Home / Analysis / Music- A Simple Matter of Disagreement? pt 1

Music- A Simple Matter of Disagreement? pt 1

 In an article written by Sister Yvonne Ridley titled Pop Culture in the name of Islam,1 she heavily criticised a recent phenomenon sweeping through Muslim communities across the UK and affecting both the young and more mature generations. The condemnation was particularly directed towards Brother Sami Yusuf. Reasons for this could be due to certain statements he made as well as his status as one of the foremost stars of ‘Islamic music’. Sami responded in turn and in his letter2 he addressed a number of ideological concepts currently debated in the public domain. He used the discourse on Islamic music as a medium through which to express his views about contemporary issues such as identity, culture and Britishness. These three topics provided the main focus of discussion and upon analysis I found him to employ arguments simultaneously being used by others; a regurgitation of many propounded elsewhere, which consistently argue an analogous perspective. I therefore find it imperative to engage with the wider Muslim audience on the aforementioned issues which I believe to be particularly significant for Muslims in our current climate. The intent is to provide a thorough discourse and analysis in an impartial fashion and to provide solutions to the complex dilemmas we Muslims face. I begin with the issue of music in light of the discourse of Muslim scholars. Culture, identity and Britishness will be discussed in forthcoming articles.

Many of the ideas and concepts remonstrated by those who argue viewpoints similar to Sami’s are neither substantiated nor adhere to Islamic principles. They are fanciful and idealistic notions of no tangible benefit and lack simple rational evidence.  It has unfortunately become common amongst Muslims, both the laity and elite, to deal with challenges of culture, identity and Britishness in a romantic fashion to the extent that the frequent use of terms such as love, peace and tolerance instil a false sense of hope and only serve to restrict philosophical and theological development.

This in turn amplifies the predicament as it renders the masses inoperative and unable to distinguish between idealism and realism thereby rendering them ineffective for the vital task of establishing a successful method by which people may live. Before accepting such idealistic notions at face value, it is of paramount importance that we scrutinise their relevance and practicality; we must examine the legitimacy of such ideas rationally and more importantly, legally, in accordance with Islamic law.

Music: A simple matter of disagreement?
Some Muslim musicians assert that music is one of the most controversial topics in Islamic jurisprudence, although they usually acknowledge that many eminent classical scholars have considered it forbidden. Some such as Sami Yusuf have argued that there are, ‘…other eminent scholars – classical and contemporary, who permit singing and the use of musical instruments.’3 Such statements are frequently used as Islamic evidence by those who hold the opinion that the production of music as well as listening to it is permissible. However, such a declaration demands the naming of scholars who have claimed that the subject of music is one of the most controversial topics in Islamic Jurisprudence. It is accepted that a few contemporary scholars hold the view that musical instruments are permissible albeit with certain conditions attached. Nevertheless, this does not render the issue of music a controversial one, especially within the confines of Islamic law. In this regard, we are at liberty to scrutinise our judicial rulings which have been formed over fourteen centuries in order to locate one scholar who described this issue as a highly controversial one. It is expedient that we understand the principle of Islamic law which informs us that where a handful of scholars hold a view which opposes the overwhelming majority, the issue neither remains controversial nor the difference acceptable and valid. This principle is agreed upon among Islamic jurists and reads, ‘There is no censure in issues of disagreement, while the censure is only in issues that have consensus’.4 The scholars have further explained the meaning of issues of disagreement by stating that irregular or weak opinions are excluded from this principle altogether rendering them open to censure. For this reason Ibn al-Qayyim in his work ’Ilam al-Muwaqqi’in explains at length the difference between issues that are open to enquiry and the exercising of one’s opinion [ijtihad] and issues that are not subject to ijtihad even if there may be scholars who hold opinions contrary to the established ruling.5

