Pir Saqib Shami challenge.

[Taalib-e-Ilm]

Yesterday, Pir Saqib Shami has challenged anyone to a debate to try and disprove Qawwali on Ummah Channel. I was wondering if anyone had a recording to this as he said some very intersting stuff

[abu Hasan]

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".

[abu Hasan]

alahazrat's fatwa; fatawa riDawiyyah 24/138

question:
[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.

----
answer:

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.

[abu Hasan]

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

[medni]

The question is presented in the court of the Imām of the Ahlus Sunnah, the Mujaddid of the Religion, al-Imām Aĥmad RiĎā Khān, that today when I left your presence and went towards the Masjid to offer Maghrib Salāh, a friend of mine said to me after the Salāh, ‘Come, let’s go to an Urs.’ I went with him, and when we reached there I saw that a large number of people were gathered and Qawwāli was taking place in such a way that one drum and two harps were being played, and some Qawwāl (Qawwāli singers) were singing poetry in praise of Pīrān e Pīr Dastagīr (i.e. Shaykh `Abdul Qādir al-Jīlāni رَضِىَ اللهُ تَعَالٰی عَـنْهُ), as well as some poetry in praise of the Beloved Prophet صَلَّى اللهُ تَعَالٰى عَلَيْهِ وَاٰلِهٖ وَسَلَّم and couplets about the status of the Awliyā Allāh (friends of Allāh). Such instruments (the drums and harps that were being used) are Ḣarām Qat`ī (explicitly forbidden) in the Shari`ah (Islamic Law)! Would the Beloved Messenger صَلَّى اللهُ تَعَالٰى عَلَيْهِ وَاٰلِهٖ وَسَلَّم and the Awliyā Allāh be pleased with such acts? Are those present at this gathering sinful or not? Is such Qawwāli permissible or not? If it (i.e. Qawwāli) is permissible, then what kind of Qawwāli (i.e. in what manner)?



al-Jawāb [answer]: Such Qawwāli is Ḣarām. All those present in the gathering are sinful, and all of their sin is upon those who arranged such an `Urs and upon the Qawwāli singers. Furthermore, the sin of the Qawwāli singers is also upon the organiser of such an `Urs, without the sin of the Qawwāli singers being lessened in anyway due to their sin also being upon the organiser of the `Urs, and without the sin of those present in the gathering being lessened in any way due to the devastation of their sin also being upon the Qawwāli singers and the organiser. No! On the contrary, every single person present in the gathering has his own personal complete sin, and the Qawwāli singers have their own sin separately, as well the sin according to all of those present in the gathering upon them in addition to this separately; and the organiser of the `Urs has his own sin separately, the sin equivalent to the sin of the Qawwāli singers in addition to this separately, as well as the sin of all those present in the gathering separately. The reason for this is that the people present in the gathering were invited by the organiser of the `Urs and were only provided with the means to commit this sin through him, and the Qawwāli singers played the music for them to listen to. If he did not provide the means, and the drums and harps were not played, then how would those present at the gathering have fallen into this sin? It is for this reason that all of their sin is upon them both (i.e. the organiser and the singers), and then the cause of this sin of the Qawwāli singers was that organiser of the `Urs. If he did not organise it and if he did not invite them, how would they have come and played the music? Therefore, the sin of the Qawwāli singers is also upon the one who invited them;

As the Fuqahā (scholars of Islāmic jurisprudence) have said about the one who, despite being strong and healthy, takes charity, that he himself, and the one giving to him, are both sinful. This is because if those who give to him did not give, then he would not adopt this shameful business of begging. So their giving is the cause of his begging and all of this is apparent to those familiar with the laws of Shari`ah; and tawfīq lies with Allāh only.

