al-Muqni' and others. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in the book al-Bulghah that the majority of his companions hold the view of prohibition.

It is narrated from 'Abdullah ibn Imam Ahmad that he said: "I asked my father about singing, and he said: 'It grows hypocrisy in the heart; it does not please me.'" Then he mentioned the saying of Malik: "It is only done among us by the corrupt." Al-Muhasibi said in Risalat al-Insha': "Singing is forbidden, like carrion."

Al-Turtushi also narrated from the book Adab al-Qada' that Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "Singing is a detested amusement that resembles falsehood and vanity. Whoever does much of it is a fool whose testimony is rejected." His companions who are knowledgeable of his school have clearly stated its prohibition and denied it to those who attributed its permissibility to him, such as Qadi Abu al-Tayyib, al-Tabari, and Shaykh Abu Ishaq in al-Tanbih. Some of the students of al-Baghawi mentioned in his book which he named al-Taqrib that singing is forbidden, both doing it and listening to it. Ibn al-Salah said in his Fatawa after a long discussion: "Thus, this sama' is forbidden by the consensus of the people of binding and loosing among the Muslims." End quote.

What I have seen in al-Sharh al-Kabir lil-Jami' al-Saghir by the learned al-Manawi is that the school of al-Shafi'i is that it is "makruh" (disliked) in the sense of tanzih (avoidance preferred) when fitnah is secure. In al-Minhaj: "Singing without an instrument is disliked." The scholar Ibn Hajar said: "Because of what is authentically narrated from Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him)," and he mentioned the aforementioned hadith suspended upon him, and that it came elevated from many paths, which he clarified in his book Kaff al-Ri'a' 'an Muharramat al-Lahw wa al-Sama'. Then he said: "The claim that there is no indication in it of its being disliked because some permissible things, like wearing beautiful clothes, grow hypocrisy in the heart and are not disliked—is refuted by saying: We do not concede that this grows hypocrisy at all. And even if we concede it, hypocrisy varies. The hypocrisy that singing grows—from effeminacy and what follows it—is uglier and more heinous, as is not hidden." Then he said: "The two Shaykhs (al-Nawawi and al-Rafi'i) asserted in one place that it is a sin, and it should be interpreted as applying to what contains descriptions such as wine, or flirting with a beardless youth or a strange woman, and the like, which is usually carried out for sin." Al-Adhra'i said: "As for what is customary when performing work and carrying heavy loads, such as the huda' (caravan singing) of the Arabs for their camels, and [that of] women to soothe their children, there is no doubt in its permissibility; in fact, it may be recommended if it energizes one to travel or is sought for a good purpose, like huda' during Hajj and in war. Upon this is interpreted what has come from some of the Companions." End quote.

The implication of their saying "without an instrument" is its prohibition with an instrument. Al-Zarkashi said: "However, the analogy is the prohibition of the instrument alone, and the singing remains merely disliked." End quote.

Similar to the disagreement regarding singing is the disagreement regarding sama' (listening to it). A group permitted it just as they permitted singing, and they supported this with what al-Bukhari narrated from 'A'ishah: She said, "The Prophet (may Allah bless and grant him peace) entered upon me while I had two slave girls singing the songs of Bu'ath. He lay on the bed and turned his face away." In a narration of Muslim, "He was covered by his garment." Abu Bakr entered and scolded me, saying: "The flute of Satan in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace)?" The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) turned to him and said: "Leave them." When he was distracted, I signaled them, and they left. It was a day of Eid.

The angle of the argument is that there was singing or sama' there, and the Prophet (may Allah bless and grant him peace) rejected the rejection of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). In fact, it is also a proof for the permissibility of a man listening to a slave girl's voice even if she were not owned, because he (peace and blessings be upon him) heard and did not reject Abu Bakr's hearing, but rather rejected his rejection. They continued singing until 'A'ishah signaled them to exit. Abu Bakr's rejection of his daughter (may Allah be pleased with them both) despite his knowledge of the presence of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) was because he thought that this was not done with his (peace and blessings be upon him) knowledge, as he entered and found him covered with his garment, so he thought he was sleeping. In Fath al-Bari, a group of Sufis argued based on this hadith for the permissibility of singing and listening to it, both with instruments and without.

It is sufficient in refuting this what al-Bukhari also narrated via his servant from 'A'ishah, that she said: "Abu Bakr entered upon me while I had two slave girls from the slave girls of the Ansar singing what the Ansar had recited on the day of Bu'ath." She said: "And they were not singers." Abu Bakr said: "In the house of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) are the flutes of Satan?" This was on a day of Eid. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) said: "O Abu Bakr, indeed every people has an Eid, and this is our Eid." So he negated for them in terms of meaning what he had affirmed for them in terms of the word, for "singing" is applied to raising one's voice, to the melodic chanting which the Arabs call nasb (with a fatha on the nun and a sukun on the sad), and to huda'. The one who does this is not called a "singer"; rather, one is called that only if they chant with elongation, softening, arousal, and enticement in a manner that contains allusion to indecency or an explicit mention of it.

Al-Qurtubi said: "Her saying 'they were not singers' means they were not among those known for singing, as the singers known for that are. This is a metaphorical use of 'singing' from them—it refers to the singing customary among those famous for it, which is that which moves the still, awakens the dormant, and excites. This type, if it is in poetry that describes the beauties of women, wine, and other forbidden matters, there is no disagreement in its prohibition. As for what the Sufis innovated in that, it is of the category of what there is no disagreement in its prohibition. However, sensual souls have dominated many of those who are attributed to righteousness, until there has appeared in many of them the actions of madmen and children, to the point that they danced with rhythmic motions and successive breaks." The situation of some of them has reached the point of making it a matter of proximity and righteous deeds, and that it produces sublime states. This, by verification, is one of the remnants of heresy (zandaqah) and the saying of the people of deceit. And Allah the Exalted is the One whose help is sought. End quote from al-Qurtubi.