Failure to either differentiate between the two issues or to neglect this rule entirely will inevitably lead to significant problems which could possibly lead to the dissolution of Islamic law; this may seem ostensibly dramatic yet we are still required to accept certain truths though they do not seem inevitable. Throughout the works of comparative jurisprudence, especially the voluminous manuals such as al-Mughni, al-Majmu’, Fath al-Bari, ‘Umadat-ul-Qari and al-Tamheed, we rarely unearth a legal issue which is free from dispute but to accommodate each and every opinion in all legal disputes would result in a disordered system void of the perfection projected by Islam. To give an example, there is an opinion held by some scholars that the Isha’ prayer is suspended during the summer months in countries such as England owing to the absence of Islamic legal signs indicating the beginning of Isha’. This opinion gives rise to the vital question, ‘Can this opinion be adopted and thus the Isha’ prayer be put on hold during the summer? Of course not! Any action taken based on this opinion would justifiably be condemned. There are many additional examples of legal opinions which are quite rightly disregarded in matters of consensus: some scholars deem the consumption of dog meat as lawful; others hold the opinion that it is forbidden for a man to see his mother’s hair; and the phenomenon whereby Muslims steal from non-Muslims claiming that certain scholars have deemed such actions permissible. In fact, if we use the same logic presented by Sami, 7/7 should not be condemned and we must simply respect the notion of differing to be the rightful reaction as there are those who view it in a favourable light. In reality, scholars would often pronounce in response to such legal absurdities, ’One who deliberately seeks out religious errors of judgment becomes a heretic’.6

A commendable stance worthy of mention here was taken by a notable early scholar, Isma’il al-Qadhi, who strove to preserve the framework of the Islamic legal system; he was presented with a written piece in which the author had collected all of the lenient abnormal opinions and excuses of jurists, to which he boldly denounced the work and informed the Caliph that the book was the work of a heretic. When a person enquired as to why he gave such a harsh verdict whilst there were hadiths supporting some of these opinions, Isma’il Al-Qadhi replied, ’The scholars who viewed that singing is allowed did not view drinking certain types of wine as permissible, and so on…’7 He meant by this that odd opinions are not to be compiled and then adopted as a concise manual of jurisprudence [fiqh] to practise, since the jurist who is but fallible and offers an individual odd opinion or two does not necessarily agree with other odd opinions.

To conclude, the mere existence of a difference of opinion on a given issue does not render the difference acceptable and valid. Valid differences of opinion arise where there is scope for one to exert efforts in study and examination and to exercise one’s opinion [ijtihad]. This occurs only when the differences of opinion and numbers of scholars are regarded and considered significant. Moreover, it must be the result of objective and sincere efforts without any hidden yearning to seek lenient allowances from the onset. In the next article, I will examine issues of ijtihad and the ruling of music in further detail.


1. This article can be found at her website here.
2. This letter titled, Open letter from Sami Yusuf to Yvonne Ridley, can be found in several places over the internet. There is a link to the article on his own website here but it does not seem to be active.
3. Ibid.
4. See for example al-Suyuti, al-Ashbah wa al-Nadhai’r, pg. 175, Dar Ihya’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyah.
5. Ibn al-Qayyim, ‘Ilam al-Muwaqqi’in, 3/258-361, Dar al-Kutub al-Hadithiyyah, 1969.
6. Al-Dhahabi, Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubala’, reporting on al-Awza’i and others 7/125 & 8/18.
7. Al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra, 10/211.

About Shaikh (Dr) Haitham Al-Haddad

Dr. Haitham al-Haddad is a jurist and serves as a judge for the Islamic Council of Europe. He has studied the Islamic sciences for over 20 years under the tutelage of renowned scholars such as the late Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia as well as the retired Head of the Kingdom's Higher Judiciary Council. He specialises in many of the Islamic sciences and submitted his doctoral thesis on Islamic jurisprudence concerning Muslim minorities. Shaikh Haitham is highly respected having specialised knowledge in the field of fiqh, usul al-fiqh, maqasid al-shari'ah, ulum al-Qur’an, tafsir, aqidah, and fiqh al-hadith. He provides complex theories which address the role of Islamic jurisprudence within a western environment whilst also critically re-analysing the approach of Islamic jurists in forming legal rulings (ifta’) within a western socio-political context. He has many well known students most of whom are active in dawah and teaching in the West. The shaikh is an Islamic jurist (faqih) and as such is qualified to deliver verdicts as a judge under Islamic law, a role he undertakes at the Islamic Council of Europe as Islamic judge and treasurer. Dr Haitham al-Haddad also sits on various the boards of advisors for Islamic organisations, mainly in the United Kingdom but also around the world.


  1. apostar en linea

    Hello, I enjoy reading through your post.

    I like to write a llittle comment to support you.

