• THE QUESTION OF MUSIC AND SINGING
• THE ARGUMENTS OF THE MODERNIST JUHHAAL
• THE STATEMENTS AND PRACTICES OF SOME AULIYA
• THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEGALIZERS
• THE MODERNIST ATTITUDE
• A SUMMARY OF THE NARRATIONS OF PERMISSIBILITY
• THE EVIDENCE OF THE QUR’AAN
• THE EVIDENCE OF THE HADITH
• THE STATEMENTS OF THE SAHAABAH
• THE SALF-E-SAALIHEEN, MUSIC AND SINGING
• THE RULINGS OF THE FUQAHA
• MORE RULINGS OF THE FUQAHA
• THE DUFF
• THE YARAA’
• DUFF, MIZHAR AND GHIRBAAL
• SUMMARY OF THE FOUR MATH-HABS
• THE SAMA’ (SINGING) OF SOME OF THE AULIYA
• THE SAMA’ OF THE AULIYA IS NOT DALEEL
• THE SAMA’ OF THE SUFIYA
• THE ARBITRATOR
• THE TAUBAH OF THE AULIYA
• THE SHAAFI PERMISSIBILITY
• THE HANAFI MATH-HAB
• ABROGATION OF THE DUFF’S PERMISSIBILITY
• SINGING AND THE AHAADITH
• THE ONE WHO LISTENS TO SAMA’
• THE SPIRITUAL DANGERS OF SAMA’
• THE DECEPTION OF DHAEEF AHAADITH
• RATIONAL ARGUMENTS
• THE FINAL WORD
• THE WAY IN A CONFLICT
• THE SUMMARY OF THIS DISCUSSION
• CONCLUSION

THE ARBITRATOR

Who shall arbitrate where a difference prevails among the Auliya? The true Auliya are all accepted and illustrious personages of Islam. It is not permissible to criticize them destructively nor to assign fisq and dhalaal (deviation) to them. Certain of their utterances and practices which ostensibly contradict the Shariah have to be accorded appropriate interpretation to bring them in conformity with the Shariah.

But the Shariah cannever be interpreted to conform to any practice or statement of any Wali if there is a conflict. Some Auliya (a minority) practised sama’ observing very stringent conditions and confined it to their close associates of the Spiritual Path. They never advocated it for public consumption. Their gatherings were not frivolous to derive nafsaani pleasure and for wiling away the time. Other Auliya who are in the majority, do not adhere to sama’. They neither practice it nor regard it permissible.

Now when there prevails such a stark difference among the Auliya of later times on the issue of sama’, who shall be the arbitrator? And, which view do the masses of the Ummah follow?

The Qur’aan Majeed issues its unambiguous and emphatic directive in this regard:“Then, We have established you on a Shariah regarding affairs. Therefore, follow it, and do not follow the lowly desires of those who do not know.”

“And, if you dispute in anything, then refer it to Allah, Rasool and the Ulul Amr among you if indeed you are Mu’mineen.”

In any dispute, it is incumbent to refer to the Shariah – to Allah’s Kitaab, the Sunnah of His Rasool and the Authorities (Ulul Amr) of this Deen who in the first and highest level are the Sahaabah, then the Aimmah Mujtahideen and Fuqaha of Kharul Quroon (the initial Three Noble Ages of Islam). In regard to this era, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Honour my Sahaabah, for verily, they are the best of you; then those after them; then those after them. Thereafter falsehood will become prevalent.” (Mishkaat) It is a hideous misconception tantamount to kufr to subject the differences of the Auliya and the Ulama to personal opinion and issue a ‘fatwa’ of jahaalat in appeasement of hawa (lowly desire). The whole conglomerate of deviates – modernists and grave-worshippers – is guilty of this capital crime of believing themselves competent to issue verdicts on a difference between Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) and the Ijma’ of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen.

Furthermore, the deviates conveniently and stupidly misinterpret the view of Imaam Ghazaali and other Auliya of similar view, to extract from their nafs a ‘verdict’ of permissibility for the gamut of kuffaar music and singing for the consumption of the masses, the majority of whom are undoubtedly fussaaq and fujjaar of the worst order.

Let it be clearly understood that there is absolutely no licence in the permissibility view of sama’ for the licentious and libertine music and singing to which the masses in this age are addicted. While the deviates and morons harp on this extremely restrictive permissibility, they in entirety ignore very conveniently all the conditions which the Auliya had stipulated for their limited permissibility. None of those stringent requirements exist in the haraam music and singing sessions of the modernist deviates and the grave-worshipping Bid’atis. Yet, they shamelessly claim that they are following the Auliya’s permissibility. They are in fact levelling a colossal slander against the Auliya by assigning these august personalities of Islam into the noxious category of the fussaaq and fujjaar of this age.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32