until it eats away at his insides is better than for it to be filled with poetry.”

Thus, he condemned the person filled with poetry who does not occupy himself with what fosters faith, righteous deeds, and frequent remembrance of Allah. He did not condemn poetry unconditionally. Indeed, al-Shāfiʿī’s words may clarify the meaning of the hadith: “Poetry is speech: its good is like good speech, and its bad is like bad speech.” These are his words concerning poetry, alongside his statement concerning taghbīr (rhythmic beating with a rod accompanying singing), making clear that permitting one does not entail permitting the other.

As for his statement, “If listening to it without pleasing melodies is permissible, the ruling does not change when it is heard with pleasing melodies. This is obvious,” this is a deeply flawed argument. What is obvious is precisely the opposite. Listening to melodies without any words would itself first have to be permissible. This is one of the principal points of dispute, for most Muslims hold otherwise. Even if poetry and melodic singing were each permissible separately, their combination would not necessarily be permissible without specific evidence, since a combination has a distinctive character that must determine its ruling.