By Mawlānā Zameelur Rahman
I read articles from SuhaibWebb.com and I am particularly interested in the ones by Imam John Yahya Ederer. I think he writes from a balanced perspective but is also cautious of not giving in to “modernism”.
I do not know his entire background however and sometimes I am scared to accept some things in his articles.
Could you please comment on the following article written by him:
Please find more info about him here:
Introduction by Hazrat Mufti Ebrahim Desai Daamat Barakaatuhum:
Each one of the four famous jurists, Imām Abū Hanīfah, Imām Mālik, Imām al-Shāfi‘ī and Imām Ahmad Rahimahumullāh were giants in the field of knowledge and absolute mujtahids (مجتهد مطلق) who enjoyed academic independence. Their independent views, in spite of their differences, are greatly appreciated. To have consensus of the four Imāms on any particular issue instils deep confidence on that issue. One such issue is the prohibition of musical instruments. It is very unwise of anyone to be inclined to, or accept, a divergent view from the unanimous verdict of four such luminaries in Islam. In all probability, such a view will be fraught with flaws and discrepancies as aptly pointed out by Mawlana Zameelur Rahman in this response to Imam John Yahya Ederer, who painstakingly defended a view in conflict with the unanimous position of the four Imāms. Place your trust and confidence in the elders (the Fuqahā’) of the ummah. This will save you from confusion, and will help you to attain your objective of the pleasure of Allāh Ta‘ālā.
Mawlana Zameelur Rahman deconstructs Imam John Yahya’s argument which is premised on a wrong analysis of historical facts and hadiths. The deconstruction of the wrong premises on hadiths presented by Mawlana Zameelur Rahman after contextualising them and assessing their academic position makes an interesting read in hadith.
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullāhi wa barakātuh.
We are not familiar with Imam John Yahya Ederer or his scholarly credentials. However, we have undertaken a study of the article in reference, “Regarding the Permissibility of Music”.
In this article, Yahya Ederer attempts to show that there is legitimate scope for disagreement on the Shar‘ī ruling of musical instruments. In the following, we will present our observations on some of the pertinent points of the article. In the course of our discussion, we hope to shed light on some serious flaws in Yahya Ederer’s methodology and conclusions, on the basis of which we advise caution in reading his articles.
The Views of the Four Madhhabs
Yahya Ederer begins his article by saying:
“It is quite true that-historically-the prevalent (جمهور) opinion in Islamic jurisprudence regarding the use of and listening to musical instruments is that of prohibition (حرام). It is the official opinion of the four schools of thought, although various scholars from different schools held it is only disliked (مكروه) and many others deemed it permissible with the condition that the song is not immoral.”
Unfortunately, he has not presented any evidence for this claim. We will show below that there is absolute consensus that musical instruments are, in general, harām. The only legitimate disagreement is over certain exceptions to this general rule.
Here are some statements declaring consensus from within each of the four madhhabs (schools of jurisprudence):
In the Hanafī madhhab, Ibn Nujaym (d. 970) states:
“It [states] in al-Mi‘rāj: ‘Musical instruments are two types: prohibited (muharram), and that is, affective instruments, [even] without singing, like the flute, whether [made] from timber or reed, like the reed flute, or other than it, like the lute and mandarin…And the second type is permissible, and that is the drum during marriage and included in its import is that which [arises] from an occasion and happiness, and it [i.e. the drum] is makrūh (tahrīmī) in other than it… and it is makrūh (tahrīmī) for men in all situations…Al-Bazāzī has transmitted in al-Manāqib consensus on the prohibition (hurmah) of singing when it is with an instrument like the lute, and when it is without it [i.e. an instrument], then you are aware of the disagreement.”
Note: When makrūh is used without qualification in the books of Hanafī fiqh, it means makrūh tahrīmī.
In the Mālikī madhhab, Abu l-Walīd ibn Rushd al-Qurtubī (d. 520 H) writes:
“As for the flute and trumpet, there is no disagreement that their use is impermissible for weddings and other than it…”
He goes on to mention the disagreement over other instruments, but only in the context of a wedding.
In the Shāfi‘i madhhab, Ibn Hajar al-Haythamī (d. 973 H) said:
“Al-Rāfi‘ī said in al-‘Azīzī and al-Nawawī in al-Rawdah: ‘There is no disagreement over the prohibition of the Iraqi flute and string instruments that are played.’”
In the Hanbalī madhhab, al-Mardāwī (d. 885) said:
“Listening to singing and wailing without musical instruments is makrūh…[It is] stated in al-Mustaw‘ab and al-Targhīb and other [books]: ‘It is harām with a musical instrument, without any disagreement amongst us [Hanbalīs].”
Hence, all jurists belonging to the four madhhabs agree musical instruments are, in general, prohibited. Yahya Ederer, unfortunately, did not cite any evidence for his claim that some scholars of the four madhhabs said that they are only makrūh (tanzīhī) or that they are permissible on condition the songs are not immoral. In fact, the statements quoted above directly refute this claim.
The Consensus of the Jurists
Yahya Ederer then writes:
“It is not true that there is consensus on it or that the opinion of permissibility is a strange opinion, which is a divergence from clear teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. In today’s world there are a growing number of prominent scholars that allow listening to instruments that don’t accompany sinful poetry (song).”
The early scholars have explicitly stated that there is consensus on the general prohibition of musical instruments.
Imām Muhyī al-Sunnah al-Baghawī (436 – 516 H), the great Shāfi‘ī scholar of hadith and fiqh, said in his Sharh al-Sunnah:
“They [i.e. the scholars] have reached consensus on the prohibition of flutes and musical instruments.”
Hāfiz Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalī (736 – 795 H) mentions:
“Listening to all musical instruments, and each of them separately, is forbidden. Abū Bakr al-Ājurrī (280 – 360 H) and others have related consensus of the scholars on that.”
From amongst the later scholars, the great Shāfi‘ī jurist, Ibn Hajar al-Haythamī, said in a work devoted to this subject:
“As for flutes, string instruments and drums, there is no disagreement over the prohibition of listening to them.”
The only exceptions to this consensus are opinions of individuals whose views are not admissible in Sunnī scholarly consensus, due to their heterodox positions. Examples, famously, include Ibn Hazm and Ibn Tāhir al-Maqdisī, who both belonged to the Zāhirī (literalist) school of thought. The scholars have not accepted their marginal opinion as an acceptable ijtihād. For example, the Shāfi‘ī scholar of hadith and fiqh, Hāfiz Ibn al-Salāh, referred to Ibn Hazm’s view as “his corrupt (fāsid) view on musical instruments.” And the Hanbalī scholar, Ibn al-Qayyim, refers to it as “his invalid/rejected (bātil) view on the permissibility of musical instruments.”
Moreover, it is obviously incorrect to claim that research conducted in the fourteenth and fifteenth century of Islām can override the consensus that was established in the early generations.