The Beloved Messenger صَلَّى اللهُ تَعَالٰى عَلَيْهِ وَاٰلِهٖ وَسَلَّم said, “Whoever invites towards any act of guidance will receive the reward equivalent to all those who follow him, and there will be no reduction in any of their reward, and whoever invites towards any act of misguidance will receive the sin of all those who follow his invitation, and there will be no reduction in any of their sin.” (Narrated by Imām Aĥmad and Imām Muslim from Sayyidunā Abū Hurayra رَضِىَ اللهُ تَعَالٰی عَـنْهُ)

Numerous aĥadīth have been narrated regarding the prohibition of instruments; it is narrated in Saĥīĥ Bukhāri Sharif that the Beloved Messenger صَلَّى اللهُ تَعَالٰى عَلَيْهِ وَاٰلِهٖ وَسَلَّم said, “There will be those people in my Ummah who will deem Ḣalāl the private parts of women [i.e. adultery], silk clothing, alcohol, and musical instruments.”
Some ignorant, inebriated folk, or lustful half-baked Mullāhs, or fake Sūfi charlatans present weak tales, unreliable incidents, or dubious anecdotes against authentic, definite aĥadīth which have chains back to the Beloved Messenger صَلَّى اللهُ تَعَالٰى عَلَيْهِ وَاٰلِهٖ وَسَلَّم. These people do not have the least amount of intelligence, or they purposefully act dim, because it is clear that it is necessary to reject the weak in favour of the authentic, the doubtful for the decisive, and the dubious for the definite. Furthermore, how can the Qawl (saying) be compared with the F`il (action) mentioned in some anecdote, but who has the cure for such submission to desires? If only they would know the sin as a sin after committing it and state it as such, but this stubbornness is even more severe that they feed their desires and then refuse the guilt, and make Ḣalāl (permissible) for themselves that which is Ḣarām (forbidden). Besides this, they do not stop there, but they, Allāh forbid, slander the beloved ones of Allāh, the great elders of the Silsilah `Āliyah Chishtiya قدست اسرار هم by falsely attributing this act to them. They neither have fear of Allāh, nor shame in front of the people. Even though Maĥbūb e Ilāhi Sayyidi wa Mawlāi Niḋham ul Haq wal Dīn Sulṫān ul Awliyāرَضِىَ اللهُ تَعَالٰی عَـنْهُ و عنهم و عنا بهم himself says in “Fawāid ul Fawād Sharīf”;
مزامير حرام است - meaning, ‘musical instruments are Ḣarām.’

Mawlānā Fakhr ul Dīn Zarāwi, Khalīfah of Sayyidunā Maĥbūb e Ilāhi رَضِىَ اللهُ تَعَالٰی عَـنْهما wrote an epistle on the Mas`alatu Samā` entitled, “Kashful Qanā` `an Usūl il Samā`” in the blessed era of the great Shaykh due to the decisive order of the Shaykh himself. It is clearly written in that epistle:

“ The Samā` of our blessed Mashāikh رَضِیَ اللهُ تَعَالٰی عَنْهم is free from the allegation of using musical instruments. There would only be the voice of the Qawwāl with the verses of poetry that would signify the perfection of the majesty of Allāh Almighty.”

Have justice for the sake of Allāh! Will you accept the words of this great Imam of the blessed Chishti order, or the unfounded slander and evidently corrupt accusations of the claimants of today?
(لا حول و لا قوة الا بالله العلى العظيم)

Sayyidīi Mawlānā Muĥammad bin Mubārak bin Muĥammad `Alawī Kirmāni, murīd of the enlightened Shaykh ul `Ālam Farīd ul Haq wal Dīn Ganj Shakkar, and Khalīfah of Sayyidunā Maĥbūb e Ilāhi رَضِیَ اللهُ تَعَالٰی عَنْهم , writes in his book Mustaṫāb Siyar ul Awliyā:

“Sulṫān ul Mashāikh قدس الله تعالى سره العزيز would say that only under some conditions is Samā` permissible; from which some are conditions for those reciting, some for those listening, some for the poetry which is recited, and some for the items used in the Samā`. The one reciting should be an adult male not a small boy or a woman. The one listening must not be heedless of Allāh Almighty and the poetry being recited must not contain any indecency or mockery. The items used in Samā` must not be anything similar to musical instruments. The items used in Samā` must not include musical instruments such as harps, lute, or any other instruments. When all of these conditions are fulfilled, that type of Samā` is Ḣalāl.”