Likewise is the intent of the statement in Fath al-Bari, and it is a good statement, except that his saying "and one is called that only if he chants..." is not devoid of criticism, based on the fact that the primary understanding is the generality of this to whatever contains allusion or explicit mention of indecency from the chanter, and whatever does not contain that. Some of the great scholars said: "The report does not contain absolute permissibility; rather, the utmost it contains is its permissibility during a religiously lawful joy, as in the Eids and weddings, so it is a proof for those who permitted it at weddings just as they permitted striking the tambourine there." Furthermore, the rejection by Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) is clear that he had heard from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) the condemnation of singing and the prohibition of it, so he thought the ruling was general, and he rejected it. With the Prophet's rejection (may Allah bless and grant him peace) of his rejection, it became clear to him that there was no generality. In the other report, there is what indicates that he (may Allah bless and grant him peace) explained the situation to him, accompanied by an explanation of the wisdom, which is that it is a day of Eid, so the like of this is not rejected therein, just as it is not rejected at weddings. Despite this, he (may Allah bless and grant him peace) indicated by his garment and turning his noble face that turning away from it is better, and hearing the voice of a non-owned girl with this type of singing when fitnah is secure is something that is not objectionable; let the report be a proof for its permissibility.

Some argued for this based on what came from Anas ibn Malik, that he entered upon his brother al-Bara' ibn Malik, who was one of the clever men of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), and he was singing. It is not hidden what is in this, for this "singing" is not in the famous sense. Similar to it is the singing in his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "He is not one of us who does not sing with the Quran." Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah and Abu 'Ubaydah interpreted "singing" in this hadith as "being sufficient" (al-istighna'), as if it were said: "He is not one of us who does not find sufficiency in the Quran over others." It is also singing for the purpose of removing loneliness from himself in the privacy of his home. Similar to it is what is narrated from 'Abdullah ibn 'Awf, who said: "I came to the door of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and I heard him singing:

How [long] my stay in Medina, after having achieved my desire of it?

Jamil ibn Ma'mar intended by it Jamil al-Jumahi, who was close to him. When I asked permission to enter upon him, he said to me: 'Did you hear what I said?' I said: 'Yes.' He said: 'We are when we are in private, what the people say in their homes.'"

A group forbade sama' absolutely. Al-Ghazali said: "Sama' is either beloved, if the love of Allah the Exalted and meeting Him dominates the listener, to extract from it states of unveiling and intimacy; or it is permissible, if he has a permissible love for its adornment or is not dominated by the love of Allah nor [by] passion; or it is forbidden, if he is dominated by a forbidden passion."

Al-'Izz ibn 'Abd al-Salam was asked about listening to singing (inshad) for the sake of love and dancing, and he said: "Dancing is an innovation (bid'ah) not engaged in except by those of deficient intellect, so it is not suitable except for women. As for listening to singing that stirs sublime states and reminds of the matters of the Hereafter, there is no harm in it; in fact, it is recommended during lethargy and weariness of the heart. One who has a corrupt passion in his heart should not attend sama', for it stirs what is in the heart."

He also said: "Sama' differs according to the differences of the listeners and the heard. They are either those who know Allah the Exalted, and their sama' differs according to their states. Whoever is dominated by fear, sama' affects him when mentioning terrifying matters, such as sadness, weeping, and changing of color—it is either fear of punishment or loss of reward—or intimacy and closeness, and he is the best of the fearful and the listeners, and the effect of the Quran on him is stronger. Whoever is dominated by hope, sama' affects him when mentioning matters of desire and hope; if his hope is for intimacy and closeness, his sama' is the best sama' of those who hope, and if his hope is for reward, this is in the second rank. The effect of sama' on the first is stronger than its effect on the second. Whoever is dominated by the love of Allah the Exalted due to His blessings, sama' of the blessings and honor affects him; or due to His absolute beauty (Glorified be He), then mentioning the nobility of the Essence and the perfection of the Attributes affects him—and this is better than what is before it, because the cause of his love is the best of causes. The effect on him intensifies when mentioning being cast away and distanced. Whoever is dominated by reverence and majesty—and he is better than all who are before him—the states of these differ in what is heard from. Sama' from a saint (wali) is stronger in effect than sama' from a layman, and from a prophet it is stronger than from a saint, and from the Lord (Azz wa Jall) it is stronger than sama' from a prophet, because the speech of the feared one is stronger in effect on the one who fears than the speech of another, just as the speech of the beloved is stronger in effect on the lover than the speech of another. This is why the Prophets, the Truthful (Siddiqun), and their companions were not occupied with listening to amusements and singing, but limited themselves to the speech of their Lord (Glorified be He). Whoever is dominated by a permissible passion, like one who loves his wife, then signs of longing, fear of separation, and hope of reunion affect him, so his sama' is not objectionable. Whoever is dominated by a forbidden passion, like the love of a beardless youth or a strange woman, then it affects him to seek the forbidden, and what leads to the forbidden is forbidden. As for one who finds nothing of these six categories in himself, his sama' is disliked, because the prevailing [trait] among the masses is corrupt passions, so sama' might stir him to a forbidden image, so he attaches himself to it and leans toward it. This is not forbidden for him because we do not confirm the forbidden cause. Some of the wicked might attend sama' and weep and become agitated for corrupt purposes they harbor, and show off to those present that their sama' is for something beloved; these have combined disobedience with the pretense of being among the righteous. Some might attend sama' who have lost their families and those dear to them, and the chanter reminds them of the separation of the loved ones and the lack of intimacy, so one of them weeps and deludes those present that his weeping is for the sake of the Lord of the worlds (Glorified be He), and this is showing off for a non-forbidden matter." Then he said: "Know that commendable sama' is only obtained when mentioning the attributes that necessitate sublime states and praiseworthy actions. For every attribute of the attributes, there is a state specific to it. Whoever mentions the attribute of mercy or is reminded by it, his state is the state of those who hope, and his sama' is their sama'. Whoever mentions the intensity of vengeance or is reminded by it, his state is the state of the fearful, and his sama' is their sama'. Upon this is the analogy. States may dominate some of them to the extent that they do not listen to what the chanter says and do not pay attention to it due to the dominance of his previous state." End quote. Some of the great scholars quoted this and affirmed it, and in it is what contradicts what was narrated from al-Ghazali.

