I say: This report lacks a connected chain of transmission and therefore cannot be relied upon. Perhaps what is meant here is the Sufi whose Sufism they regard as blameworthy, for he combines a preference for listening—which indicates vain desires and weakness in spiritual resolve and worship—with a preference for worldly means, which, in their view, detracts from his reliance upon Allah. Thus, both his worship of Allah and his seeking help from Him are weak. Otherwise, al-Nūrī would not make this a condition of being a true Sufi.

Abū al-Qāsim said: “Abū ʿAlī al-Rūdhbārī was once asked about listening, and he replied: ‘If only we could emerge from it with neither gain nor loss.’”

I say: Such words from a shaykh of this stature—the most eminent of the shaykhs who accompanied al-Junayd and his contemporaries—confirm what we stated earlier: a shaykh’s attendance at listening gatherings does not establish his position on the practice or show that he considers it good. He wishes merely to bear no sin for it, but to emerge from it with nothing counted either against him or in his favour. Had it belonged to the category of recommended acts, he would not have said this about it except because of some shortcoming on the listener’s part, rather than because of the act itself. Moreover, he could only say this about himself, not make it a general judgment concerning everyone who engages in that practice.

This is like what is related from ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb, may Allah be pleased with him, that he used to say: “I wish I could come out of this affair with neither gain nor loss.” He said this after assuming the caliphate