a person in the UK known as a scholar recently attended a gathering where he permitted music and claimed that it is proven from hadith and that he can himself prove it from fatawa ridawiyyah. my nerve snapped and i went for the jugular.


tell pir saqib sahib to write a word by word refutation of the issue* alahazrat's masayil e samaa. if he cannot do it, his challenge is an empty boast and can impress only the jahil awaam. read it here. download it here. in addition to a number of fatawa of alahazrat; see vol.24, pages 125-144.** if he does not have time to write, let him pick it up and refute the arguments therein and counter alahazrat's proofs in a speech/talk whatever.

if saqib shami was leading prayer, i won't pray behind him for two reasons: unsatisfactory tajwid and less than a fistful beard. now there is a third reason: sitting in the company of fussaq and demeaning tasawwuf and shariah and considering music as halal. and if it was a juma, i would pray, but i would repeat zuhr afterward. [assuming that poetry was unsullied, if not there would be more reasons…]

Allah ta'ala knows best.

*related to music because the risalah has other issues not related to music.
** particularly on page 140 which quotes a hadith of bukhari that "people in final times will make fornication, music and silk as halal".



alahazrat's fatwa; fatawa riDawiyyah 24/138


[please] elucidate on the permissibility of listening to music [sama'a e mazameer] that is, 'qawwali' which is prevalent in our times [murawwaja qawwali]. also, describe whether it is proven from the actions of the lawgiver [sahib e shariat] sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and thereafter how much was this compounded by people in later centuries; and which path should be adopted by a person wishing to listen to 'melody' [sama'a] and singing [qawali] in our times.


music [mazameer] is Haram.

in saHiH bukhari, RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam foretold about a group of people [in his ummah] who shall "make fornication, silk and [wine and] music as Halal" and said: 'they will be transformed into monkeys and pigs'. in hidayah and other books, it is clearly mentioned that music is Haram. sultan al-awliya nizamuddin raDiyallahu anhu has said in his fawayidu'l fu'aad: "mazameer or music is haraam". shaykh sharafuddin yaHya maneri quddisa sirruh, in his maktubat enumerated [the enormity of] music alongside fornication. concerning the Lawgiver sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam: it is only narrated that the sound of tambourine [duff] fell upon his blessed ears; and he did not intentionally listen to it, nor did he pay attention to it.during times of happiness and feast, it is permissible to beat plain drums or tambourines without jingles [jalajil] such that it is not beaten in the fashion of musicians. it is necessary for those who wish to listen to 'qawwali' to shun music and listen to chaste and virtuous poems sung by old or young men.



btw, here is a clipping from the farsi saba'a sanabil sharif on sama'a. 

saba sanabil on sama [PDF]



i just heard saqib shami's rambling on sunnaforum: here.

not only ignorant, the fellow doesn't even have basic skills of istidlal. i was under the impression that he was some sort of a scholar but this fellow has nothing to do with knowledge. just a smattering of terms and dropping of names which is, unfortunately, identified as scholarship nowadays. i was appalled by the audacity of this man who does iftara on the shariah so brazenly. this man is an outright jahil. la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

he says: 'i have been to saudi jails for the sake of sunniyat'
actually, anybody foolhardy can go to saudi jails, ostensibly for the sake of sunniyat – all you have to do is argue with a mutawwa. and even if it was for 'sunniyat' does this give you carte blanche to do anything and rave about anything or make permissible anything your hawa covets?

which brings us to the straw man. i haven't heard any learned person say (or read anywhere) that a person listening to music is out of ahlu's sunnah. in fact, a person will not go out of sunniyat even after committing (al-iyadhu billah) other kabayir like: fornication and drinking wine. i challenge saqib shami to disprove this point of mine. probably saqib needs to read a basic aqidah text that explains the difference between us and khawarij on kufr of sinners.

apparently, saqib knows better than alahazrat about which passages in fawayidu'l fu'ad (FF) to discard. and this is the fallacy of generalisation which runs rife in his talk. his reasoning is:

1. ghunya has anti-sunni passages

2. ghunya is considered as work of ghaws e a'azam

3. therefore sunni scholars said that there are additions in ghunya.

