Minhaj as-Sunnah - Ibn Taimiya - (3/439)

Minhaj as-SunnahIbn Taimiya

and if prohibition is the stronger view, it is the position of the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah. Thus, on either assessment, the truth does not lie outside their views.

His statement:

“and permitting singing.”

It may be said to him: This is a lie against the four imams, for they unanimously agreed that musical instruments (1)—instruments of amusement such as the lute and the like—are forbidden. If anyone destroyed them, he would not, according to them, be liable for the value of the destroyed object in its fashioned form. Indeed, they hold that possessing such instruments is forbidden.

As to whether he would be liable for the raw material, they have two well-known positions (2), just as in the case of someone who destroys wine vessels. If he destroyed the material constituting the forbidden object (3), he would not be liable for it according to one of their positions. This is Mālik’s position and the better-known of the two reports from Ahmad—just as Moses destroyed the calf fashioned from gold (4), and just as it is established in the Sahih that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—“ordered ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr to burn the two safflower-dyed garments he was wearing” (5),

(1) (B) reads: *al-malāhī* (“instruments of amusement”). There is a blank in place of this word in (A). (2) (N) and (M) read: “two views.” (3) (A) and (B) read: “wine.” (4) (R), (H), and (S) read: “which was fashioned from the gold”; (A) and (B): “which was fashioned from gold”; and (W): “fashioned from gold.” (5) The hadith of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀs—may Allah be pleased with them both—is recorded in Muslim, 3/1647 (Book of Dress and Adornment, chapter “The Prohibition of Men Wearing Safflower-Dyed Garments”). Its wording is: “The Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—saw me wearing two safflower-dyed garments and said, ‘Did your mother tell you to wear these?’ I asked, ‘Should I wash them?’ He replied, ‘Rather, burn them.’” The editor explains in his commentary that *muʿasfarayn* means “dyed with safflower,” and that safflower is a yellow dye.

وَإِنْ كَانَ التَّحْرِيمُ هُوَ الرَّاجِحُ فَهُوَ قَوْلُ جُمْهُورِ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ، فَعَلَى التَّقْدِيرَيْنِ لَا يَخْرُجُ الْحَقُّ عَنْهُمْ. قَوْلُهُ: " وَإِبَاحَةِ الْغِنَاءِ " . فَيُقَالُ لَهُ: هَذَا مِنَ الْكَذِبِ عَلَى الْأَئِمَّةِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ، فَإِنَّهُمْ مُتَّفِقُونَ عَلَى تَحْرِيمِ الْمَعَازِفِ (١) . الَّتِي هِيَ آلَاتُ اللَّهْوِ كَالْعُودِ وَنَحْوِهِ، وَلَوْ أَتْلَفَهَا مُتْلِفٌ عِنْدَهُمْ لَمْ يَضْمَنْ صُورَةَ التَّالِفِ، بَلْ يَحْرُمُ عِنْدَهُمُ اتِّخَاذُهَا. وَهَلْ يَضْمَنُ الْمَادَّةَ: عَلَى قَوْلَيْنِ (٢) . مَشْهُورِينَ لَهُمْ، كَمَا لَوْ أَتْلَفَ أَوْعِيَةَ الْخَمْرِ، فَإِنَّهُ لَوْ أَتْلَفَ مَا يَقُومُ بِهِ الْمُحَرَّمُ (٣) . مِنَ الْمَادَّةِ لَمْ يَضْمَنْهُ فِي أَحَدِ قَوْلَيْهِمْ، كَمَا هُوَ مَذْهَبُ مَالِكٍ، وَأَشْهَرُ الرِّوَايَتَيْنِ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ، كَمَا أَتْلَفَ مُوسَى الْعِجْلَ الْمُتَّخَذَ مِنَ الذَّهَبِ (٤) . . وَكَمَا ثَبَتَ فِي الصَّحِيحِ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - «أَمَرَ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عَمْرٍو أَنْ يَحْرِقَ الثَّوْبَيْنِ الْمُعَصْفَرَيْنِ اللَّذَيْنِ كَانَا عَلَيْهِ» (٥)

(١) ب: الْمَلَاهِي. وَمَكَانَ الْكَلِمَةِ بَيَاضٌ فِي (أ) (٢) ن، م: وَجْهَيْنِ (٣) أ، ب: الْخَمْرُ (٤) ر، هـ، ص: الَّذِي اتُّخِذَ مِنَ الذَّهَبِ، أ، ب: الَّذِي اتُّخِذَ مِنْ ذَهَبٍ، و: الْمُتَّخَذُ مِنْ ذَهَبٍ (٥) الْحَدِيثُ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا - فِي مُسْلِمٍ ٣/١٦٤٧ (كِتَابُ اللِّبَاسِ وَالزِّينَةِ، بَابُ النَّهْيِ عَنْ لُبْسِ الرَّجُلِ الثَّوْبَ الْمُعَصْفَرَ) ، وَنَصُّهُ: رَأَى النَّبِيُّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - عَلَيَّ ثَوْبَيْنِ مُعَصْفَرَيْنِ، فَقَالَ: أَأَمُّكَ أَمَرَتْكَ بِهَذَا؟ قُلْتُ: أَغْسِلُهُمَا؟ قَالَ: بَلِ احْرَقْهُمَا. قَالَ الْمُحَقِّقُ فِي شَرْحِهِ: مُعَصْفَرَيْنِ: أَيُّ مَصْبُوغَيْنِ بِعُصْفُرٍ، وَالْعُصْفُرُ صَبْغٌ أَصْفَرُ اللَّوْنِ. .