Soul food

Since the birth of Islam the permissibility of music and singing has been debated. Not only the lawfulness of the performer but also of the audience was discussed. Advocates and opponents alike traced the legitimacy of their position back to the Quran and the hadiths, the sayings of the Prophet. As in present day Egypt, these debates on the lawfulness of music did not prevent the art from flourishing in palaces and private homes (Sawa 1989; Stigelbauer 1975).

The seventeenth-century Muslim scholar Chelebi distinguishes three categories of music: that coming from birds, from the human throat and from instruments. He states that in Islam it is permissible to listen to the melodies produced by birds, and to those produced by the human throat, subject to certain conditions and rules. To listen to instruments that are blown or struck however, is never permissible (1957: 38). Certain instruments are forbidden because they are supposed to incite drinking. The kuba, an oblong drum, for instance, is prohibited because of its association with drinking wine, licentious songs and dissolute people. With respect to the human throat, if it produces songs about wine and debauchery, it is not permissible to listen to them (ibid.: 39).

According to the ethnomusicologist Al-Faruqi, religious opinion makes a hierarchy of music and singing in forbidden, unfavored, indifferent, recommended and commendable forms. The recitation of the Quran stands at the peak of the hierarchy, immediately followed by the call to prayer and religious chants. Also legitimate are various types of songs connected to family celebrations, caravan chants, work songs and the music of military bands. At the bottom of the hierarchy, we find "sensuous music that is performed in association with condemned activities, or that is thought to incite to such prohibited practices as consumption of drugs and alcohol, lust, prostitution etc." (1985: 12). These genres are clearly forbidden, haram. Most forms of music and singing, though, fall between these clear categories and are controversial (Al-Faruqi 1985: 1-13).

The approval or disapproval of performers is not only related to the genre but also to the context of the performance. Regarding the permissibility of the context, three elements are deemed important by the eleventh-century Muslim scholar Imam al-Ghazali, that is, time, place and associates. It is not acceptable if too much time is devoted to performances so that it interferes with the higher Islamic goals and distracts the believers' attention from the devotion to God. Full-time professional performers are accordingly less acceptable than non-professional amateurs. The acceptability of the place and occasion of the performance is also an important factor in judging the legitimacy of the entertainers and their public. Lastly, the type of people present during the performance affects the permissibility of the performers and their audience. A certain genre of music can thus be permissible in one context while it is rejected in another circumstance. Playing the tambourine is, for instance, acceptable if it is done by women at a wedding but forbidden if it is done by men in contexts of homosexuality or prostitution (Al-Faruqi 1985: 17-20; al-Ghazali 1902: 1).

Upper-Egyptian musicians playing at a wedding procession

Religious discussions on dancing are less detailed and mainly deal with the nature of ecstatic states of mind. According to al-Ghazali, proper conduct during ecstasy and trance is also bound by the rules of time, place and company. Besides, if ecstacy overcomes a person and makes the person move without volition, it is excusable. Yet, when volition returns, stillness and restraint is preferred. The general rule is that: "If the pleasure which causes dancing is praiseworthy, and the dancing increases and strengthens it, then the dancing is praiseworthy (...).

Yet it is true that the practice of dancing does not befit the station of notable people who set an example, because most of the time, it springs from play and sport (...)" (al-Ghazali 1902: 9). We should keep in mind though that al-Ghazali discusses male ecstacy dancing in a religious setting and not female dancing in a secular context.
Although the impact of gender on the acceptability of performers has not received systematic attention, it is a crucial factor in the debates outlined above. A well-known phrase often cited to discredit female singers, is "sawt al-mar'a `awra," "the voice of a woman is a shameful thing" (1).

Imam al-Ghazali explains this as follows. Music is allowed except if temptation is feared. The voice of women could seduce the listener. Looking at female performers is always unlawful. Listening to the voice of concealed female performers is still forbidden if it evokes tempting images. He continues reasoning that looking at a beardless boy is only forbidden if there is a danger for temptation. He then likens the lawfulness of listening to a concealed female singers to looking at a beardless young boy. The rule which must be followed, then, relates to the arousal of temptation, and if this is feared, it is unlawful (1901: 235-237).

Women are thus generally perceived as more enticing than men and excitement aroused by looking is considered more powerful than excitement aroused by listening. These observations have consequences for the lawfulness of the different forms of male and female performances. Female performances are more controversial and their acceptability depends on male experience of arousal. The fact that male excitement is most strongly aroused by the eye rather than the ear also affects the various categories of female performers. Female musicians have an audience. Female singers have an audience and, at least at present, spectators. Female dancers, on the other hand, are solely eye-catchers. Female dancing is accordingly considered the most shameful form of entertainment.