The Views of Some Scholars
Yahya Ederer further writes:
“There are hundreds, dare I say thousands, of scholars who held the permissibility of listening to music as long as the song is morally upright.”
Unfortunately, as with many of his other claims, he did not substantiate this assertion. Moreover, it is not clear whether this statement is in reference to songs accompanied by musical instruments or songs not accompanies by them.
He then produces a list of the names of scholars who purportedly subscribed to the view of the permissibility of musical instruments. He attempts to demonstrate thereby that there is no consensus that musical instruments are impermissible. These names, however, are either inaccurate and, therefore, do not belong on the list, or are inadmissible when assessing scholarly consensus. We will present our observations on a few of the fifteen names he cited.
“The following are some of the prominent scholars (mujtahideen) in our history who, not only deemed it permissible, but in some cases wrote a whole research to prove it!
“Abdullah bin Ja’far bin Abi Talib (al-Aqd al-Fareed 6/12)”
‘Abdullāh ibn Ja‘far was a young Sahābī, the son of the cousin of Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), Ja‘far ibn Abī Tālib (radiyAllāhu ‘anh).
The book in reference, al-‘Iqd al-Farīd, was authored by Abū ‘Umar Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Rabbih (246 – 328 H), on the topic of Arabic literature and history. The report in question commences as follows:
“Sa‘īd ibn Muhammad al-‘Ijlī narrated in Oman: Nasr ibn ‘Alī narrated to me from al-Asma‘ī, he said: Mu‘āwiyah would criticise ‘Abdullāh ibn Ja‘far for listening to songs. Mu‘āwiyah came one year (because) of that as a pilgrim, and he lodged at Madīnah. One night, he passed by the house of ‘Abdullāh ibn Ja‘far and he heard music on string instruments near him. He stopped a while, listening, and then he passed by, saying, ‘I seek forgiveness from Allah! I seek forgiveness from Allah…’”
This is an extremely defective narration. Firstly, the author does not mention that he heard this narration from Sa‘īd ibn Muhammad al-‘Ijli. Secondly, there is no biographical information available with regards to Sa‘īd ibn Muhammad al-‘Ijli, so he is unknown. And thirdly, the transmitter of this report, al-Asma‘ī, was born at around the year 130 H, many decades after the deaths of Mu‘āwiyah (d. 60) and ‘Abdullāh ibn Ja‘far (d. 80). Hence, there is long gap between him and the incidents he describes. The report is, therefore, completely unreliable. All other reports of this nature from ‘Abdullāh ibn Jafar are even more spurious than this one.
Next on the list, Yahya Ederer mentions:
“Sh. Abu Hamed al-Ghazali (vol. 6 pg. 1150 al-Ihyaa’)”
Imām al-Ghazālī stated clearly in his Ihyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn that string instruments and flutes are, in general, prohibited in the Sharī‘ah. He also said: “The Iraqi flute, all string instruments, like the lute, cymbal, rebab, the Persian lute and [other instruments] besides them are harām.” He further said: “Listening to string instruments from the one who plays them [even] without a concordant, pleasant rhythm is harām.” Hence, it is clear Imām al-Ghazālī, in line with the consensus of the scholars, agreed on the prohibition of musical instruments.
The only unconventional view found in al-Ghazālī’s writings is that he allowed a certain type of flute, known as the “reed flute”. However, this was regarded as a shādhdh (marginal, rejected) position by the scholars of his madhhab.
The great Shāfi‘ī jurist, al-Adhra‘ī, said:
“That which al-Ghazālī opined, in terms of the permissibility [of the reed flute]…is anomalous (shādhdh), and I have not seen any predecessor to al-Ghazālī for his preference.”
Another name Yahya Ederer mentions in his list of scholars is:
“Imam al-Shawkani (Ibtal da’wa al-Ijmaa ala mutlaq al-Sama’)”
Al-Shawkānī does not take the position that musical instruments are permissible in the book in reference. Rather, his aim was to refute the claim that there is consensus on the impermissibility of listening to songs. Although he produces valid evidences for his claim with regards to songs that are not accompanied by musical instruments, the evidences he cites to substantiate this claim for musical instruments are invalid for a number of reasons, which we cannot enumerate in this short answer.
Yahya Ederer also mentions on the list:
“Imam Abdul-Ghani al-Nablusi (Idaahat al-Dalalaat fee sama’ al-alaat)”
‘Abdul Ghanī al-Nāblusi (d. 1143 H) was a late Hanafī scholar. He belonged to a group of Sūfīs that deemed musical instruments permissible. The Sūfīs who subscribed to this view were condemned by the early scholars. Hence, along with the Zāhrīs, the Sūfīs who upheld this view are also inadmissible in the scholarly consensus on this subject. Hāfiz Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalī quotes al-Qādī Abu l-Tayyib al-Tabarī (348 – 450 H): “The belief of this group [of Sūfīs] is opposed to consensus…The position of this group is opposed to what the scholars have agreed on, and we seek protection in Allāh from bad fortune.”
Yahya Ederer also mentions in the list of scholars:
“Sultan al-Ulema al-Iz ibn Abdul-Salam (Rislat al-Sama’)”
This is a misattribution to Imām al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salām. Ibn ‘Abd al-Salām has clearly stated that musical instruments are prohibited in his well-known work, Qawā‘id al-Ahkām. Ibn Hajar al-Haythami has also rejected this attribution to Imām al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salām.
Proofs from the Qur’ān
Yahya Ederer then discusses some of the proofs for the prohibition of musical instruments. He says:
“From the Qur’an: There are two verses which are interpreted as justifying prohibition supporting the clear hadith (narration on the subject.”
There are, in fact, at least four verses of the Qur’ān, in the commentary of which, some exegetes referred to the prohibition of music. These are: 31:6, 17:64, 53:61 and 25:72.
Regarding verse 31:6 (“among men are those who purchase idle talk, without knowledge, to mislead [men] from the path of Allāh”), Yahya Ederer says:
“Only a couple out of the dozens of exegetes thought this had anything to do with musical instruments.”
In fact, the predominant interpretation of this verse is that it refers to singing. In Imām al-Tabarī’s Tafsīr, the following exegetes are quoted, stating the verse refers to ghinā’ (singing): ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās, Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh, Mujāhid ibn Jabr and ‘Ikrimah. Similarly, Ibn Abī Shaybah narrates this interpretation in his Musannaf from Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ibn ‘Abbās, Mujāhid, ‘Ikrimah and Habīb ibn Abī Thābit. It should be noted Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn ‘Abbās (radiyAllāhu ‘anhum) are the greatest of the exegetes from the noble Sahābah, as Ibn Kathīr notes in the introduction to his Tafsīr. It is, therefore, incorrect to downplay the significance of this interpretation.
Yahya Ederer goes on to state:
“The vast majority of exegetes said it is talking about the singing of jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic days). Imam al-Qurtubi said that this and the other verse are those that the scholars use as evidence for the disliked (مكروه) nature of singing. Imam al-Qurtubi also narrates that this verse was revealed in the life of the Prophet ﷺ when a man bought a slave known for singing unIslamic songs of jahiliyyah (ignorance).”