Qadi Husayn narrated from al-Junayd (may his soul be sanctified) that he said: "People in sama' are either laymen, and it is forbidden to them because their souls remain; or ascetics, and it is permissible to them for the attainment of their struggling; or knowers, and it is recommended to them for the life of their hearts." Abu Talib al-Makki mentioned the like of it, and al-Suhrawardi (may mercy be upon him) authenticated it in his 'Awarif. The apparent is that al-Junayd intended "forbidden" in its conventional sense.

Some argued that he did not intend that, but rather that it is not fitting. Some narrated from al-Junayd (may his soul be sanctified) that he was asked about sama', and he said: "It is a misguidance for the beginner, and the advanced does not need it." In this is a contradiction to what you heard.

Al-Qushayri (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Sama' has conditions, among which is the knowledge of the Names and Attributes, to know the attributes of the Essence from the attributes of the Actions, and what is impossible in describing the Truth (Glorified be He), and what is permissible to describe Him (the Exalted) with, and what is valid to apply to Him (Azz wa Jall) of the Names, and what is impossible." Then he said: "These are the conditions for the validity of sama' on the tongue of the people of attainment among the possessors of intellect. As for the people of realities, the condition is the annihilation of the self through the sincerity of struggling, then the life of the heart through the spirit of witnessing. Whoever's treatment has not preceded with validity, and whose encounter has not been achieved with sincerity, his sama' is a waste, and his agitation is nature. Sama' is a trial that passion calls to, except when desire falls and purity is obtained." He elaborated to a length that would take long to mention. It is said: By this, the prohibition of sama' becomes clear for most of the Sufis of the time, due to the [lack of] adherence to the conditions of fulfilling it.

It is strange that they attribute sama' and agitation to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace), and they narrate from 'Atiyyah that he (peace and blessings be upon him) entered upon the people of the Suffah one day and sat among them and said (peace and blessings be upon him): "Is there among you who would recite some verses for us?" A man said: "The snake of passion has bitten my liver, and there is no doctor for it nor a charmer / Except the beloved whom I am infatuated with, for with him is my charm and my antidote." The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stood up and swayed until his noble garment fell from his shoulders, so the people of the Suffah took it and divided it among themselves into four hundred pieces. This is, by my life, a manifest lie and an ugly falsehood that has no origin by the consensus of the traditionists of the Sunnis. I see it as nothing but one of the inventions of the heretics. This is the Great Quran being recited by Jibril (peace be upon him) to him (may Allah bless and grant him peace), and he recites it as well, and hears it from more than one, and nothing of what they mentioned in the sama' of two verses—which are as you heard—afflicts him (peace and blessings be upon him). Glory to You, this is a great slander!

I say: The plague of singing and sama' has become widespread in all lands and regions, and people do not refrain from that in mosques and elsewhere. In fact, singers have been appointed who sing on the minarets at specific, noble times with poetry containing the description of wine, taverns, and all that is counted among the forbidden things. Despite this, what is allotted to them from the revenue of the endowment is allotted, and they call them "the glorifiers" (al-mumajjidin), and they consider the absence of that from the mosques to be from a lack of care for the religion. Even uglier than that is what the devils of the Sufis and their rebels do. Then, may Allah curse them, when they are objected to regarding what their chant contains of falsehood, they say: "We intend by 'wine' the Divine Love, by 'drunkenness' its dominance, and by 'Mayya,' 'Layla,' and 'Sa'da,' for example, the Great Beloved, which is Allah (Azz wa Jall)." In that is a lack of proper conduct, as there is: (And to Allah belong the best names, so invoke Him by them, and leave those who deviate in His names).

In al-Qawa'id al-Kubra by al-'Izz ibn 'Abd al-Salam: "It is not of the etiquette of sama' to liken the dominance of love to the drunkenness from wine, for it is a lack of proper conduct. Likewise is likening love to wine, for wine is the mother of all evils, so one should not liken what Allah the Exalted loves to what He has hated and decreed its filth and impurity. For likening the precious to the vile is a lack of proper conduct, there is no doubt in it. Likewise is the likening to the waist, the buttocks, and the like of these of the ugly likenesses." It was disliked for some of them his saying: "You are my soul and the teacher of my comfort," and for others his saying: "For you are the hearing and the sight," because he likened the One who has no likeness to his vile soul, and his hearing and sight which have no worth.

Then, even if he permitted some categories of sama', he criticized those who dance and clap during it, saying: "As for dancing and clapping, it is levity and childishness resembling the levity of women; it is not done except by a foolish or a deceitful liar. How can rhythmic dancing with the weight of singing be possible from one whose mind has flown and whose heart has departed? And he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'The best of generations is my generation, then those who follow them.' None of these who are to be followed did anything of that. Satan has only overpowered a people who think that their ecstasy during sama' is connected to Allah the Exalted. They have lied in what they said and falsely claimed [it], for they, upon hearing the musical [tones], found two pleasures: one of them is the pleasure of a little bit of the states related to the Possessor of Majesty, and the second is the pleasure of sounds, melodies, and rhythmic words—the causes of pleasures that are not from the effects of religion nor related to its affairs. When the pleasures became great to them, they erred and thought that the sum of what they obtained was only obtained because of the attainment of that little bit of the states, and it is not so. Rather, the dominant thing for them is the attainment of the pleasures of the souls, which are not of the religion at all."