  2. Dodgy Arguments based on Authority
    I found it disappointing to see no reference to Quran and Sunnah in the entire article which is more verbose than sensible. The crux of the argument is that we should assume the word of majority scholars to be final unless the minority scholars increase their numbers to be significant. How fallacious is it! Does it not matter what the minority scholars are saying and which of the arguments is stronger in terms of basis from Quran and Sunnah?

    The issue of Music is controversial not because of differences or agreements of scholars. It is controversial because of the weak basis of arguments from Quran and Sunnah.

    It is lamentable that true scholarship is receding from Islamic Ummah and the scholars are basing their opinions of halal and haram on the opinions of previous scholars… Please note there is NO absolute authority of scholars in the religion of Allah. Only Allah and by extension His Messengers’ authority is established. For the rest, whether pious companions or scholars, they can be challenged on the basis of Quran and Sunnah [4:59]:

    يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّـهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّـهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّـهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا

    The basis on which this absolute authority of Allah and His Messenger is claimed to be extended to scholars is weak and has logical defects. The scholars are all humans and are not guarded by wahi or any other explicit guidance from Allah the Absolute. They all have to utilise their God given faculties of logic and reason to extract and derive rulings from Quran and Sunnah. In this sense a young person and an old person, or a modern or classical scholar are equal. The only weightage should be given to their “argument” not their status.

    The entire argument that scholarly agreement should be non-challengeable is based on the hadith that says “My ummah will never unite upon falsehood”? Can someone find the reference and authenticity of this hadith please before pinning an entire castle on unknown grounds? Even if authenticated the word “Ummah” in the hadith cannot be logically restricted to refer to scholars only. Such restriction would require strong evidence of itself. Furthermore why this hadith is not mentioned in the matters of differences between Sunnis and Shias such as:[url][/url]?

    Perhaps the only logical argument in favour of the consensus of the scholars being always right is because it is impossible for all God fearing and well trained minds to come to the same conclusion independently unless that is the only correct logical conclusion. For example it is impossible that one would find false argument such as 2+2=5 to have approval of majority of peers if any. However one has to remember that the arguments considered by scholars are never as simple as 2+2 and there are a lot of assumptions on which a derivation or conclusion is based. These assumptions can themselves be found to be incorrect.

    In regards to issue of music the simple matter is that for establishing it to be haram requires clear cut evidence. Since being a matter of worldly affair it will qualify for the default ruling of halal. So let’s see if the sheikh Haitham al Haddad can provide an analysis of the evidences from Quran and Sunnah and justify that evidence to be clear cut?

  3. just another bro


    1. Concensus is a form of evidence in and of itself because of the statement of the prophet I mentioned previously “my ummah will never agree upon falsehood”. But clearly these scholars agreed based upon the textual evidence of the qur’an and sunnah. Thus if one says it is a matter of concensus then you may still ask for a textual evidence and there is no harm in this. You can also ask for his source that allows a person to boldly suggest it is an issue of concensus. In the scenario you mentioned the brother is talking utter nonsense and will neither be able to provide you with a textual proof or a source for his statement that it is a matter of concensus.

    2. The concensus refers to the scholars of Islam and not the general Muslims. The term scholar includes the companions who were allowed to give fatwa. As I mentioned before “concensus can never be overidden by a later concensus. e.g. concensus of companions cannot be overidden by concensus of the tabieen or the concensus of the scholars of the tabieen cannot be overidden by the concensus of scholars in today’s time”. In reality this conflict will never exist anyway becuase of the prophets statement “my ummah will never agree upon falsehood” and also for the logical reason that it is impossible for all scholars of a certain time period to overlook the ijma of a different time period and object to it.

    3. In regards your statement about the duff being used as an evidence to allow musical instruments in general. This may make sense if it was the only piece of textual evidence – but it isn’t. Other texts show that the duff is allowed as a special exception but other instruments are not allowed. For example the statement of ibn abbas about the verse in surah al luqman. The textual proof is overwhelming and on top of that it is an issue of concensus –

    4. One may ask why the duff has been given this exception? Let us remember that whatever Allah makes halal it is because there is more good in it than harm and whatever Allah makes haram it is because there is more harm in it than good. So we can say that Allah has made musical instruments haram because there is more harm than good. The harm may be physical, it may be meta physical it may be spiritual, we are not at liberty to say precisely and exactly how it harms, but we know that Allah would only prohibit it because its harm is more than its good. It may have an element of good – the same as Allah mentions in surah al baqarah that alcohol has an element of good. As for the duff then divine guidance informs us that its good outweighs the harm. Thus it does not inflict the same harm as the other instruments upon us and so Allah has permitted its use. How is it different and in what way does it inflict less harm than other instruments? – we are not at liberty to say.