4. shaykh abdu'l haq said [according to saqib-shamee] fawayidu'l fua'd has 'additions'

5. therefore, the oft-quoted part of FF should be an addition.

saqib does not spell it out, but that is the insinuation. leaving common people to derive their own conclusions. let us assume that he is saying: 'i won't accept that proof because it could be a tampering.' a number of questions arise:

1. if FF is tampered, to what degree?

2. if FF is tampered, how do we know that this particular passage is tampered?

3. what if this is not tampered? should we give precedence to permissibility over prohibition? what is the rule of uSul?

4. do we discard it completely or is there any guideline to accept/reject passages?

anyway, let us not argue about FF. what about the akhbaru'l akhyar [AA] that set you on this path? surely, AA is dependable? i assume saqib considers it dependable because he is using it as a premise to discard FF? now let us see what akhbaru'l akhyar says. in the entry of maHbub sub'hani sayyidi shaykh nizamuddin awliya raHimahullah, shaykh abdu'l haq narrates:

it is said that a man told shaykh nizamuddin in a gathering:"your friends have gathered in such and such a place and they are playing various musical instruments. shaykh nizamuddin said:"i had ordered them to stay away from such things and that musical instruments and Haram things as these things should not be [in the gathering.] they have not done the right thing and they have committed an excess [ghuluww].

i am including the farsi clipping lest i be accused of tampering with the translation. go ahead saqib and discard akhbaru'l akhyar. secondly, assuming that saba'a sanabil certainly has that quote he mentions. what is the proof that THIS book is not tampered? and what guarantee is there for SS for not to be tampered? sure you told us that alahazrat praised it. but are you saying alahazrat did not read it?

saqib asks a stupid question: 'why is mr.duff halal and mr.harmonium impermissible?'

this is like asking: 'why is mr.goat halal and mr.pig haram?' something to be established as halal because of taqrir is ONLY for sahib e shariat sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, not for the fantasies of some ignoramus qalqalatu'l lisan who praises fussaq in their faces who does not have a basic understanding of ibaHah and its conditions. how can one argue with an ignoramus who is oblivious of the very definition of taqrir and the rules that govern it? the arsh of Rahman shivers when a fasiq is praised. and the Lord Sustainer is angered because of it.'

also included is the book alahazrat quotes kashfu'l qina'a of shaykh fakhruddin zarradi, a disciple and khalifah of sayyidi nizamuddin awliya and he categorically [see pg.22] states that:

as for the sama'a of our mashayikh – may Allah ta'ala be pleased with them – it was far removed from this [false] accusation [that they listened to musical instruments] because [their sama'a] was only voice of the reciter…

apparently saqib shami knows the practise of chishti mashayikh better than him. go ahead and slam this book as tampered as well.

let saqib shami present credible evidence and statements from masters which clearly says: "mazameer is permitted and halal" like he so pompously and proclaims.
Allah ta'ala knows best.

akhbaru'l akhyar on sama'a [PDF]



z-m-r : zamar, yazmur

is to sing. zamar or zammar.

and one who sings is zaamir or zammaar.

and the instrument accompanying singing is mizmaar (the pl.of which is mazameer).

[it should be noted that it doesn't mean any specific musical instrument. even a duff can be a mizmaar.]

figuratively, a beautiful voice is also termed mizmaar as it is mentioned in the hadith of abu musa al-ash'ari: "that he hear the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam heard him recite the qur'an and he said: "you have been given a beautiful voice [mizmaar] akin to the voices of dawud's followers" [aal daawud alayhi's salam].

here he [sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam] used 'mizmar' as a metaphor for a beautiful voice and the sweet melody.

mazameer daawud – the instruments of daawud alayhi's salam: that is by which the psalms were sung and this was the apex of melodious voices.

aal dawud here, it is said that it was a person. it is also said that 'mazameer dawud' [instruments of dawud] are a kind of du'a; the plural of mizmar is mazmuur. as it is said in the hadith of abu bakr raDiyallahu anhu: "the instruments [mazmuur] of the devil in the house of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam?"

ibn al-athir said that mazmuur and mizmaar are both the same.



the hadith: "the instruments of the devil in the house of RasulAllah?" is in muslim and bukhari:

sahih bukhari, 949 and 952.