Some scholars forbade clapping due to his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "Clapping is only for women," and the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) cursed those women who imitate men and those men who imitate women. Whoever fears the Divine and attains something of His reverence, it is not imagined that dancing or clapping would come from him; they do not emanate except from an ignorant person. It indicates the ignorance of the doer of them that the Law (Shari'ah) did not come with them in a Book or a Sunnah, and no one of the Prophets or the respected among their followers did that. It is only done by the ignorant, the foolish, who have confused realities with passions. Allah the Exalted has said: (And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things). The predecessors and the virtuous successors have passed, and they did not engage in anything of that; so that is nothing but a purpose from the purposes of the self, and it is not a means of proximity to the Lord (Glorified be He). If the doer is one who is to be followed, and he believes that he did not do it except because it is a means of proximity, then evil is what he has done, due to his deluding that this is among the acts of obedience, while it is among the ugliest forms of childishness.

As for shouting, swooning, and their like, it is affectation and showing off. If that is done without a state that necessitates them, then the doer is sinful from two sides: one, his deluding the existing state that necessitates them, and second, his affectation and showing off. If it is from a cause, he is sinful for showing off, nothing more. Likewise, plucking hair, beating chests, and tearing clothes is forbidden due to the waste of wealth. What fruit is there for beating chests, plucking hair, and rending collars except childishness emanating from the souls? End quote. From it is known what is in the narration of al-Asnawi from him (may Allah have mercy on him) that he used to dance in sama'. The scholar Ibn Hajar said: "This is interpreted as mere standing and moving due to the dominance of spiritual ecstasy, witnessing, and manifestation, which only the people of it know." Hence, Imam Isma'il al-Hadrami said: "The position of the sun on a people who move in sama'—these are a people who give respite to their hearts with good sounds until they become spiritual; they are with their hearts with the Truth and with their bodies with the creation." Despite this, one is not safe from the enemy regarding them, nor does one rely on them in what they did, nor follow them in what they said.

What he mentioned regarding one from whom shouting and swooning and the like emanate, [even] if from a state that necessitates them, is not devoid of criticism. Al-Bulqini said regarding what emanates from them of dancing—which is, according to a group, neither forbidden nor disliked because it is mere movements upon uprightness or crookedness, and because he (peace and blessings be upon him) approved of the Abyssinians doing it in his mosque on a day of Eid—that according to others it is disliked, and according to this speaker it is forbidden if it is excessive to the point of causing loss of manliness. If it is by their choice, they are like others; otherwise, they are not held accountable. Some of the great scholars clarified this and said: "It must be applied to everything that is narrated from the Sufis that contradicts the apparent [meaning] of the Law, so it is not to be used as proof. Because if it emanated from them in their state of accountability, they are like others; or with their absence [of mind], they were not accountable for it."

What appears to me is that a man's singing with these melodies, if it is to repel loneliness from himself, then it is permissible and not disliked, as Shams al-A'immah al-Sarakhsi held. However, on the condition that it is not heard by one who is feared for fitnah, such as a woman or others, nor by one who belittles it and holds it in contempt. And on the condition that he does not change the name of the Exalted one, like adding what is not in it in its original formation, so that it does not go out of the requirement of craft, such as saying for "Allah," "I-ilah," and for "Muhammad," "Muwahamid." This is while what is sung is of that which is not objectionable to chant.

But if it is for people for amusement in an event other than joy, such as a wedding for a fee or without, whether he is held in contempt for that or not: if what is sung is permissible to chant, or is not—then it is forbidden. Even if fitnah is secure, I see it as among the minor sins, as the statement of al-Mawardi necessitates, where he said: "And if we say of the prohibition of songs and amusements, they are from the minor sins, not the major sins."

If it is during an event of joy, it is permissible if fitnah is secure and what is sung is permissible to chant, and he does not change the name of an Exalted one in it, and it is not a cause for contempt and the violation of his manliness, nor for the gathering of men and women in a forbidden manner. If it is a cause for a forbidden thing, it is forbidden, and the ranks of its prohibition vary according to the variation of the prohibition of what it was a cause for.

If it is for the people, not for amusement, but to energize them for the remembrance of Allah the Exalted, as is done in some circles of tahlil in our lands, it is potentially permissible if it does not contain corruption; perhaps it is closer to being disliked. It is sometimes said that it is then a means of proximity, like huda', which is what is said behind camels of driving and other things; if it is energizing for travel, it is a means of proximity because the medium of the means of proximity is a means of proximity by consensus. So it is said: We have not found a report on the inclusion of the circles of remembrance in the era of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace), nor in the era of his successors and companions (may Allah be pleased with them)—and they were the keenest of people for the means of proximity—on this singing, nor on the rest of its types. Authentic hadiths [have come] on huda', and for this reason a group permitted the saying of its recommendation. That they were energized without it does not prevent that there might be among them those whom it increases in energy. If it were a means of proximity, they would have done it, even once, and it is not narrated that they did it at all. Furthermore, it is not far-fetched to say that it disturbs the remembrancers, and the meditation on the meaning of remembrance and its visualization is not completed for them with it, and without it, there is no reward for it by consensus.