Unfortunately, he did not cite any source to prove that the majority of exegetes said this verse refers to the singing “of Jahiliyya.” Al-Qurtubī only cited exegetes who said the verse refers to “singing” (ghinā) in general, and he later differentiates, in his explanation, between immoral singing and singing that is devoid of immorality. Regarding Imām al-Qurtubī’s comment on “the disliked nature of singing”, this is in reference to singing alone that is not accompanied by musical instruments. Moreover, “disliked” is often used in the meaning of harām.
As for the reason for the revelation of the verse, even assuming the report Yahya Ederer refers to is sound, it would not detract from the general interpretation recorded from the Sahābah and Tābi‘īn. The established principle of exegesis is: “Consideration is given to the general wording [of a verse] and not the specific cause [of its revelation].”
Furthermore, regarding the interpretation of “singing”, al-Qurtubī said, “This is the loftiest (a‘lā) of what was said about this verse.” Meaning, the imāms from the Sahābah and Tābi‘īn who mentioned this interpretation were amongst the greatest and most authoritative exegetes. Al-Qurtubī also says “singing” is the most preferred (awlā) interpretation because of these authoritative statements from the early exegetes.
The Proofs from Hadith
Yahya Ederer writes:
“The evidence for prohibition of Islamic Music in this verse is very weak. Any true scholar will surely admit that the verse is not evidence in and of itself; rather it is supportive to a couple of hadiths and the position of many Companions.”
The assertion that there are only a “couple” of hadīths showing the prohibition of musical instruments is incorrect. We will mention four authentic hadiths here:
First, Imām al-Bukhārī narrated in his Sahīh that Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:
“There will certainly be from my ummah groups [of people] who will regard illicit sexual intercourse, silk, wine and musical instruments (ma‘āzif) as halāl.” (Sahīh al-Bukhārī)
The hadīth is authentic according to Imāms al-Bukhārī, al-Ismā‘īlī, Ibn Hibbān, Ibn al-Salāh, Ibn Jamā‘ah, Ibn Kathīr, Ibn al-Mulaqqin, al-Irāqī, Ibn Rajab, al-‘Aynī, al-Asqalānī, al-Sakhāwī and others.
Ibn al-Qayyim said:
“The manner of its indication [towards the illicitness of musical instruments] is that ma‘āzif are all musical instruments – there is no disagreement amongst the linguists over that –, and if they were halāl, he would not have condemned them for regarding/treating them as halāl, and he would not have put regarding them as halāl together with regarding wine as halāl.”
Second, Imām Ahmad narrated with his chain to Ibn ‘Abbās (radiyAllāhu ‘anhumā) that Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:
“Verily, Allah has forbidden wine, gambling and the drum.” (Musnad Ahmad)
The editors of Musnad Ahmad, led by Shaykh Shu‘ayb al-Arnā’ūt, concluded: “Its isnād (chain of transmission) is sahīh (rigorously authentic).” The hadīth was also collected by Imāms Abū Dāwūd, Ibn Hibbān, al-Tahāwī, Abū Ya‘lā, al-Bayhaqī and al-Tabrānī.
Third, Imām Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah narrated from Qays ibn Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubādah (radiyAllāhu anh) that Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:
“Verily, my Lord forbade me from wine, the drum and the lute.”
Its editor, Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwāmah, has explained that its isnād is hasan (authentic).
Fourth, Diyā al-Maqdisī (567 – 643 H) narrates in his al-Ahādīth al-Mukhtārah that Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:
“Two sounds are accursed: the sound of a flute at the time of fortune and the sound of waling at the time of misfortune.”
The editor, ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Duhaysh, mentions that its isnād is hasan. Al-Bazzār (d. 292) also narrated it in his Musnad. Hāfiz Nūr al-Dīn al-Haythami (d. 807 H) said: “Al-Bazzār narrated it and its men are trustworthy.”
There are many more hadīths on the topic. Muftī Muhammad Shafī‘ has enumerated 32 hadiths in his Ahkām al-Qur’ān on the prohibition of singing and musical instruments.
Answering Objections to the Hadīth of Sahīh al-Bukhārī
Yahya Ederer proceeds to criticise the hadīth of Sahīh al-Bukhārī:
“Let’s see what evidence we can find from the Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet ﷺ): There is a hadith mentioned as an attachment (معلق) to a section in the authentic collection of Bukhari under the chapter of drinks #5590 titled those who seek permission of drinking alcohol by calling it another name. Imam al-Bukhari did not put the Hadith as an official Hadith in his authentic collection. According to Imam al-Muhallab the reason was because Hisham was not sure of the name of the companion (Al-Ibtal Al-Shawkani pg. 9).”
With regards to the claim that the hadīth of Sahīh al-Bukhārī is mu‘allaq (meaning, there is a gap between al-Bukhārī and the first narrator of the chain), and is, therefore, not an official hadīth of his collection, the scholars of the sciences of hadīth (‘Ulūm al-Hadīth) have not accepted this claim. The reason for this is that Hishām ibn ‘Ammār, who al-Bukhārī narrates this report from, is amongst his teachers. Al-Zarkashī said:
“The statement of al-Bukhārī about the one he met from his teachers, ‘So-and-so said,’ its ruling is not the ruling of ta‘līq. Rather, it is from the unbroken/connected [chains]…”
Furthermore, regarding this very hadīth, Hāfiz Ibn al-Salāh, says:
“There is no discontinuity in this at all, from the perspective that al-Bukhārī met Hishām and heard from him, and we have explained in the book Ma‘rifat ‘Ulūm al-Hadīth that when meeting and hearing is found, along with the absence of tadlīs (a narrator’s omission of intermediaries between himself and his teacher), what he narrates from him will be treated as [actual] audition in whatever wording it is, just as the statement of a Sahābī: ‘The Messenger of Allāh said’ is treated as having heard him.”
Furthermore, regarding the second point in Yahya Ederer’s comment, that there was uncertainty over the name of the Sahābī, this does not affect the authenticity of a hadīth, as all Sahābah are reliable. In refuting Ibn Hazm’s claim that the uncertainty over the name of the Sahābi affects the authenticity of the hadīth, Hāfiz Ibn Hajar said in Taghlīq al-Ta‘līq:
“As for the disagreement over the agnomen of the Sahābī, then all Sahābah are reliable.” 
He also mentioned in Fath al-Bārī:
“Uncertainty over the name of a Sahābī does not harm [the authenticity of a hadīth] as is established in the sciences of hadith, so no attention is given to the one who faulted the hadith due to uncertainty.”
Furthermore, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī says:
“This is a sahīh hadith. It has no defect and no scope for criticism.”
Unfortunately, however, Yahya Ederer attempts to find weaknesses in the chain of this hadīth, in direct opposition to the imāms of the science.