in fat'h al bari:

mizmaratu'sh shaytan: means singing or duff [arabian tambourine] because mizmarah or mizmar is derived from zameer, which means a whistling sound and it is also used to describe beautiful voice or singing; and therefore instruments accompanying it is are termed thus. the attribution to the devil is because it is vanity and this engages the heart and distracts from dhikr.

in umdatu'l qari:

in a narration of muslim: 'singing with the duff'

imam ayni notes:

it is that without jingles [jalajil] and if it has jingles, it is miz'har

mizmaratu'sh shaytan: singing or duff

in nawawi's sharh of muslim 892,

mizmar is a whistling noise but also applicable for beautiful voice and therefore it is used to mean singing.

these are a few shuruh and if you want i can give you at least two dozen opinions of hadith masters NONE of them allowed musical instruments except duff. [by the way daff and duff are both right, only the latter is considered more eloquent/afSaH]

saqib has grossly misrepresented this hadith and it is not an ordinary crime. he is thoroughly unqualified to talk about hadith after this unless he repents and recants his egregious blunder and proves that he has acquired some education. until then muslims are warned to keep away from this orange jahil.

so know mr.saqib, that mr.duff is allowed because it is mentioned in hadith and mr.harmonium is disallowed because it is not mentioned in hadith. d-uh? if you want to do qiyas, you will have to learn usul first and i think saqib should start with basic fiqh in bahar e shariat first.



one small connector.

in previous usage mizmar referred to duff or singing as in hadith. later on it came to be used in a generic meaning of 'musical instruments' or 'music'. just as nabidh meant something in early times and it came to mean something else later – and thus corresponding fatawa. therefore, in fiqh and fatawa when the say mizmar is haram, it means musical instruments and not duff.

Allah ta'ala knows best.



At this point, someone else joined in trying to put in a word for saqib. And I replied.

There have been and continue to be many scholars/walis who permit qawwali.

none of the ancient masters permitted it.

He named a whole list of prominent ulema and mashaikh of the Chishti order who disagreed with you.

i cannot say about post 14th century mashayikh, but none of the elder* mashayikh allowed it. as for the elder mashayikh, saqib is slandering them and hence my ire.

People like Hazrat Bandyalwi, Allama Saeed Kazmi ('Ghazali e Zaman') and, most prominent of all, all the buzurgs of Astana Aalia Golra Sharif –above all Pir Sayyid Mihr Ali Shah sahib & the late Pir Naseeruddin.

i will talk about sayyidi mihr ali later but the rest of them – none of them is hujjah over alahazrat and if i did not respect these ulama i would have critically analysed their position. as for pir sayyid mihr ali raDiyallahu anhu, his practise is NOT hujjah and he is free from blame. it is allowed for him but not for anyone else. take the quote from sab'a sanabil sharif, saqib presented for his proof which he mutilated for his own convenience. i can't say if he has seen it in SS but i can assure you that it is far from how he presents it. here is the gist:

qazi hamiduddin of baghdad used to listen to sama'a and the fuqaha criticised him. he told them: imam a'zam has said that it is Haram to drink wine, but for a person who is in dire thirst (with nothing else) it is permissible for him to drink that wine. and based on this he would listen to sama'a as he was in the state of ecstasy and could not control himself. he invited the jurists of baghdad and asked the 'mizmar' to be brought out and sound began to issue from itself. and the jurists began to waltz (raqS). the jurists then wrote down: "it is permissible for those who are qualified to listen".

this event is placed in the early times, when mizmar was only a duff. will he permit drinking wine for everyone based on this argument? it is permissible for the qualified. we have no doubt that pir sayyid mihr ali shah sahib is among the qualified – but is pir nasiruddin qualified? i doubt it. and Allah ta'ala knows best. in fact, in the very SS [saba'a sanabil] it has been mentioned many times: "khwaja junayd baghdadi has made tawbah from sama'a" [to which qazi hamiduddin replied: when people qualified to listen sama'a died leaving junayd alone without company, he made tawbah.] only an ignoramus will issue absolute permissibility based on a story opposed to SaHiH hadith. the only thing remains is a book by sayyidi abdu'l ghani nablusi. i will wait for the permitters of music to cite it.