Perhaps what is done on the minarets, which they call tamjid (glorification), is organized by the ignorant in the chain of the means of proximity; in fact, most of them consider it a means of proximity in itself, while it is, by my life, in the view of the scholar, far from that. If it is for a need of illness whose cure is determined by it, there is no doubt in its permissibility. Otherwise, it is like the chapter on the permissible things, [except] that it violates manliness, such as taking it as a profession. Al-Rafi'i's saying: "It does not violate it if it suits him," al-Zarkashi refuted by saying that al-Shafi'i stated the rejection of his testimony, and his companions acted upon it because it is a base profession, and its doer is counted in custom among those who have no modesty.

From al-Hasan, that a man said to him: "What do you say about singing?" He said: "A good thing, singing; by it kinship is joined, the distressed is relieved, and benevolence is done." He said: "I only mean the shadd (the high-pitched singing)." He said: "And what is shadd? Do you know anything of it?" He said: "Yes." He said: "Then what is it?" The man began to sing, twisting his jaw and nostrils, and winking his eyes. Al-Hasan said: "I did not think a rational person would reach [this state] with himself [as I see]."

Scholars differed in engaging in what violates manliness on several aspects; the third of them is: if testimony is related to it, it is forbidden; otherwise, not. Some of the great scholars said: "It is the most sound view, because it is forbidden for him to cause the loss of what he has borne and has become an trust with him for another." It appears to me that if that is from a scholar who is followed, or it is a cause for contempt, it is also forbidden. As for listening to it—meaning, intending to listen, not mere hearing without intent—when fitnah is secure and what is sung is permissible to chant, and it does not cause a sin, such as the persistence of a singer to sing in a forbidden manner, then it is permissible. Otherwise, it is like the chapter on it, as al-Nawawi said: "It causes loss of manliness, such as the persistence on permissible singing." The disagreement in engaging in what causes its loss we have already mentioned. As for listening to it when fitnah is not secure, and what is sung is not permissible to chant, and it is a cause for a sin, then it is forbidden, and the ranks of its prohibition vary, and perhaps it reaches the prohibition of a major sin. Among the forbidden sama' is the sama' of the Sufis of our time, even if it is free from dancing, for its corruption is more than can be counted. Many of the poems they listen to are the most heinous of what is recited; despite this, they consider it a means of proximity and claim that the one among them who is most desirous of it is the one most desirous or fearful [of Allah]—may Allah kill them, how are they deluded!

It is not hidden to one who has become informed of what was preceded from al-Qushayri and others that their sama' is condemned by those whom they believe are supportive of them, and they think that they and he are from one party. So woe to him whose intercessors are his adversaries, and his loved ones are his enemies! As for their dancing to it, they have increased the bell in the tambourine with it, and they have added a veil of foolishness to the corruption, may Allah the Exalted break their power with that. Some of the great scholars have informed that the testimony of the Sufis who dance to the tambourine—which it is said is permissible or recommended to be struck for a wedding, circumcision, and others of all joy, and from it the arrival of a scholar who benefits the Muslims—is not accepted. This is refuting one who claimed the acceptance and said: "And from some of them [it is said] the testimony of the Sufis who dance to the tambourine is accepted, because of their belief that it is a means of proximity, just as the testimony of a Hanafi who drank wine because of his belief in its permissibility is accepted, and likewise everyone who did what he believed was permissible." This was refuted by saying: "It is an ugly error, because the belief of the Hanafi arose from a correct imitation, and not so for others. Rather, its origin is ignorance and negligence, so it was a false fantasy that is not paid attention to."

Then I say: It is not far-fetched that there be a possessor of a state whom sama' moves and stirs from him what compels him to dancing, clapping, fainting, shouting, tearing clothes, or the like of what is disliked or forbidden. So what appears to me in that is that if he knows from himself the issuance of what was mentioned, then the ruling of listening in his case is the ruling of what follows it. If he hesitates in it, the most cautious in his case, if we do not say of disliking, is not to listen; for in the report: "Leave what makes you doubt for what does not make you doubt." Then, what he obtained of anything of that by mere sama' without intent, and he was not able to prevent it at all, then there is no blame or reproach on him in it, and his ruling in that is the ruling of one afflicted by the like of sneezing and coughing that are involuntary. It is not a condition in repelling blame and reproach from him that it be during his absence [of mind]. So, it is not obligatory for one from whom that emanated, if he did not become absent, to repeat the ablution for prayer, for example. One must look into what if it afflicted him while he was in prayer without absence: is its ruling the ruling of the like of sneezing and coughing if it afflicts him in it or not? What I heard from some of the elders is the second, so contemplate.

"And of the people is he who is afflicted by something of what was mentioned when hearing the Quran," either absolutely or if it is with a good voice. Little does this happen from hearing the Quran or other than it for the perfect one.

From 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her): It was said to her that a people, when they hear the Quran, faint. She said: "The Quran is more noble than that the intellects of men should be stolen from it, but it is as Allah the Exalted said: (The skins of those who fear their Lord shiver therefrom, then their skins and their hearts relax at the remembrance of Allah). Often it is because of the weakness of bearing the reception, and some affecters do it as showing off. From Ibn Sirin, that he was asked about one who hears the Quran and faints, he said: "The appointment between us and them is that they sit on a wall and the Quran is read to them from its beginning to its end; if they faint, it is as they said."

The report of Ibn Mas'ud, "Singing grows hypocrisy in the heart just as water grows herbs," does not refute the permissibility of singing and listening to it in some images, not because singing in it is limited, and that the intent is the singing of wealth, which is the opposite of poverty—for this is refuted by the report being narrated from another direction with the addition: "And remembrance grows faith in the heart just as water grows the crop." The opposition of singing with remembrance is apparent in that the intent is singing. Moreover, the narration is, as some of the memorizers said, with [the vocalization of] al-mad (stretching), because the intent is that singing has the quality that hypocrisy follows it—meaning the practical [hypocrisy], by stirring one to treachery, breaking promises, lying, and the like—and it does not follow from that the necessity of the consequence.