Muslims! This is the Fatwa (ruling) of the leader and the master of Silsilah `Āliyah Chistiyah Sulṫān ul Awliyā رَضِىَ اللهُ تَعَالٰی عَـنْهُ. After this conclusive ruling is there any way for the slanderers to show their face?

In addition, it is written in Siyar ul Awliyā Sharīf:
“Once a man presented a matter in the court of Sulṫān ul Mashāikh that these days some mystics reportedly belonging to an Āstāna performed Raqs (Sufi dancing) in gathering where harps and lutes were being played. He answered by saying that they did not do a good thing and that they did something which is impermissible and disliked in the Shari`ah. After this someone said that when these people left that place people said to them, ‘What have you done? There were musical instruments there! How did you listen to the Samā` and perform Raqs there?!’ They replied by saying, ‘We were so ecstatically absorbed in the Samā` that we were unaware whether there were any musical instruments there or not.’ Sulṫān ul Mashāikh then said, ‘This answer is nothing; similar words could then be said for all sins…’”

O Muslims! How clear a statement this is that musical instruments are Ḣarām, and what an irrefutable reply the Shaykh granted us to the excuse that we were unaware of the musical instruments due to being engrossed and absorbed in the Samā`, that such an excuse could be made for any sin. Someone could drink alcohol and then say that because of intense absorption and captivation I was unaware whether it was alcohol or water. Or someone could commit adultery and then say that because of being in the state of divine ecstasy I was unable to differentiate whether she was my wife or someone else. It is written in the same book:

“Sulṫān ul Mashāikh has said that I have forbidden musical instruments and other prohibited things from amongst them, and he stressed this point strongly. This is to the extent that it has been said that if an Imam makes a mistake in the Salah, a man should say subḢānAllāh to inform the Imam, but a woman should not say subḢānAllāh because she should not make her voice heard. She should not even clap her hands by striking one palm upon the other as this would be like recreation or play, but she should merely strike the back of one hand with the palm of the other. When it has come to us that items associated with recreation and play, and those which are similar to them, should be refrained from to this extent, then the use of musical instruments in Samā` is forbidden to an even greater degree.”

O Muslims! Those Imāms of Tarīqah whose caution and carefulness is such that they tell of the prohibition of clapping in such instances, how can they معاذ الله be linked to this slanderous claim of using musical instruments?! Have justice for the sake of Allāh! What an unfounded and insane rambling it is (to claim that the Mashāikh of Chisht used musical instruments)! May Allāh Almighty save us from following the Shayṫān and may He grant us the ability to truly follow the true beloved ones of Allāh.

آمين اله الحق آمين – بجاهم عندك آمين – والحمد لـِلّٰـه رب العالمين
The discourse is getting lengthy here and this is sufficient for those who are just. والله الهادى والله تعاى اعلم

عبده المذنب احمد رضا عفى عنه
كتبه

[abu Hasan]

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 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 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.

[abu Hasan]

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 of the devil in the house of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam?"

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

[abu Hasan]

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.

[abu Hasan]

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.

[naqshbandijamaati]

i have to be honest abu hasan brother, and i admit i am not as knowledgable as you, but to me what Shaykh Saqib said, overall, made sense. There have been and continue to be many scholars/walis who permit qawwali. He named a whole list of prominent ulema and mashaikh of the Chishti order who disagreed with you. 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'm not in any way linked to Saqib Shami sahib and I consider you a good friend but your tone in your response to him is very haughty and disrespectful. Surely, all the scholars he listed were aware of the hadith you mention and of the meanings of the Arabic words?

Why can't you accept it was one topic on which there is valid difference of opinion and let it go at that?