perhaps abu hasan knows the practise of chishti mashayikh better than pir sayyid mihr ali shah (etc.)

most likely not. but i believe that alahazrat was more afqah and his position is more sound; without meaning any disrespect to the noble sayyid raDiyallahu anhu. [you will still have to prove that pir mihr ali shah sahib said: 'our elder mashayikh listened to music'. his practise is not proof that elders did it too. Allah ta'ala knows best.] and even if you say that pir mihr ali shah sahib was higher than alahazrat, [and i won't contest it as both are shining stars] nobody will accept that shaykh abdu'l Haq muHaddith dihlawi or shaykh fakhruddin zarradi (who is the student/disciple and khalifah of shaykh nizamuddin awliya) knew lesser than later mashayikh.  shaykh zarradi categorically says that: it is a slander of our chishti mashayikh that they listened to musical instruments. i can cite dozens of ulama of tasawwuf who categorically and unequivocally rejected use of instruments and the 'permissibility' is only in later times.

but your tone in your response to him is very haughty and disrespectful.

sub'HanAllah. whatever happened to your ghayrat? here is a man slandering the shariah based on his abject ignorance and i am only giving him the facts – in the hope that he comes out of his delusion. i would not have taken that tone if he had left SaHiH hadith out of his raving or the unclean insinuation that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam beheld it. sub'HanAllah, will we sit quiet when all these fake pirs and fasiq maulvis attack the shariah? the least we can do is shout. wa billahi't tawfiq. he rejects FF based on AA and in AA itself shaykh abdu'l Haq mentions that shaykh nizamuddin considered it Haram. i cannot understand how you can swallow such patent contradictions. the only explanation is: "love of a thing makes one dumb and blind".

Surely, all the scholars he listed were aware of the hadith you mention and of the meanings of the Arabic words?

i don't know. but what i know is that saqib doesn't know anything about it.



another thing i would like to clarify is that my outburst against saqib shami was not merely on his mistake about the ruling of music. it was the whole context where he was praising encouraging fussaq who sing immoral songs· and incredible arguments presented as knowledge. he was terming the dancing of young men as tawajud and wajd. this is legitimising sin and false/fractured quotes and hadith stripped of context are presented.

i don't think even those ulama who are claimed to have listened to music encouraged fussaq or praised them. for example, it does not make sense to believe that pir mihr ali shah sahib raHimahullah was sitting in front of fasiqs and praising them. because that would be a far worse allegation because it is wajib for a scholar to do amr bi'l ma'aruf and nahy an'il munkar and we have seen the hadith that it causes the Anger of the Almighty when a faasiq is praised. would you accuse pir mihr ali shah to see a munkar and keep quiet? it is safe to assume that the qawwal pir shah sahib would listen was a sharayi muslim.

the advocates of sama'a [in our time] are usually dishonest. they use names and cite books but only selectively. only that part that says mizmaar and discard everything else. whereas, eligibility is the prime condition and it is for both the singer/reciter and the listener. the content should also be free from all kinds of man'hiyyat e sharyiyyah and only the poems of pious scholars should be recited. many so-called 'eulogies' sung in qawwalis have kufriyyat in them and are disrespectful too. professional qawwals are in it for the money and get paid to perform. they go and sing bawdy songs when not singing so-called religious poetry. if you consider qawwali to be 'worship' then asking money for it is doubly haram.

books like saba'a sanabil and other taSawwuf books have 98% on akhlaq, riyazat, withdrawing from dunya, forsaking pleasures, holding fast to sunnah and so forth and only 1 or 2% on sama'a. [with the disclaimer that anyone attributing permissibility of music to sayyidi abdu'l waHid bilgrami is making a false accusation on the shaykh and it is the responsibility of such a person to prove his claim. wAllahu'l musta'an.] ask yourself how much are you interested in the 98% and if you have truly fulfilled the 98%, then perhaps, the 1-2% can be forgiven. in a plate of tasty biryani with finely cooked meat, there will be some spices and you may come across a clove or a whole chilli. only a moron will throw away the whole plate and retain one fried chilli.

wa billahi't tawfiq.



kashfu'l qinaa is a book by shaykh fakhruddin zarradi, a disciple and khalifah of shaykh nizamuddin awliya.

see pg.22 of the book.

i do not know much about the translator, but he has a useful note on p.22. we [following alahazrat] agree with most of it. that is the early mashayikh prohibited it and later mashayikh* permitted it. note that he emphasises that the permission is only for those eligible and when it is not for mere entertainment.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

*i fear that the permitters of sama'a will now have more names to quote for their argument: shaykh sanaullah panipati and shaykh abdu'l Quddus gangohi.