Perhaps the simile in his saying "just as water grows herbs" points to that, for the growing of water for herbs is not constant, and the like of that in speech is many. The one who permits it in some images only permits it where that does not follow it. Yes, there is no doubt that what has this quality, the most cautious after every said and unsaid is not to desire it; thus it is said.

It is said: It is permissible that by "hypocrisy" one intends the [hypocrisy of] belief, and it is supported by its opposition in some narrations with faith, and the course of the report is for the repulsion of singing, as the people were [in] a recent time of ignorance in which singing was used for amusement and gathered upon in the gatherings of drinking. The angle of its growing hypocrisy at that time is that many of them, due to the closeness of the time to the pleasure of singing and what he had of amusement, drinking, and other types of corruption, his heart moves to what he was upon, and he yearns as the camels yearn for it, and he dislikes for that the faith that blocked him from what is there. Due to the strength of the power of Islam, he cannot show what he has concealed and throw faith behind his back and advance to what he delayed from; so nothing could accommodate him but hypocrisy, due to what he gathered upon of fear of apostasy and longing. So contemplate that, and may Allah the Exalted be responsible for your guidance.

As for the verse, if the angle of arguing with it is naming singing as "idle talk," then how much amusement is permissible! And if the threat is on purchasing and choosing it, then we do not concede that that is on mere purchasing, for the possibility that it is on purchasing to mislead from the way of Allah the Exalted, and there is no doubt that that is from the major sins, and there is no dispute for us in it. Ibn 'Atiyyah said: "What is favored is that the verse was revealed concerning idle talk added to disbelief, and for that the wording of the verse intensified by His saying (the Exalted): (to mislead), etc."

From what we have mentioned, it is known what is in arguing with it on the prohibition of amusements such as the rabab, the jink, the santir, the kamanjah, and the flute, and other musical instruments, based on what is narrated from Ibn 'Abbas and al-Hasan that they interpreted "idle talk" with them. Yes, it is forbidden to use them and listen to them for other than what was mentioned. Indeed, it is authenticated from paths—in contradiction to what Ibn Hazm, the misguided misguider, imagined. For al-Bukhari suspended it, and al-Isma'ili, Ahmad, Ibn Majah, Abu Nu'aym, and Abu Dawud connected it with authentic chains that have no criticism, and a group of others among the Imams authenticated it, as some of the memorizers said, that he (may Allah bless and grant him peace) said: "There will be among my nation people who will deem lawful silk, wine, and musical instruments." It is explicit in the prohibition of all musical instruments of amusement. What resembles the explicit in that is what Ibn Abi al-Dunya narrated in the book Dhamm al-Malahi from Anas, and Ahmad and al-Tabarani from Ibn 'Abbas and Abu Umamah in an elevated form: "There will be in this nation sinking, pelting, and transformation, and that is when they drink wines, take female singers, and strike with musical instruments"—and they are the amusements that you heard. Among them is the Persian sanj (cymbal), which is brass upon which are placed strings struck with it, according to what a group went to, in contradiction to al-Mawardi, where he said: "The sanj is disliked with singing and is not disliked alone, because by itself it is not musical." Perhaps he intended by it the Arabic one, which is two pieces of brass, one of them struck against the other, for it, by the apparent, is what does not make music alone, but increases the singing in music. He mentioned that the effeminate use it in some lands, and it is not far-fetched to say of it the prohibition.

Among them is the yara', which is the pipe (flute), for it is musical alone. In fact, some of the people of music said: "It is a complete instrument that combines all melodies except a little." Imam al-Dulqi, who is from the great scholars, has spoken extensively on the proofs of its prohibition. Among them is analogy, and it is either more appropriate or equal. He said: "The wonder, all the wonder, is from one who is from the people of knowledge by claiming that the pipe is permissible." From it is known what is in the saying of al-Taj al-Subki in his Tawshih: "It was not settled for me a proof on the prohibition of the pipe despite the abundance of tracing, and what I see is the permissibility. If a forbidden thing is joined to it, then each of them has its ruling. Then the best for me for one who is not from the people of taste is to turn away from it absolutely, because the utmost that is in it is the attainment of a soul's pleasure, and it is not from the legal objectives." As for the people of taste, their state is conceded to them, and they are according to what they find from themselves.

It is narrated from al-'Izz ibn 'Abd al-Salam and Ibn Daqiq al-'Id that they used to listen to that, and the apparent is that it is a lie that has no origin. By that, some of the great scholars asserted. It is not far-fetched for its permissibility if he whistles in it, like children and shepherds, on other than the known rule of music.

Among them is the lute, which is an instrument for amusement, other than the tanbur. Some applied it to it, and the narration of the corrupt Ibn Tahir from Shaykh Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi that he used to listen to the lute is among his lies and his recklessness, like his claim of the consensus of the Companions and the Successors on the permissibility of singing and amusement. Similar to him in rashness and committing falsehoods on assertion is Ibn Hazm—not the tambourine, for it is permissible to strike it by a man and a woman, not by a woman only, in contradiction to al-Halimi; and listening to it for a wedding and marriage, and likewise others of all joy, in the most correct [view]. And by the permissibility of the one with bells from it—and it is either the like of rings placed inside it like the tambourine of the Arabs, or wide brass cymbals placed in the edges of its circle like the tambourine of the Persians—a group asserted, and others asserted its prohibition, and by it I say, because it is, as al-Adhra'i said, more musical than most of the amusements agreed upon their prohibition.