“The hadith goes:
“…ليكونَنَّ من أمَّتي أقوامٌ ، يستحلُّونَ الحِرَ والحريرَ ، والخمرَ والمعازِفَ”
“There will be a group of people from my nation who will deem silk, alcohol and musical instruments as permissible…”
“Some hadith scholars found a connected chain for this type of hadith. The most famous is the book by Ibn Hajr in his book “closing the attachments” (تغليق التعليق). There are scholars who argued against his assertions, but even if we were to accept his findings about a connection between al-Bukhari and Hisham bin Ammar there is still a problem with Hisham as a narrator among some prominent hadith scholars.”
There is no disagreement over the connectedness of the chain through other routes besides al-Bukhārī’s. Hāfiz Ibn al-Salāh said:
“This hadith itself is known to be connected in clear words in [routes] besides the route of al-Bukhārī.”
Hāfiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī mentions 9 reliable transmitters of hadīth besides al-Bukhārī who narrated it from Hishām ibn ‘Ammār, clearly stating they heard it directly from him.
Yahya Ederer then proceeds to present criticism of the first narrator in the chain, Hishām ibn ‘Ammār:
“There are many concerning issues with this hadith. According to Imam al-Thahabi in his famous 4-volume book Mizan al-I’tidaal which accounts for all the weak narrators he could gather. Imam al-Thahabi mentions that Hisham bin Ammar used to be a veracious narrator, then he changed. He has narrated 400 hadiths that have no basis. He used to not narrate unless someone paid him. He was accused of changing the text. Imam Ahmad said he was reckless. Some narrated that he said the Qur’an has words from Gabriel and Muhammad ﷺ and is created speech.”
Hishām ibn ‘Ammār’s memory changed when he became aged and elderly, meaning some years prior to his death in the year 245 H, as stated by Abū Hātim al-Rāzī. However, Imām al-Bukhārī heard from Hishām ibn ‘Ammār some decades before his death.
Moreover, he was not accused of changing the text of hadīth. What, in fact, this is referring to is that in the period of senility, Hishām ibn ‘Ammār became prey to “talaqqun.” Meaning, when informed that a certain wording of a hadīth was narrated by him, he began to accept that it was his narration, despite not having heard it in that way. This, however, as mentioned earlier was only during his old age.
Regarding the claim that Hishām ibn ‘Ammār said, “the Qur’an has words from Gabriel and Muhammad ﷺ and is created speech,” this is a gross misunderstanding of what is mentioned in Mīzān al-I‘tidāl. What is in fact narrated from Hishām ibn ‘Ammār is the statement: “The utterance of Jibrīl and Muhammad of the Qur’ān is created.” Meaning, the act of Jibrīl and Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) of reading the Qur’ān was created by Allah. This is in accordance with the accepted belief of Ahlus Sunnah that Allāh created us and our actions. Hishām ibn ‘Ammār certainly did not say the Qur’ān has words from Jibrīl and Muhammad, or that the Qur’ān itself is created speech.
Nonetheless, Imām Ahmad (rahimahullāh) did not approve of using these types of statements, even if in reality, they are true. Al-Dhahabī said shortly after relating this statement from Hishām ibn ‘Ammār: “There is consideration and scope for the statement of Hishām.” And he said elsewhere:
“He was of great stature, an authority in the Book and Sunnah. As for what Ahmad rahimahullāh rebuked him for, he has scope therein and a sound interpretation.”
Hence, these are not valid criticisms of Hishām, especially after considering the facts that he is a narrator found in Sahīh al-Bukhārī and the four Sunans; he was a khatīb of the central Mosque of Damascus; Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn described him as “trustworthy” (thiqah) and extremely intelligent; al-‘Ijlī described him as “trustworthy”; al-Nasā’ī said: “there is no fault in him”; al-Dāraqutnī said: “reliable, of immense stature”; and Abū Hātim said: “reliable”.
Furthermore, there is another authentic route to the hadith, bypassing Hishām.
Yahya Ederer says:
“Ibn Hajar acknowledges this, but justifies his ruling of the hadith through a different narration that has someone else narrating it other than Hisham.”
We did not find anywhere that Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī considered Hishām ibn ‘Ammār weak. In fact, his assessment of Hishām in his Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb is: “Reliable (sadūq), a Qur’ān-teacher, he became elderly so became prey to talaqqun. Hence, his earlier hadīths are more authentic.” In this assessment, Ibn Hajar does not even concede that his later hadiths were faulty, but only that his earlier hadīths were “more authentic.” And it has been mentioned above that al-Bukhārī heard hadīth from him some decades before his death.
Yahya Ederer then briefly mentions about the text of the hadith:
“That hadith varies in text but does mention the people deeming musical instruments as permissible (which linguistically and logically doesn’t necessarily mean that it is prohibited).”
We have mentioned earlier, quoting Ibn al-Qayyim, that the narration certainly does prove musical instruments are prohibited. Ibn al-Qayyim said:
“The manner of its indication [towards the illicitness of musical instruments] is that ma‘āzif are all musical instruments – there is no disagreement amongst the linguists over that – and if they were halāl, he would not have condemned them for regarding/treating them as halal, and he would not have put regarding them as halāl together with regarding wine as halāl.”
The Mālikī jurist, Ibn al-‘Arabī, said in commentary of this hadith:
“The meaning may be: ‘They will believe that is halāl,’ and the meaning may be that it is a metaphor for unrestraint, meaning they will be unrestrained in drinking it [i.e. wine] like the unrestraint in [doing] halāl.”
In both meanings, the implication is clear, that all the things mentioned in the hadīth (i.e. illicit intercourse, wine, silk and musical instruments) are harām, but some people will regard them, or will treat them, as halāl.
Yahya Ederer then says:
“The next problem with this hadith, which is not solved by Ibn Hajar’s book, is a narrator named Atiyah bin Qays. Atiyah bin Qays was a righteous man who hadith scholars agreed regarding his character and honesty (عدالة), but there is an issue among some scholars about his precision of memory and narrating (ضبط). Some famous scholars of hadith call him trustworthy (ثقة) just because he is a known pious man while the issue of his precision with hadith is unknown (مجهول). Some of them said although he is acceptable (far from Saheeh ) to be careful in narrating from him. This is mentioned by the hadith scholar Abu Hatem al-Razi in his book al-Jarh wa al-Ta’deel 2/37 and by Abu Bakr al-Bazzaar in his book Kashf al-Astar 1/106.”
Unfortunately, this too is a completely baseless and unsubstantiated claim. We traced both sources Yahya Ederer mentions. In the reference of Kashf al-Astār, far from saying ‘Atiyyah ibn Qays is weak, al-Bazzār says: “There is no fault in him.” (lā ba’sa bihī). In the terminology of narrator-critics, the phrase, “There is no fault in him” is equivalent to the grading, “sadūq” (reliable), which describes reliability in both ‘adālah (integrity) and dabt (precision). And in al-Jarh wa l-Ta‘dīl of Ibn Abī Hātim al-Rāzī he narrates from his father (Abū Hātim al-Rāzī) that ‘Atiyyah ibn Qays is “suitable (sālih) in hadith”, which in Abū Hātim’s usage is ambiguous.