    Although my personal experience tells me that they are definitely different. For instance I use to listen to music, but stopped about 8 years ago, yet I can remember how every note sounds in the electric guitar of many songs I use to listen to. As for the duff then I do not think it is as infectious to the heart and is not so easily remembered in its tone as the electric guitar.

    Allah knows best but I hope that helps

  4. Alhamdulillah, jazakAllahu khayran for your response. What I was making reference to is the time where the ability of the Muslims was such that they were able to make ijtihad, but as you stated only a with a handful did the Muslims make taqleed. And from my understanding when the knowledge and ability declined, the four madhabs emerged. The hadith I mentioned was not one which stated the Prophet (s) to say “take the majority opinion”, rather, for one to always side with the majority. Maybe it stems from the correction you made. The hadith was cited to me almost a year ago, a hadith for which I don’t have reference; hence it’s best we leave the exact hadith. However, I’ll take the generic meaning, and tell you the context it was quoted to me in and insha’Allah I’ll do this in the quest to build a bridge between what you said about “consensus” and the emphasis I put on “evidence”. Is consensus and evidence, two concepts that are alien to each other, two concepts that cannot be put together? Is consensus reached via the correct evidence? What I want to put emphasis is on what you present to another Muslim, the consensus or the evidence.

    A reminder for myself, a lay person like me, a muqallid further falls into two categories: a muttabi’a (follower) and ‘aammi (layman). A muttabi’a is the one who takes the rule derived by a mujtahid after they are convinced of the daleel which the mujtahid derived the rule from, and the ‘aammi by contrast is the one who follows the mujtahid in the rule without the daleel. The earlier generations were the muttabi’a as there was a quest for daleel, but when the age of decline came it became difficult for people to follow the mujtahids, and followed without seeking the daleel. The silence of the ulema gave consent for people to be ‘aammi, because yes it is permissible. However, in the current climate it’s important for one to know the daleel, and I’ll explain what I mean bringing back the context in which that hadith was stated to me. I was speaking to a Muslim, and the Muslim cited the hadith in favour of the notion of Islam and secularism going hand in hand. The brother didn’t go beyond “it’s consensus” (what consensus, where consensus?), and the conversation ended there because he didn’t budge, we couldn’t debate. He didn’t have any daleel and refused to listen to me because he was adamant in the holding onto the idea that he had the “consensus”. Therefore, when we give something to another, we need to give Quran and Sunnah, rather than “it’s consensus” full stop, because if we do not, this can play a great role in decline and chaos for the Ummah. I’m not negating the notion of consensus. What I’m saying is it’s hardly satisfactory as an evidence to present, not that it’s not worth anything.

    The idea of consensus may, or may not be simple in hukums, but what if one says whose consensus? The consensus of the Ulema, the Muslims, or the consensus of the Sahabah? If the latter then (in this case) the Sahabah engaged in playing so and so instruments on special occasions on eid – so consensus was made then and I know this from so and so daleel of so and so scholar and there are a couple who reached consensus with him? The situation becomes “dangerous” when “consensus” reaches outside the domain of hukums. The author of the article mentions 7/7. If you look to the way of the thinking of the one who thinks Jihad is the way forward to achieve certain means, if you say no the “consensus” is tableeghi, he’ll probably turn his back on you and say the consensus was achieved the Prophet (s) time and “J” is what was used then, and it’s what we need now, and he’ll think everybody is deluded and his scholar is right (and he’ll be an ‘aammi). I’ll be an ‘aammi and so will he. I will say to him no I have the consensus and he’ll say no I have the consensus. Conversation finished? We know Islam condemns violence to achieve certain means, and we can prove it via Quran and Sunnah, going back to the Seerah to see how the Prophet Mohammad (s) worked, and for this one needs to engage in daleel, evidence.

    Please do correct me wherever you think I am wrong.

    And Allah swt knows best.

  5. just another bro

    responding to yasmin
    Dear sister a couple of points you are mistaken on are as follows:

    1. There is no hadith where the prophet said “take the majority opinion”

    2. There has never been a time in the history of Islam wherein the majority of Muslims were mujtahids. In fact the prophet only gave approval for relatively few of the companions to give legal verdicts.