Some Sufis authored treatises on the permissibility of strings, flutes, and other instruments of amusement, and brought in them a strange lie against Allah the Exalted and His Messenger (may Allah bless and grant him peace), and against his companions (may Allah be pleased with them), the Successors, and the practicing scholars. The one whom Satan played with, and whom passion brought to the abyss of deprivation, imitated them in that, so he is far from the Truth, and between him and the reality of Sufism are a thousand thousand stages. If the saying of some of the elders on the permissibility of something of that is realized for you, do not be deluded by it, because it is contrary to what the Imams of the four schools and others from the great ones are upon, which is supported by the strong proofs which falsehood does not come to from between its hands nor from behind it. Every person is taken from his speech and left, except for the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace). Whoever is provided with an upright intellect and a heart safe from corrupt passions does not doubt that that is not from the religion, and that it is far by stages from the objectives of the law of the Master of the Messengers (may Allah bless and grant him peace and upon his family and all his companions).

Some of the people of permissibility argued for the permissibility of the pipe by what Ibn Hibban recorded in his Sahih from Nafi' from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) that he heard the voice of the flute of a shepherd, so he placed his two fingers in his ears and turned from the road, and he kept saying: "O Nafi', do you hear?" And I say: "Yes." When I said: "No," he returned to the road. Then he said: "Thus I saw the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless and grant him peace) do it." Ibn Abi al-Dunya and al-Bayhaqi recorded it from Nafi' also, and the memorizer Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Salami was asked about it, and he said: "It is an authentic hadith." The angle of arguing with it is that he (may Allah bless and grant him peace) did not order Ibn 'Umar—and his age at that time was, as the mentioned memorizer said, seventeen years—to close his ears, nor did he forbid the doer. If that were forbidden, he would have ordered and forbidden (peace and blessings be upon him). His closing his ears (peace and blessings be upon him) is possible to be because he (peace and blessings be upon him) was at that time in a state of remembrance or thought, and the sama' was distracting him (peace and blessings be upon him). It is also possible that he (peace and blessings be upon him) only did it in avoidance. Al-Adhra'i said: "With this hadith our companions argued for the prohibition of flutes, and upon it they built the prohibition in the pipe."

The truth in my view is that it is not a text in its prohibition, because closing the ears during sama' is from the actions of him (peace and blessings be upon him), and it is not from what was clarified therein of the order of instinct, nor was its specification to him (peace and blessings be upon him) established, nor from what was clarified that it is an explanation for a text whose direction was known from the obligatory, the recommended, or the permissible. If it is from what its attribute was known, it is not devoid of being the obligatory, the recommended, or the permissible. It is not permissible that it be the obligatory that necessitates the prohibition of listening to the pipe, because there is no one who says that it is obligatory for anyone to close the ears upon hearing a forbidden thing, for he is safe from the sin by not intending [to listen]. They have said: "The forbidden is the listening, not mere hearing without intent." In al-Zawajir: "The prevented is listening, not hearing without intent by consensus." Hence our companions—meaning the Shafi'is—stated that whoever has forbidden instruments in his vicinity and he cannot remove them, the moving is not obligatory for him, and he does not sin by hearing them without intent and listening. The apparent is that the matter is likewise according to the rest of the Imams. Yes, they have detail in sitting in a place in which is the like of that. It is said in Tanwir al-Absar and its commentary al-Durr al-Mukhtar: "He was invited to a feast, and there was playing and singing, he sat and ate; even if it is on the table, it is not fitting that he should sit, but he should exit, turning away, for the saying of Allah the Exalted: (So do not sit after the reminder with the people who are the wrongdoers). If he is able to prevent, he does, and if he is not able, he waits, if he is not one who is followed. If he is one who is followed and he is not able to prevent, he exits and does not sit, because in it is the blemish of the religion. What is narrated from Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) was before he became one who is followed. And if he knew from the beginning, he does not attend at all, whether he is one who is followed or not." So it is determined that it is the recommended or the permissible, and both matters do not necessitate the prohibition. So it is possible that that is forbidden or disliked, and it is recommended to close the ears upon hearing it as a precaution so that it does not call to the forbidden or disliked listening. And if it is from what its attribute was not known, they have said in what was like that: The schools in it regarding the nation are five: the obligatory, the recommended, the permissible, the pause, and the detail, and it is that if the intent of proximity appears, then the recommended, otherwise the permissible. From what we mentioned, the state according to every school is known.

What dominates the opinion is that what the report points to, if it was the fluting with the flute of the shepherd on the manner of embellishment and performing the melodies that stir desires, as is done by those who made that their profession today, then listening to it is forbidden, and the closing of the ears pointed to in it is perhaps from him (peace and blessings be upon him) a teaching to the nation of one of the ways of precaution whose state is known, lest that drags them to listening. Otherwise, the listening for the place of immunity is not imagined in his case (peace and blessings be upon him). Whoever knows the worth of the Companions and became informed of their path and their keenness to emulate him (peace and blessings be upon him) does not doubt that Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) closed his ears also in emulation, and then his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) which the report points to him (may Allah be pleased with him): "Do you hear?"—on the meaning of: "Do you hear? Do you hear?" and he only dropped "Do you hear?" due to the indication of the state of it, for whoever closed his ears does not hear. And he (peace and blessings be upon him) only permitted him that due to the place of the need. This is closer than the possibility of the closing of the ears from him (peace and blessings be upon him) because he was in a state of remembrance or thought, and the sama' was distracting him (peace and blessings be upon him).