The narrations of ‘Atiyyah ibn Qays are included in all six famous collections of hadīth. Ibn Hibbān included him in his work on trustworthy narrators, al-Thiqāt, and Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī referred to him as “trustworthy” (thiqah). Moreover, Imām al-Tirmidhī said about a narration transmitted only through ‘Atiyyah ibn Qays: “It is a hasan sahīh hadith.” Hence, the claim that ‘Atiyyah is not reliable due to his memory is an unfounded assertion.
Yahya Ederer says:
“This is the best proof that the proponents of prohibition bring forth according to them. Other hadiths are relying on this one.”
We have mentioned previously that there are many other hadīths on the topic, three of which were quoted earlier.
The Doors of Ijtihād
Yahya Ederer says, lamenting the history of Islamic scholarship:
“Many people feel that even though we see the issues in the proofs used for prohibiting music, still it is the official opinion of the 4 main schools of thought and that shows that it was clear to those scholars who know better than us. The assumption here is that every scholar from the different schools of thought over the centuries was a mujtahid and was willing to challenge the opinion and evidence of his own school. This was simply just not the case as Dr. Mana’ al-Qattan narrates in his book on the history of legislation in Islamic history. He elucidates on the well-known unfortunate part of our history known as the closing of the doors to juristic reasoning (إغلاق باب الاجتهاد). For close to 8 centuries, most of the scholars passed down by memory and book most of the rulings of Islamic Law. For various reasons, they were uncomfortable with people changing or questioning popular rulings. Some of those who didn’t agree with this methodology like Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) or al-Suyooti (ra) were seen as dissidents. There is also some historical evidence that this ruling of prohibition of all music was heavily promoted toward the end of the Abbasi Caliphate because of the widespread immorality with music and drinking as many of the hadiths indicate. In my research, which really requires a whole book, there is more than meets the eye on the prevelance of the opinion prohibiting all instrumental music.”
We do not agree that this is a correct representation of the evolution of Islamic scholarship and jurisprudence. Ijtihād was only closed at the highest level, that is, ijtihād in the meaning of complete command over the sources of Sharī‘ah, freeing the mujtahid of the need to refer to any other authority or school. Ijtihād at lower levels, however, was always in operation. This included ijtihād which reassessed the evidences of the school, sometimes even opposing the opinion of the founders of the school. For example, in the Hanafī madhhab alone, after Imām Abū Hanīfah, Imāms Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybānī, Abū Yūsuf, Hasan ibn Ziyād, Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl, al-Tahāwī, ‘Isām ibn Yūsuf, Ibn Rustam, Muhammad ibn Samā‘ah, Abū Sulaymān al-Jūzjānī, Muhammad ibn Muqātil, Nusayr ibn Yahyā and others were all qualified mujtahids affiliated to the Hanafī school, who independently assessed the evidences, and even reached conclusions contrary to the founder of the madhhab. Jurists of a similar rank are found in all madhhabs.
Moreover, taqlīd (adherence to a school of jurisprudence) does not hamper an honest appraisal of evidences. Muqallids of the madhhabs have always honestly assessed the evidences of their respective schools systematically and in full detail. Examples include Hāfiz al-Zayla‘ī’s Nasb al-Rāyah, Hāfiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī’s Talkhīs al-Habīr and others.
Furthermore, in light of the errors we have highlighted in the article under scrutiny, we are justified in being sceptical of the “research” Yahya Ederer says he has conducted. The implication in the paragraph quoted above is that Islāmic scholarship was stagnated throughout the Muslim world for most of its history, and only now is it seeing some advancement. As humble students of Sharī‘ah, we know this to be incorrect.
A final point is that the two examples he mentions of scholars who did assess the evidences for themselves from the later period, Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Suyūtī, both considered musical instruments harām.
Answering Proofs for the Permissibility of Musical Instruments
Yahya Ederer presents some proofs for the permissibility of musical instruments. We will assess a few of them here. He writes:
“Proofs for the Permission of Good, Morally Upright Music: There is a false claim that the Companions all prohibited it. Abdullah bin al-Zubair used to keep women playing guitars (lutes) and singing in his presence. (Idahaat al-Dalalat al-Nablusi 96)”
This has not been authentically attributed to ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr (radiyAllāhu ‘anhumā). There is no evidence for this in any of the well-known biographies of ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr, and there is no chain of transmission for this report. Hence, the attribution is spurious. Yahya Ederer continues:
“There is no disagreement about Ibrahim bin Sa’d bin Abdul Rahman bin Awf listening to songs with guitars (al-Sama’ Ibn Tahir 63)”
This was narrated by Ibn Tāhir, al-Khatīb and Ibn ‘Asākir with their chains. There are a number of issues with the chain of transmission, including weak narrators and discontinuity. Hence, the report is not reliable. As for Ibn Tāhir’s assertion that there is no disagreement over the veracity of the report, it was not accepted by the scholars.
Yahya Ederer says:
“Jews have always attributed music to Prophet David ‘alahi assalatu wassalam (peace and blessings be upon him). It is in the Bible, “The priests stood in waiting at their assigned places, along with the descendants of Levi who carried musical instruments used in service to the LORD that King David had made for giving thanks to the LORD—because his gracious love is eternal…” (2 Chronicles 7:6). So in the following hadith and commentary we have some solid evidence for the praise of good music:
“يا أبا موسى ، لقد أوتيتَ مِزمارًا مِن مزاميرِ آلِ داود”
“Abu Musa, Surely you have been given a voice like the music of David.” (Bukhari 5048)
“Many scholars want to say that this hadith is simply referring to a beautiful voice. When we look into Ibn Hajar’s explanation of this hadith he comments with another sound hadith, “I entered Abu Musa’s house and I have not heard a cymbal, lute or a flute better than his voice.” (al-Fath)”
“The clear linguistic indication here is that the Prophet ﷺ is talking about musical instruments as though they are beautiful and delightful. That cannot be the case in something prohibited. It would be like him saying to his companion who earned a lot of money, “That’s even better than hijacking a caravan!””
Regarding the last point, Yahya Ederer has misread what Hāfiz Ibn Hajar mentioned in Fath al-Bārī. Ibn Hajar is not citing a hadīth, but is referring to a statement recorded from Abū ‘Uthmān al-Nahdī, one of the senior Tābi‘īn, who lived in the days of Jāhiliyyah and converted to Islām at the hands of the senior Sahābah. It was Abū ‘Uthmān al-Nahdī who said: “I entered the house of Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī and I have not heard a cymbal, lute or flute, more beautiful than his voice,” not Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). Abū ‘Uthmān is referring to the music he heard in Jāhiliyyah.