    Perhaps the following point should help to clarify:

    There is a hadith wherein the prophet said “My ummah will never agree upon falsehood”. This is referring to the scholars of the ummah and not the lay people. Thus there is a point of usool (a fundamental islamic principle) which states that if in a particular time period the scholars of Islam unanimously* agree on a matter then it is impossible that it is incorrect. Therefore if anyone (even a scholar) differs with this in a later time period then this is considered and illegitimate difference of opinion because a concensus* has been established. One might ask – what if in a later period of time there is another concensus which contradicts the opinion of an earlier concensus? the answer to that is that this will never occur. Think about it and you will understand why.

    * The words unanimously and concensus seem to imply that every single scolar would have to literally say that they agree on the particular matter at hand. In reality this is not the case. Let us say that many vocally agreed on a matter and that there were others who said nothing. Those who said nothing only did so because they agreed with those who already spoke about the matter, thus they would form part of the concensus. You may even have 1 or 2 scholars who gave a contradictory opinion – but these could be legitamtely discarded on the basis of being in an extreme minority and having very weak supporting evidence. This would still be termed a concensus – even though in a linguistic sense it is not a concensus. You might ask who would make these decisions to determine concensus? The answer is that the body of scholarship determines this. One thing that it clear is that any fair reading of the mass of writings that form part of the body of scholarship can only lead one to determine that music is haram and that this was an issue of concensus amongst the scholars. NOT linguistic concensus BUT concensus as defined by the shariah.

  6. “Majority” and “Minority” …?
    I have a couple of points insha’Allah to make from my weak understanding. Yes, there may be some who justify music via the benefits it brings, and some who merely state that there are some scholars who say music is permissible, and use both these reasons in order to deem music permissible. The scholar also touches upon the element of some following the path of shahwa (desire) to take whichever opinion they want derived by ijtihad. Alhamdulillah, the author brings it back to judging everything in accordance to not such feeble methods (as stated before) but rather, the the Islamic Law – the Quran and Sunnah. However, author further interprets the “Islamic Law” to be a rule of “majority” and “minority” and this proposes a slight difficulty.

    The notion of “odd” and “even”, “majority” and “minority” are slightly dangerous to abide by, specifically using to judge what authority an issue/opinion should be given. Only because these terms are relative: what’s majority today may well be minority tomorrow, what is “consensus” today may not be “consensus” tomorrow. Are we to move ourselves continuously?

    Exactly how much is a minority and how much is a majority? If we have 51 majority and 49 minority, does the former opinion win? There has to be something more plausible Allah swt has given the ummah than a notion of “majority and minority” to base the validity on, and that is evidence. The only way to refute an opinion is to bring it forth and refute it. The Prophet (s) stated, “I have left behind two things upon which if you are steadfast you will never deviate, the book of Allah, i.e. the Qur`an, and the tradition of His prophet” (Mishkat vol. 1, p. 31).

    In this arena of debate, many state the hadith of the Prophet Mohammad (s), where he (s) ordered people to always side with the majority. The author gives other examples from the past to emphasise this notion. However, we need to view this into context and see if it’s applicable to today’s situation. It is important we look at the time Prophet (s) said it in for example, a time where almost everybody was a mujtahid with the highest peaks of taqwa. Hence at that time to follow the majority was ordered. The Prophet (s) said abide by the majority because it was assured that no one would stray apart from the few who would follow the path of shahwa (desire). However, is it the same situation today? Today with the overwhelming amount of opinions at a time where islam is not embedded in peoples hearts and minds, majority and minority is not for one to base the validity on. The emphasis needs to be on “evidence” not “majority” and “minority”.

  7. Abu Abdurrahman

    This Article’s home
    Abu Abbas, you are at the original site for the article ( 🙂

  8. Mashallah
    Its amazing how far this article has spread, I’ve seen it appear on may sites (which probably indicates its importance) – which site originally produced the article?

  9. the heart knows
    salam alaikum. Thanks for a very good discussion many people who say music is allowed in islam REALLY know that is not true they are just following their souls desire WHY they just not ADMIT it???