In order to understand the Islamic fundamentalist views on art and entertainment we cannot solely rely on the opinion of Muslim scholars of the eleventh or seventeenth century, but should also look into recent religious opinion leaders. According to the late Sheikh al-Azhar Shaltut, who wrote a fatwa (a formal ruling or opinion) on the issue in 1960, music is permissible under certain conditions. He argues that God is not against pleasure and that Islam seeks the Golden Means. Yet, it should not take place under immoral circumstances or with dissolute companions (Al-Faruqi 1985: 25-26). The Muslim scholar al-Qaradawi states that singing and music in itself is permissible and pleasurable. He places several restrictions on them though. The content of the song should not be against the morals and teachings of Islam or be accompanied by other forbidden things in Islam like alcohol. Also the way of singing should be within the confines of Islam, that is, it should not be accompanied by suggestive movements. Exaggeration is never preferable but certainly not in entertainment and the person who knows that entertainment easily excites him or her should keep away from it (Qaradawi 1985: 139; 289). During my research, the leading television preacher Sheikh Mitwalli al-Sha`arawi, stated that all female dancing is bad and that only music which does not "tickle the nerves" is permissible (The Economist 21-5-1988).

from http://www.umbc.edu/MA/index/number3/nieuwkerk/karin_3.htm

My view

Music or entertainment can be Haram(unlawful) if

1. "Lagha", which means can make us forgot about our purpose or amanah that given by Allah to live in world as khalifa and also not have the element of Da'wa

2. Listening of "aurah", women can listen to men sung but men cannot listen to women because when women sing the voice become aurah to men (not for women) and prohibited in Islam even for Da'wa purpose.

3. Selling voices, Islam prohibit of selling voices but we can take a few money just for necessary purpose. So, men can be a singer but cannot use their voices for money.

There is many more of Hukum in Islam. This is just my view

Khaidir Kusnin

Sall-Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam

They were circumambulating the Ka'ba, when Ka'ab bin Ujrah asked Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Lailah: "Shall I not give you a precious gift?" A gift in the middle of that act of intense devotion? Abdul Rahman was a prominent tabayi, i.e. from the generation that came after the generation of the companions. Ka'ab, may Allah be pleased with him, was one of the 1400 Companions who were part of the Covenant of al Ridwan, a covenant to live or fall together to avenge the blood of Uthman bin Affan, Radi-Allahu anhu, who had been feared to have been murdered by the Quraish. To know this background is to get a clue to the special gift.

While Muslims were stationed at Hudaybiyah, where the covenant took place, many delegations of Quraish had visited them. Among them was Urwah ibn Mas'ud al Thaqafi. It was he who reported the extra-ordinary relationship of the companions with the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam : "I have seen Caesar and Chosroes in their pomp, but never have I seen a man honored as Muhammad is honored by his comrades."

The gift that Ka'ab gave to ibn Abi Lailah was the hadith that gives us the salawat (benediction) that we use in regular prayers. The companions asked the proper way of sending the blessings, when the verse requiring them to do so was revealed.

"Lo Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation." [Al-Ahzab, 33:56].

Then the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam , taught them the exact words, as they themselves were revealed to him by Allah.

A prophet of God is a unique person. He acts as the link between the people and their Creator. He is a human being, yet he speaks for God. The most difficult task for followers of a prophet has always been that of dealing with the prophet as a prophet. It is so easy to go to extremes. Make him divine, God-incarnate, Son of God. Or make him just another man, attributing all human weaknesses and sins to him. Religious literature of major religions in the world is testimony to these tendencies. It is a story of abject human failure in this matter.

One must contrast that with the beautiful and delicate balance presented by Islam. Here the Prophet is the perfect human being, but he is not Divine. He speaks for God but he is not God. He is the object of our gratitude, ardent love and devotion, unswerving allegiance, and deference. But he is not the object of our worship. We ask Allah to send His blessings on him which at once makes two very important statements. First, he needs Allah's blessings. Second, we cannot bless him, only Allah can. It is not possible for those who always invoke Allah's blessings for the Prophet, to degrade him to the level of other human beings, or to elevate him to the level of divinity. The benediction, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam , is a magic formula that fights both tendencies equally effectively. It also strikes at the roots of shirk, the tendency to associate partners with Allah. For we have met the perfect human being, the example to follow. And we found him to be a servant of Allah. Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam .

For centuries Muslims lovingly added the benediction, whenever they mentioned the name of the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam . The hadith literature is a good example of this labor of love. For here the name of the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam , is mentioned repeatedly. Yet the muhadithun never tired of writing the benediction. That was at a time when every book was written by hand, and all its copies were also made by hand. It was never considered a burden or an unnecessary interruption. A brief recent statement from a professor of hadith at one Islamic religious school captures the spirit. "The merits of studying hadith are innumerable and those interested can read Ibn Abdul Bar's book on the subject," he said. "But it is sufficient to note that through this study we get plenty of opportunities for saying the benediction, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam ."

And so for centuries this practice has continued unabated throughout the Muslim world. Also, realizing the importance of a "worthy benediction" Muslims always used the Arabic expression in other languages, be they Urdu, Farsi, Bangla, or others. For the first time in history, we find a break from this practice, and this spirit, when reviewing the Islamic literature in English.

Initially some one substituted "peace be upon him" for "Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam ." But it is not even a proper translation. Then some one thought of abbreviating it to pbuh. It, of course, did not improve the translation or the readability. Others came up with innovations of their own. One Islamic text book in English notes in the beginning: "After using the name of the Prophet Muhammad, Muslims should write or say the honorific phrase, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam ...Due to limited space this honorific phrase has been omitted.. but should be inserted when reading the book." Another book goes a little further by acknowledging the "long established and cherished tradition", but then announces bluntly: "To avoid interrupting the flow of ideas, especially for non-Muslim readers, I have not followed the customary practice." A majority of recent Islamic books published in the U.S. and U.K. by reputable Muslim organizations, though, do not feel the need for any excuse or explanation, whatsoever. They simply mention the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam , as they would any ordinary person.

It is time we moved beyond our hesitations, confusions, or inferiority complexes. This is the Ummah of the Last Prophet. In every language of the world, our Prophet is Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam .

By Khalid Baig

Ref URL: http://www.albalagh.net/prophethood/durood.shtml