Furthermore, the commentators of the hadīth, including Ibn Hajar, have rejected the notion that the hadīth is referring to Dāwūd (‘alayhissalām) playing the flute. “Mizmār” (flute) is used in the hadīth as a metaphor for a nice voice.
Yahya Ederer further writes:
“There are hadiths that led many scholars from the schools of thought to permit listening to drums. Other prominent Malikis and Shafi’ees (two different schools of thought) allowed trumpets, flutes and tambourines. Those are all musical instruments and the Islamic legal practice of analogy (قياس) allows other instruments in the absence of a clear text prohibiting them.”
As we have clarified earlier, all schools are unanimous that musical instruments are, in general, disallowed. There are only a few exceptions, like beating drums on the occasion of a wedding or Eid. Unfortunately, Yahya Ederer did not give any references for his claim that prominent Shāfi‘īs allowed trumpets, flutes and tambourines.
Moreover, it is not permitted to use analogy (qiyās) to deduce rulings on issues that are expressly stipulated in Shar‘ī texts, as stated in the works of Usūl al-Fiqh, and as Yahya Ederer himself suggests. The hadīth from Sahīh al-Bukhārī discussed earlier expressly prohibits all musical instruments. Hence, the use of analogy here is invalid.
Condemnation of Marginal Opinions
Concluding his article, Yahya Ederer says:
“Whichever opinion you feel is stronger, you are welcome to follow.”
A person is obligated to follow authentic scholarship. Imām Muhammad ibn Sīrīn (d. 110 H) said:
“Verily this knowledge is religion, so be mindful from whom you take your religion.”
A person seeking Islāmic knowledge and, in particular, the rulings of Sharī‘ah, must consult accepted authorities in jurisprudence. He may not pick and choose at his fancy from any and all opinions.
Yahya Ederer continues:
“Please don’t judge someone else because they follow a different opinion than you. Our scholars teach us the following principle in dealing with law—there shall be no rebuking in matters of legitimate disagreement.
.لا إنكار في مسائل الاختلاف
“Islam has a rich tradition of knowledge that by divine decree has differing interpretations as to the details of law. Only God owns the absolute truth.”
This argument is misplaced. It is true that when there is legitimate disagreement, there shall be no rebuking. However, it has not been proven that the disagreement here is legitimate. We have already seen that the scholars have not accepted Ibn Hazm’s view on the permissibility of musical instruments. Ibn al-Salāh and Ibn al-Qayyim have referred to it as a “corrupt” or “invalid/rejected” view. Hāfiz Ibn a-Salāh said in regards to this very subject:
“Not every disagreement is trusted and depended upon. The one who traces what the scholars differed over and adopts the easiest opinions, he becomes a heretic, or almost [becomes a heretic]…As for the permissibility of this audition and its allowance, then it ought to be known that when the drum, reed flute and singing come together, listening to them is harām according to the imāms of the madhhabs, and other than them, from the scholars of the Muslims. And it has not been established from any of those whose views are considered in consensus and disagreement that he permitted this audition [which combines singing, drum and reed flute]…The disagreement of those who disagreed therein from the literalists (Zāhiriyyah) is not considered.”
Following rare and isolated juristic opinions which were rejected by the vast majority of the jurists has been considered a gateway to heresy by the scholars, as alluded to in this statement of Ibn al-Salāh. Imām al-Awzā‘ī said: “The one who takes the odd opinions of the scholars leaves Islām.” Sulaymān al-Taymī said: “If you took the slip of every scholar, all evil would gather in you.”
We hope that it is clear from the foregoing discussion that Yahya Ederer’s methodology and conclusions in this article are deeply flawed. There are also a number of obvious blunders in many points of his research. Based on these reasons, we strongly advise caution in reading his articles.
Finally, it should be noted that this is not a personal attack on Yahya Ederer or his scholarly credentials. Rather, the purpose is to draw attention to what we feel are serious misrepresentations of Islāmic scholarship and the dangerous implications of them, so readers may be careful to not take everything that is mentioned on the website referred to in the question at face-value.
And Allah Ta‘ālā Knows Best
Student Darul Iftaa
Checked and Approved by,
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