As for his not forbidding (peace and blessings be upon him) the one who was fluting from fluting and the rejection of him, then it is not conceded its indication of the permissibility, for it is possible that the sound came from afar and between the fluter and him (peace and blessings be upon him) was what prevents reaching him, or he did not know his eye (peace and blessings be upon him) because the sound had come from behind a veil, and the ability with it on the rejection is not confirmed. It is possible also that the prohibition was known from before and he knew from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) the persistence on it, and that he knew the persistence of that doer on his action, so that is like the coming of the people of the covenant to their churches. In the like of that, the silence and the non-rejection does not indicate the permissibility by consensus. Whoever said that the disbeliever is not held accountable for the branches said: "It is possible that the fluter was a disbeliever, and that the silence in his case is not a proof of permissibility." And if the fluting was with it, not on the manner of embellishment and performing the melodies that stir desires, then there is no far-fetchedness in saying the permissibility, doing and listening, and the closing of the ears upon it for the purpose of the avoidance that is befitting for him (peace and blessings be upon him). The saying of al-Adhra'i in the answer that his saying in the report "flute of a shepherd" does not define that it is the pipe, for the shepherds strike with the shu'aybiyyah and others, suggests that what is called shu'aybiyyah is permissible and finished, and in it is scrutiny, for it is an expression of several small reeds and it has music according to the cleverness of its practitioner, so it is a pipe or a flute, necessarily. And in the permissibility of that is talk.

After all this, we say: The mentioned report was recorded by Abu Dawud, and he said: "It is rejected," and upon it there is no proof in it for the two parties, and Allah the Exalted sufficed the believers the fighting. Then, if you are afflicted by something of that, beware, then beware of believing that doing it or listening to it is a means of proximity, as is believed by those who have no portion of the Sufis. If the matter were as they claimed, the Prophets would not have neglected that they should do it and order their followers to do it, and it is not narrated from one of the Prophets (peace and blessings be upon them), nor pointed to it by a book from the books sent down from the heaven. And Allah the Exalted has said: (Today I have perfected for you your religion). If the use of musical amusements or listening to them were from the religion and from what brings proximity to the presence of the Lord of the worlds, he (peace and blessings be upon him) would have clarified it and explained it with the perfection of clarification to his nation. And he (peace and blessings be upon him) has said: "By the One in Whose hand is my soul, I have not left anything that brings you near to Paradise and distances you from Hell but that I have ordered you with it, and I have not left anything that brings you near to Hell and distances you from Paradise but that I have forbidden you from it." And what was mentioned is inside the second part, as is not hidden to one who has a sound heart and an upright intellect. So contemplate and be just, and beware of the objection before you refer and know. And we have a return, if Allah the Exalted wills, for the talk in this request—may Allah the Exalted facilitate that for us by the sanctity of His Greatest Beloved (may Allah bless and grant him peace).

Some argued with the verse on the saying that "idle talk" is the books that al-Nadr ibn al-Harith purchased, on the prohibition of studying the books of the ancient history of the Persians and listening to what is in them and reading it, and in it is a scrutiny. And it is not hidden that in them is of the lie what is in them, so the occupation with them for other than a religious purpose is plunging into falsehood, and Ibn Nujaym counted it in his treatise in the statement of the sins as from the minor sins, and he exemplified it with the mention of the luxury of kings and the rich, so understand this. And among the strange and far-fetched—and in it is making the purchase in the meaning of the sale—is what the author of al-Tahrir went to. He said: "It appears to me that He (the Exalted) intended by 'idle talk' what they used to show of the talks in the strengthening of their religion and the order for continuity upon it and the changing of the description of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and that the Torah indicates that he is from the children of Ishaq (peace be upon him), intending the blocking of their followers from the faith, and he applied the name of purchasing for that they take upon that bribes and fees from their kings." He said: "It is supported by His saying (the Exalted): (to mislead from the way of Allah)." And it is as you see.

The intent by His way (the Exalted) is His religion (Azz wa Jall), or the reading of His Book (the Exalted), or what encompasses both. The lam in (to mislead) is for causality. Ibn Kathir and Abu 'Amr read (li-yudilla) with the fatha of the ya, and the intent is to be established upon his misguidance and increase in it, for the reported is misguided before. And the lam is for the consequence, and its being on its origin, as is said, is far-fetched. Al-Zamakhshari permitted that (li-yudilla) upon this reading was placed in the place of li-yudilla (with the damma) from before, because whoever led astray was misguided, necessarily. So he indicated by the synonym, which is the misguidance, to the mentioned, which is the leading astray. The angle of the indication is that by the misguidance, the doubled misguidance was intended in the affair of one who turned away from the way of Allah and left it entirely, and this misguidance is not detached from leading astray, and conversely. And by it the scrutiny of the author of al-Fara'id is repelled, that the misguidance does not necessitate the leading astray. In it is the agreement of the two readings and the remainder of the lam on its truth. And it is on the two aspects related to His saying (the Exalted): (purchases).

And His saying (Azz wa Jall): (without knowledge), it is permissible that it be related to it also, meaning: he purchases that without knowledge of the state of what he purchases, or with the trade, where he substituted misguidance for guidance and falsehood for truth. It is permissible that it be related to yudilla, meaning: to mislead from His way (the Exalted), ignorant that it is His way (Azz wa Jall), or ignorant that he leads astray, or ignorant of the truth.

(And takes it), with the nasb, conjoined to (to mislead), and the pronoun is for the way, for it is from what is masculine and feminine. It is permitted that it be for the verses. It is said: It is permissible that it be for the talks, for the talk is a gender name in the meaning of the talks, and it is as you see.

(mockery), meaning mocked at. A group of the seven read (yattakhidha) with the rafa', conjoined to (purchases), and it is permitted that it be on the concealment of "it is."

(Those: for them is a humiliating punishment)—when they were characterized by their insulting the truth by preferring falsehood over it and encouraging the people in it, and the reward is from the genus of the action. (Those) is a reference to (one who), and what is in it of the meaning of distance is for the reference to the distance of the rank in the evil. The plural in the demonstrative noun and the pronoun is by regard of its meaning, just as the singular in the two verbs is by regard of its wording, and likewise in His saying (the Exalted):...