overstep the bounds, while the latter fall short. The truth lies in seeking lawful, faith-nurturing listening and shunning listening founded on polytheism and religious innovation.

Then Abū al-Qāsim mentioned Abū Bakr al-Raqqī’s account of the boy who sang to drive the camels onward until they covered a three-day journey in a single day. When their loads were removed, they died. He also sang to a camel, which broke its tethers and wandered aimlessly. Al-Raqqī said: “I did not think I had ever heard a more beautiful voice. I fell upon my face, until the boy was signalled to stop, and he fell silent.” He then said: “Abū Hātim al-Sijistānī narrated to us: Abū Nasr al-Sarrāj narrated to us, saying: Al-Raqqī related this account.”

I say: The substance of this account is that an exceptionally beautiful voice may stir souls with extraordinary intensity. There is no doubt about this. Sounds, through their beauty, induce voluntary movements, while they themselves originally arise from voluntary movements. Their effects vary according to the kind of sound and its intensity. Indeed, they are among the most powerful causes of movement, if not the most powerful. When a potent influence meets a receptive subject, its effect is strong. Thus, souls predisposed by youth, femininity, distress or the like, or by idleness and lack of occupation, or by weakness of intellect, become profoundly agitated upon hearing a loud, beautiful, powerful voice. Yet this does not establish that such listening is permissible, nor does it provide any grounds for praising it or deeming it good. Rather, this points more strongly towards censure and prohibition than towards approval and praise, for it corrupts souls more than it reforms them and harms them more than it benefits them. Even if it contains some benefit, its sin outweighs its benefit.