 فى المعراج: الملاهي نوعان: محرم وهو الآلات المطربة من غير غناء كالمزمار سواء كان من عود أو قصب كالشبابة أو غيره كالعود والطنبور…والنوع الثاني مباح وهو الدف فى النكاح وفي معناه ما كان من حادث وسرور ويكره في غيره…وهو مكروه للرجال على كل حال…ونقل البزازي فى المناقب الإجماع على حرمة الغناء إذا كان على آلة كالعود وأما إذا كان بغيرها فقد علمت الاختلاف (البحر الرائق، ايج ايم سعيد، ج٧ ص٨٨)
 الْمَكْرُوهُ فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ نَوْعَانِ: أَحَدُهُمَا مَا كُرِهَ تَحْرِيمًا، وَهُوَ الْمَحْمَلُ عِنْدَ إطْلَاقِهِمْ الْكَرَاهَةَ كَمَا فِي زَكَاةِ فَتْحِ الْقَدِيرِ (رد المحتار، ايج ايم سعيد، ج١ ص١٣٢)
 أما العود والبوق فلا اختلاف في أنه لا يجوز استعمالهما في عرس ولا غيره (البيان والتحصيل، دار الغرب الإسلامي، ج٧ ص٤٧٢)
 قال الرافعي فى العزيزي والنووي فى الروضة: المزمار العراقي وما يضرب به من الأوتار حرام بلا خلاف (كف الرعاع من محرمات اللهو والسماع، ص٧٧)
 يكره سماع الغناء والنوح بلا آلة لهو…وفى المسوعب والترغيب وغيرهما: يحرم مع آلة لهو، بلا خلاف بيننا (الإنصاف، ج١٢ ص٥١)
 واتفقوا على تحريم المزامير والملاهي والمعازف (شرح السنة، المكتب الإسلامي، ١٢:٣٨٣)
 سماع آلات الملاهي كلها وكل منها محرم بانفراده، وقد حكى أبو بكر الآجري وغيره إجماع العلماء على ذلك (مجموع رسائل الحافظ ابن رجب الحنبلي، الفاروق الحديثية، ج٢ ص٤٤٤)
 أما المزامير والأوتار والكوبة فلا يختلف في تحريم سماعها (كف الرعاع، ص٧٨)
 انظر المصدر السابق، ٧٩-٨١
 قال الإمام أبو المعالي الجويني: ما ذهب إليه ذوو التحقيق: أنا لا نعد منكرى القياس من علماء الأمة وحملة الشريعة…(انظر: فتاوى ومسائل ابن الصلاح، دار المعرفة، ص٢٠٥-٧)
 صيانة صحيح مسلم لابن الصلاح مع صحيح مسلم، بيت الأفكار الدولية، ١٢٢١
 إغاثة اللهفان، مطبعة مصطفى البابي الحلبي، ص٢٧٧
 حدث سعيد بن محمد العجلي بعمان، حدثني نصر بن علي عن الأصمعي، قال: كان معاوية يعيب على عبد الله بن جعفر سماع الغناء؛ فأقبل معاوية عاما من ذلك حاجا، فنزل المدينة، فمر ليلة بدار عبد الله بن جعفر فسمع عنده غناء على أوتار، فوقف ساعة يستمع، ثم مضى وهو يقول: أستغفر الله! أستغفر الله! (العقد الفريد، دار الكتب العلمية، ج٧ ص١٩)
 الرد على القرضاوي والجديع، نشر الأثرية للتراث، ٥٠١-٢٠
 الملاهي والأوتار والمزامير التي ورد الشرع بالمنع منها (إحياء علوم الدين، مكتبة كرياتا فوترا، ج.١ ص٢٦٩)
 حرم المزمار العراقي والأوتار كلها كالعود والصنج والرباب والبربط وغيرها (المصدر السابق، ص٢٧٠)
 سماع الأوتار ممن يضربها على غير وزن متناسب مسلتذ حرام (المصدر السابق)
 قال الأذرعي: ما ذهب إليه الغزالي من الحل وتابعه صاحبه ابن يحيى، شاذ، ولم أر للغزالي في ترجيحه سلفا (كف الرعاع، ٧١)
 قال القاضي أبو الطيب الطبري رحمه الله في كتابه فى السماع: اعتقاد هذه الطائفة مخالف لإجماع المسلمين…وكان مذهب هذه الطائفة مخالفا لما اجتمعت عليه العلماء (مجموع رسائل الحافظ ابن رجب الحنبلي، الفاروق الحديثية، ج٢ ص٤٦٢)
 قواعد الأحكام في إصلاح الأنام، دار القلم، ج٢ ص٣٥٢
 كف الرعاع، ص٨٧
 أحكام القرآن للتهانوي، إدارة القرآن والعلوم الإسلامية، ج٣ ص٢٠٤-٥؛ مجموع رسائل الحافظ ابن رجب الحنبلي، الفاروق الحديثية، ج٢ ص٤٤٤
 تفسير الطبري، مكتبة هجر، ج١٨ ص٥٣٣-٩
 مصنف ابن أبي شيبة، شركة دار القبلة، ج١١ ص ١٠١-٢
 تفسير القرآن العظيم، دار ابن حزم، ص١٠
 قال الإمام الغزالي: أما المكروه فهو لفظ مشترك في عرف الفقهاء بين معان: أحدها المحظور، فكثيرا ما يقول الشافعي رحمه الله وأكره هذا وهو يريد التحريم…(المستصفى، ج.١ ص٢١٥)
 قلت (القائل: الإمام القرطبي): هذا أعلى ما قيل في هذه الآية (الجامع لأحكام القرآن، دار الحديث، ج٧ ص٣٧٤
 قلت: القول الأول أولى ما قيل في هذا الباب للحديث المرفوع فيه وقول الصحابة والتابعين فيه (المصدر السابق، ص٣٧٥)
 ليكونن من أمتي أقوام يستحلون الحر والحرير والخمر والمعازف (فتح الباري، دار السلام، ج١٠ ص٦٥)
 الرد على القرضاوي والجديع، ص٢١٠-١٣
 ووجه الدلالة منه أن المعازف هي آلات اللهو كلها لا خلاف بين أهل اللغة في ذلك ولو كانت حلالا لما ذمهم على استحلالها ولما قرن استحلالها باستحلال الخمر (إغاثة اللهفان، مطبعة مصطفى البابي الحلبي، ٢٧٨)
 إن الله حرم الخمر والميسر والكوبة (مسند أحمد، مؤسسة الرسالة، ج٤ ص٢٨٠)
 إن ربي حرم علي الخمر والكوبة والقنين يعني العود (مصنف ابن أبي شيبة، دار قرطبة، ج١٢ ص٢٧٠)
 صوتان ملوعنان: صوت مزمار عند نعمة وصوت رنة عند مصيبة (الأحاديث المختارة، دار خضر، ج٦ ص١٨٨)
 الأحاديث المختارة، دار خضر، ج٦ ص١٨٨
 البحر الزخار، مكتبة العلوم والحكم، ج١٤ ص٦٢
 هامش كشف الأستار، مؤسسة الرسالة، ج١ ص٣٧٧
 أحكام القرآن للتهانوي، إدارة القرآن والعلوم الإسلامية، ج٣ ص٢٠٥-١٣
 قول البخاري عمن لقيه من شيوخه: وقال فلان ليس حكمه حكم التعليق، بل هو من قبيل المتصل كما سبق فى الإسناد المعنعن (النكت على مقدمة ابن الصلاح للرزكشي، أضواء السلف، ج٢ ص٥٠)
 صيانة صحيح مسلم لابن الصلاح مع صحيح مسلم، بيت الأفكار الدولية، ١٢٢١
 وأما الاختلاف في كنية الصحابي، فالصحابة كلهم عدول (تغليق التعليق على صحيح البخاري، المكتب الإسلامي، ج٥ ص٢٢)
 التردد فى اسم الصحابي لا يضر كما تقرر في علوم الحديث، فلا التفات إلى من أعل الحديث بسبب التردد (فتح الباري، دار السلام، ج١٠ ص٦٩)
 هذا حديث لا علة له ولا مطعن له (تغليق التعليق على صحيح البخاري، المكتب الإسلامي، ج٥ ص٢٢)
 إن هذا الحديت بعينه معروف الإتصال بصريح لفظه من غير جهة البخاري (صيانة صحيح مسلم لابن الصلاح مع صحيح مسلم، بيت الأفكار الدولية، ١٢٢١)