  10. analogous perspective?
    good article…just did’nt know what this meant?
    “consistently argue an analogous perspective”

  11. I think Br. Farouk’s comments indicate the very need for this article.

    1) Yes the article written by Sami Yusuf was fairly long ago, but many, if not all people who consider music permissible, quote the same arguments and is becoming more widespread. Hence, rather it being directed to Sami Yusuf, it is directed to all those who share a similar view or train of thought. However, I believe Sami Yusuf is only named because he articulated his views and this was widespread on the internet, hence Sami Yusuf being mentioned. The following quote from the article clearly highlights this point:

    “I found him to employ arguments simultaneously being used by others; a regurgitation of many propounded elsewhere, which consistently argue an analogous perspective. I therefore find it imperative to engage with the wider Muslim audience on the aforementioned issues which I believe to be particularly significant for Muslims in our current climate.”

    2) If you read closely, this article is NOT simply about music, but rather this trend which has appeared recently (particularly since 9/11) that people consider almost all matters “a difference of opinion”. It’s evident to me that the point the Shaikh is trying to impress upon the Muslims is that is this really a simply matter of disagreement (hence the title!). How can we differentiate between true matters of disagreement and those aptly named simply to make things easy upon people? It’s clear to me that this is the real issue the Shaikh wishes to address and will be covered in the next few articles inshAllah.

    May Allah (swt) reward you Shaikh for raising these issues and I await the next few articles.

  12. farouk ***
    You can find an alim that will tell you 7/7 was permissible – should we respect that as valid difference? farouk ***

    ***disrespectful remark deleted (Moderator)

  13. Please read article carefully
    “Additionally, more than many scholars have argued that music is permissible as long as there is no obscenity, why can’t we respect this difference of opinion?”
    The whole point being made is that a) it is not ‘many scholars’ and 2) any difference in this issue is not valid.
    You can’t just repeat the same claim again! without any backing as well…
    Also, I don’t think people attached to this website are interested in ‘capitalising’ on any news; concern about the plight and future of Muslims is more noble than that; may Allah protect us from such vile intentions!

  14. A few points
    May Allah reward the sheikh for clarifying the matter even though this is a time of considerable pressure for those who speak out against these fashionable matters.

    I disagree with Farouk M and find it a tad disrespectful to imply that the Sheikh is trying to capitalise on anything, this is not celebrity sheikh idol.

    Unlike the ever pervasive world of media, we as muslims do not just deal with issues only when the media spotlight is on them and when everyone’s talking about it, and forget about it when the attention of the masses has left. Islam teaches us to uphold truth and justice at all times not just when it’s a hot topic. The Sheikh is dealing with the issue because it’s an important one and one which has a lot of relevance and significance to muslims.

    As for difference of opinions, I think the Sheikh will further clarify matters in upcoming articles.

  15. fourscore and seven years ago…
    Isn’t the shaikh just trying to capitalise on old news? Sami Yusuf wrote his article more than a year ago and he’s probably forgot about it – why dont we? Additionally, more than many scholars have argued that music is permissble as long as there is no obscenity, why can’t we respect this difference of opinion?

  16. re. plain english!
    Marshallah, very good article, buy yes, i agree, the english was slightly difficult in terms of comprehension (understanding), simply because the writer used certain words to explain a point, when common words (i.e more known) could have been used to make the same point.

    And maybe, (and hopefully) the writer will take more of his audience into consideration when writing the next article.

    your brother in Islam


  17. re: plain english please
    Have you looked at your own comment…”Although the article was beneficial,the flowery language and complex constructions used in the article made it hard work to read and detracted from its overall benefit.” Surely you didnt have any problems with the english/way it was writen…

    I found the article well writen and am looking forward to the next parts – which I feel will be of more benifit and very important (Culture, identity and Britishness)

    I think re music we all know what the correct stance is its just a matter of taking it on board. May Allah help us all in remaining firm.

    your sister in islam

  18. 2nd last para
    What i understand is this.

    All scholars make mistakes. Some of these mistake are quite bad! If you gather all these mistakes together and say this is the Islam i am going to practice…then thats some bad Islam you got going there bro…

    Is that right? anyone back me up?

  19. What the…?
    Good article but can someone explain the second last paragraph again?

  20. Plain English Please
    Although the article was beneficial,the flowery language and complex constructions used in the article made it hard work to read and detracted from its overall benefit.

  21. next…
    Mashallah, I look forward to the next part!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Send this to a friend