Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/351)

weak, because al-Bukhari—may Allah have mercy on him—reported it in a definitive suspended form; and whatever al-Bukhari reports in suspended form while expressing it definitively is authentic according to him. Moreover, the hadith has been narrated with connected chains through other routes, and it has many corroborating reports containing warnings against those who listen to musical instruments.

Thus, there is no doubt concerning the authenticity of the hadith. Ibn Hazm, however, was a scholar qualified for independent legal reasoning, and such a scholar may be right or may err. Yet there are people who are neither qualified for independent legal reasoning nor possess knowledge, but rather make their whims the judge. They say, “This is a matter over which there is disagreement, and since it is a disputed matter, it is insignificant.” They therefore believe it to be lawful on the basis of that disagreement, whereas this is nothing but a whim within themselves. As one poet said: (1)

Not every disagreement that arises is worthy of consideration;
Only a disagreement grounded in reasoned inquiry is.

This view has no basis in reasoned inquiry. Whoever wishes to examine this issue exhaustively, together with its evidences, should consult the book Ighathat al-Lahfan (The Relief of the Distressed) by Ibn al-Qayyim—may Allah have mercy on him—for he treated the matter well and provided much benefit.

Since musical instruments are forbidden, nothing from them is lawful except that which the textual evidence has specifically exempted, subject to the limitations stated in that evidence.

This is an important principle: when a general text is qualified by a specific exception, that qualification applies only to the particular case in which the text occurred. For example, the daff has been permitted in its proper context. Can someone then say: “Therefore, all musical instruments may likewise be permitted on such occasions by analogy with the daff?”

The answer is: this is not valid, because when a qualification is established, it must be

(1) Abu al-Hasan Ibn al-Hassar, as cited by al-Suyuti in al-Itqan, 1:41.

ضعيف؛ لأن البخاري ﵀ رواه جازماً به، وما رواه البخاري معلقاً مجزوماً به فهو صحيح عنده، ثم إن الحديث قد روي موصولاً من طرق أخرى، وله شواهد كثيرة في الوعيد على من يستمعون إلى المعازف. فالحديث لا شك في صحته، لكن ابن حزم رجل مجتهد، والمجتهد قد يخطئ وقد يصيب، وهناك أناس ليسوا أهل اجتهاد ولا أهل علم، ولكن يحكِّمون الهوى، يقولون: المسألة فيها خلاف، وما دامت المسألة خلافية فأمرها هين، فيعتقدون حله بناءً على الخلاف، وما ذاك إلا لهوى في أنفسهم، وكما قال الأول (١): وليس كل خلاف جاء معتبراً إلا خلاف له حظ من النظرِ وهذا لا حظ له من النظر، ومن أراد استقصاء هذه المسألة بأدلتها فعليه مراجعة كتاب: (إغاثة اللهفان) لابن القيم ﵀ فقد أجاد في ذلك وأفاد. وإذا كانت المعازف حراماً فإنه لا يحل منها إلا ما خصه الدليل، وبالقيود التي جاءت به. وهذه قاعدة مهمة إذا جاءنا نص عام، ثم ورد تخصيصه فإنه يتقيد ـ أي التخصيص ـ بالصورة التي ورد بها النص فقط، مثلاً: وردت إباحة الدف في موضعه، فهل يمكن أن يقول قائل: إذاً جميع آلات العزف تباح في مثل هذه المناسبات قياساً على الدف؟ الجواب: لا يصح؛ لأن التخصيص إذا ورد يجب أن يكون

(١) أبو الحسن ابن الحصار نقله عنه السيوطي في الأتقان (١/ ٤١).