 تغليق التعليق على صحيح البخاري، المكتب الإسلامي، ج٥ ص١٧-٢١
 قال ابن حبان: أخبرنا الحسين بن عبد الله القطان، قال: حدثنا هشام بن عمار، قال حدثنا صدقة بن خالد قال: حدثنا ابن جابر قال: حدثنا عطية بن قيس قال: حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن غنم قال: حدثنا أبو عامر وأبو مالك الأشعريان، سمعا رسول الله صلى لله عليه وسلم يقول: ليكونن في أمتي أقوام يستحلون الحرير والخمر والمعازف (التعليقات الحسان على صحيح ابن حبان، دار باوزير، ج٩ ص٤١١) والحسين بن عبد الله (بن يزيد) القطان قال عنه الحافظ الذهبي: الحافظ المسند الثقة…وثقه الدارقطني، توفي في حدود سنة عشر وثلات مئة (سير أعلام النبلاء، مؤسسة الرسالة، ج١٤ ص٢٨٦-٧)
 قال البيهقي: أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ (أي الإمام الحاكم): أخبرني أبو بكر بن عبد الله: أنبأ الحسن بن سفيان، ثنا هشام بن عمار، ثنا صدقة بن خالد إلخ (سنن البيهقي، دار الكتب العلمية، ج١٠ ص٣٧٣)
 قال الطبراني: حدثنا محمد بن يزيد بن عبد الصمد الدمشقي، ثنا هشام بن عمار…سمع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: ليكونن في أمتي أقوام يستحلون الحرير والخمر والمعازف…(مسند الشاميين، مؤسسة الرسالة ج١ ص ٣٣٤) ومحمد بن يزيد بن عبد الصمد الدمشقي قال عنه الذهبي وابن العماد: كان صدوقا (إرشاد القاصي والداني إلى تراجم شيوخ الطبراني، مكتبة ابن تيمية، ص٦٣٤)
 انظر للتفصيل: فتح الباري، دار السلام، ج١٠ ص٦٧-٨
 تهذيب الكمال، مؤسسة الرسالة، ج٣٠ ص٢٤٩
 ودل عليه قول أبي جعفر العقيلي: لما صنف البخاري كتاب الصحيح عرضه على ابن المديني وأحمد بن حبل ويحيى بن معين وغيرهم (مقدمة فتح الباري) وابن معين مات سنة ٢٣٣ه وله قرائن أخرى ذكرها عبد الله رمضان بن موسى فى الرد على القرضاوي والجديع
 لفظ جبريل ومحمد بالقرآن مخلوق (ميزان الإعتدال، ج. ٤ ص٣٠٣)
 المصدر السابق
 قلت (أي الذهبي): كان كبير الشأن، رأسا فى الكتاب والسنة وما أنكر عليه أحمد رحمه الله له فيه مساغ ومحمل حسن (الرد على القرضاوي والجديع ص٢٦٥ نقلا عن تهذيب تهذيب الكمال)
 ميزان الإعتدال، مؤسسة الرسالة، ٣٠ ٢٤٧-٥٥
 سنن أبي داود (مؤسسة الريان، ج٤ ص٣٩٥-٦) وتغليق التعليق (المكتب الإسلامي، ج٥ ص١٩)
 تحرير التقريب، موسسة الرسالة، ج٤ ص٤١
 ووجه الدلالة منه أن المعازف هي آلات اللهو كلها لا خلاف بين أهل اللغة في ذلك ولو كانت حلالا لما ذمهم على استحلالها ولما قرن استحلالها باستحلال الخمر (إغاثة اللهفان، مطبعة مصطفى البابي الحلبي، ٢٧٨)
 قال ابن العربي: يحتمل أن يكون المعنى يعتقدون ذلك حلالا ويحتمل أن يكون ذلك مجازا على الاسترسال أي يسترسلون في شربها كالاسترسال فى الحلال (فتح الباري، دار السلام، ج١٠ ص٧٠)
 كشف الأستار، مؤسسة الرسالة، ج١ ص١٠٦
 ويلي من هذه المرتبة خامسة وهي قولهم ليس به بأس أو لا بأس به أو صدوق…(فتح المغيث، مكتبة دار المنهاج، ج٢ ص٢٨٢)
 الجرح والتعديل، الفاروق الحديثية، ج٦ ص٣٨٤
 صالح الحديث: وقد استعمله أبو حاتم كثيراً، وهذا اللفظ – وإن كان من أدنى ألفاظ التعديل عنده – إلا أنه استعمله استعمالات متباينة، وهو من الألفاظ المتسعة عنده أيضاً، يظهر ذلك من خلال وصفه رواة متفاوتي المراتب بهذا الوصف (ملامح كلية من منهج الحافظ أبي حاتم الرازي)
 تحرير التقريب، مؤسسة الرسالة، ج٣ ص٢١
 جامع الترمذي، دار الغرب الإسلامي، ٣:٣٠٨
 قال ابن عابدين: فمن أصحاب أبي يوسف ومحمد رحمهما الله مثل عصام بن يوسف وابن رستم ومحمد بن سماعة وأبي سليمان الجوزجاني وأبي حفص البخاري ومن بعدهم مثل محمد بن سلمة ومحمد بن مقاتل ونصير بن يحيى وأبى النصر محمد بن سلام؛ وقد يتفق لهم أن يخالفوا أصحاب المذهب لدلائل وأسباب ظهرت لهم (شرح عقود رسم المفتي، مكتبة البشرى، ص٢٠)
 الأمر بالاتباع والنهي عن الإبتداع للسيوطي، دار ابن القيم، ص٩٩ وما بعدها؛ قال ابن تيمية: وقد ثبت في صحيح البخاري وغيره أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ذكر الذين يستحلون الحر والحرير والخمر والمعازف على وجه الذم لهم وأن الله معاقبهم، فدل هذا الحديث على تحريم المعازف، والمعازف هي آلات اللهو عند أهل اللغة وهذا اسم يتباول هذه الآلات كلها (مجموع فتاوى شيج الإسلام أحمد ابن تيمية، مجمع الملك فهد)
 الرد على القرضاوي، ٥٣١-٥
 للتفصيل انظر الرد على القرضاوي، ٣٩٧-٩
 كف الرعاع، ص٧٩-٨٠
 وأخرج ابن أبي داود من طريق أبي عثمان النهدي قال: دخلت دار أبي موسى الأشعري فما سمعت صوت صنج ولا بربط ولا ناي أحسن من صوته، سنده صحيح (فتح الباري، دار السلام، ج٩ ص١١٦-٧)
 والمراد بالمزمار الصوت الحسن (المصدر السابق)
 قال الشاشي: شرط صحة القياس خمسة: أحدها أن لا يكون في مقابلة النص (أصول الشاشي، كتب خانه إمداديه، ص٨٥)
 إن هذا العلم دين فانظروا عمن تأخذون دينكم (صحيح مسليم، قديمي كتب خانه، ص١١)
 قال ابن الصلاح: يجب عليه (العامي) قطعا البحث الذي يعرف به صلاحية من يستفتيه للإفتاء…ولا يجوز له استفتاء كل من اعتزى إلى العلم أو انتصب في منصب التدريس أو غيره من مناصب أهل العلم بمجر ذلك (أدب المفتي والمستفتي، دار المعرفة، ص٨٥-٦)
 ليس كل خلاف يستروح إليه ويعتمد عليه، ومن يتبع ما ختلف فيه العلماء وأخذ بالرخص من أقاويلهم تزندق أو كاد…وأما إباحة هذا السماع وتحليله فليعلم أن الدف والشبابة والغناء إذا اجتمعت فاستماع ذلك حرام عند أئمة المذاهب وغيرهم من علماء المسلمين ولم يثبت عن أحد ممن يعتد بقوله فى الإجماع والإختلاف أنه أباح السماع (بهذه الصفة)…لا يعتد بخلاف من خالف فيه من الظاهرية…(فتاوى ومسائل ابن الصلاح، دار المعرفة، ص٥٠٠-١)
 أصول الإفتاء وآدابه للمفتي تقي العثماني، مكتبة معارف القرآن، ص ٢٠٦