The person replied; and I replied to his post again.

surely if pir mihr ali shah did not approve of it he would have instructed his sons etc. also not to listen!

sub'HanAllah, they don't heed the hadith, would they heed qawl-e-mihr?

how can you make such a moral judgement?

i said that i doubt it. my yardstick for anyone is their adherence to shariah and the principles of ahlu's sunnah.

that many ancient masters did listen to musical instruments?

in fantasies and slanders and speeches of ignorant maulvis. prove it otherwise.

hazrat amir khusraw is known to have invented the sitar and qawwali music as we know it today by combining elements of persian and hindustani classical music and he was a famed musician (read his biography by anyone you choose); all the qawwal gharanas link themselves to him one way or another and he was the favourite mureed of hazrat nizamuddin awliya besides whom he is buried too!

sub'HanAllah! do you have any dependable source or is it enough that you or some xyz maulvi said it?

what of people like hazrat bakhtiyaar kaki who died during the performance of a qawwali or mawlana rumi who even left instructions for his janazah to be accompanied with singing and drums and musical instruments and whose order the Mevlevis to this day use the ney (reed flute) in their zikr?

i cannot argue with fantasies. i am sorry. if you have any proof present it.

as shaami sahib said it is not a matter of aqidah. otherwise we would have to conclude that all those saints like pir mihr ali and rumi etc. were engaged in sin (nauzubillah.)

i am sorry NJ. i am forced to agree with AQ: you cannot read and you have no comprehension.
we can still remain friends.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

imam shafiyi said: 'whenever i have debated an ignoramus, he silenced me; and whenever i debated a knowledgeable person, i silenced him.'



A couple of posts are skipped as they were side talk.

pir mihr ali shah sahib was asked whether sama and dancing were permissible. he dismissed it in one line:the judgement of shaykh sa'di as said in these two verses is sufficient.

na guyem sama'a ay biradar keh cheest
magar mustami'y raa badanam keh keest

brother, i cannot tell you what sama'a is [the ruling]
until i know who the listener is.




someone asked alahazrat about the verse and he answered it in his inimitable style, which is so full of knowledge and foresight that a fraction of that could not be extracted if you put the entire gathering of saqib and singers and shook them for an year, and spun them in a hadron collider. marvel at his insight that the fatwa is so fresh, that it appears as if it was written for our times.

urdu is here, english is coming in sha Allah. [fatawa ridawiyyah 24/ 127-133]


...and to differentiate between qualified and unqualified among those who are sane, is to embolden anybody and everybody to commit sin and to open the door of the accursed devil's subterfuge. every fasiq will then claim that he is 'qualified' and therefore it is Halal for him. he will commit sin openly and permit that which has been prohibited by Allah ta'ala and will mislead commonfolk, ignorant like himself. does the shariah of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam permit such things? may Allah ta'ala keep such things away.

the pristine shariah closes the door to evil [fitna] and this thing [music] opens a huge doorway to sin and therefore how far removed from the noble shariah!

you can see today, how many ornery, mannerless chumps, rough and boorish who do not even know the basics of ablution and toilet manners; such people who don't know what is farz, wajib, sunnat, makruh and Haram in an ablution. yet they wear ochre robes and grown lengthy hair like women and are engrossed in these satanic sounds day and night…


A brother asked

What about that book by Shaykh abd al-Ghani Nablusi? did alaHazrat say anything regarding it?

i am not saying anything about that book until we see it used by the permitters of sama'a.

Bootnote: We will in sha Allah analyse the book by Sayyidi Abdu'l Ghani later, when we find time. wa billahi't tawfiq.