Is music allowed?

[There is only one God]

If no, then why not?
thanks,

[adnaanshaikh195]

Nope, I will post why. Hold on.

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

In my opnion, and the opinion of many other scholars, Music is allowed on the condition that it doesnt distract you from religion and doesnt encourage evil things.
for why music is allowed, please see this link
http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2012/04/q-shari-rule-on-songs-music-singing.html
it is a very informative article on music by Sheikh Abu Iyas, a well-known jordanian sheikh.

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

I also recommend Al-Azhar's fatwa on music
http://www.sailanmuslim.com/news/fatwa-on-music-by-the-grand-mufti-and-shaykh-of-al-azhar-shaykh-jad-al-haq-ali-jad-al-haq/
Al azhar is one one of, if not the, most respected school in the majoruty of the muslim world.
You can enjoy music, as long as its not accompanied by sinful acts and/or distracts you from prayer.
Even salafi ibn hazm has this view
PS aboout sheikh abu Iyas, im not 100% sure he is actually jordanian, anyway, peace
Peace

[DrShaFi]

Asalamwaliukum warahmatullah

No music is not allowed.  All scholars agree it isnt.  It distracts you from remembering Allah and it wastes time.  Time is an extremely important thing.  For example, you might listen to music instead of listening to quran, or you might sing songs instead of reciting quran.  You might want to sing urself instead of wanting to become a quran recitor or a sheikh.  It also distracts you from learning islam by wasting ur time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0QCX0S3-30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYfltQO0lh4   <----A long video but it is a trustworthy and authentic source.

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

Asalamwaliukum warahmatullah

No music is not allowed.  All scholars agree it isnt. 

Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, and Ibn Hazm. are some of the most respected scholars in the islamic golden age and they claim that music is allowed. Abu Iyas is a respected modern scholar who allows music. Al Azhar, one of the most, in not THE most, respected islamic research centers in all of islam, and there ruling is that music is allowed if its not accompanied by sinful acts here is there fatwa,
http://www.sailanmuslim.com/news/fatwa-on-music-by-the-grand-mufti-and-shaykh-of-al-azhar-shaykh-jad-al-haq-ali-jad-al-haq/
please read this link to see why the sources in your videos are wrong and why music is allowed, it is a great article by sheikh abu iyas
http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2012/04/q-shari-rule-on-songs-music-singing.html
if you want more scholars ibn rushd and ibn sina are some
if you want more links from well-known websites,
http://www.submission.org/music.html

but if you cant read all the links or research the scholars
just read abu iyas's article:
http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2012/04/q-shari-rule-on-songs-music-singing.html

and if you can do more, then al azhar's (one of the most, in not THE most, respected islamic research centers in all of islam, even Bro Osama Abdullah follows there rulings) fatwa
http://www.sailanmuslim.com/news/fatwa-on-music-by-the-grand-mufti-and-shaykh-of-al-azhar-shaykh-jad-al-haq-ali-jad-al-haq/

PLEASE AT LEAST READ THE TWO LINKS BEFORE YOU RESPOND
Peace bro

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

And please read ALL OF THE ARTICLES (not just part of them)
in addition, i would like to site this hadith, BUT READ THE LINKS FIRST, ALL OF IT.
Ar-Rubai bint Muawwidh said:
"The morning after the consummation of my marriage, the Prophet came and sat on my bed as far from me as you are sitting now, and our little girls started beating the Duff and reciting verses mourning my father who had been killed in the battle of Badr. One of them said: 'Among us is a Prophet who knows what will happen tomorrow.' On that the Prophet said: 'Stop saying this, and keep on saying what you were saying before.'"

حَدَّثَنَا حُمَيْدُ بْنُ مَسْعَدَةَ الْبَصْرِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا بِشْرُ بْنُ الْمُفَضَّلِ، حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدُ بْنُ ذَكْوَانَ، عَنِ الرُّبَيِّعِ بِنْتِ مُعَوِّذٍ، قَالَتْ جَاءَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَدَخَلَ عَلَىَّ غَدَاةَ بُنِيَ بِي فَجَلَسَ عَلَى فِرَاشِي كَمَجْلِسِكَ مِنِّي وَجُوَيْرِيَاتٌ لَنَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِدُفُوفِهِنَّ وَيَنْدُبْنَ مَنْ قُتِلَ مِنْ آبَائِي يَوْمَ بَدْرٍ إِلَى أَنْ قَالَتْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ وَفِينَا نَبِيٌّ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي غَدٍ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ اسْكُتِي عَنْ هَذِهِ وَقُولِي الَّذِي كُنْتِ تَقُولِينَ قَبْلَهَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ ‏.‏

English reference : Vol. 2, Book 6, Hadith 1090
Arabic reference : Book 7, Hadith 1113
This is just an addition, PLEASE READ THE LINKS FIRST, then read this hadith, then respond.
Peace

[Tanveer]

Asalamwaliukum warahmatullah

No music is not allowed.  All scholars agree it isnt.  It distracts you from remembering Allah and it wastes time.  Time is an extremely important thing.  For example, you might listen to music instead of listening to quran, or you might sing songs instead of reciting quran.  You might want to sing urself instead of wanting to become a quran recitor or a sheikh.  It also distracts you from learning islam by wasting ur time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0QCX0S3-30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYfltQO0lh4   <----A long video but it is a trustworthy and authentic source.

None of this ever happens to a normal person. Too many mights aswell. These scholars whole ban revolves around mights. Why dont they ban food too? Some people might eat too much and become obese? Or how about banning money? Some people might spend too much? Why not even ban religion? Some people might go to the extremes and start compelling others into their religion and kill people?

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

peace
dear tanveer,
although i agree with you that music is not forbidden, we should note that there claim is not baseless.
please read the 2 links i have posted (Abu Iyas's article and Al Azhars fatwa) to find out why there claim is wrong.
However, we should note that music accompanied by sinful acts is forbidden unanomiusly, (peopledifferon what "sinful acts" are, but most of them agree on most things, e.g. adultery).

[Tanveer]

peace
dear tanveer,
although i agree with you that music is not forbidden, we should note that there claim is not baseless.
please read the 2 links i have posted (Abu Iyas's article and Al Azhars fatwa) to find out why there claim is wrong.
However, we should note that music accompanied by sinful acts is forbidden unanomiusly, (peopledifferon what "sinful acts" are, but most of them agree on most things, e.g. adultery).

Oh yes ofcourse. I absolutely agree. I was just pointing out how flawed their reasoning is.

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

good
peace

[Black Muslim]

Thu-Alfiqar , you should know that we can take and refute anyone except the prophet peace upon him . It doesn't matter who says something if it isn't supported with evidence . And the prophet said clearly that music is forbidden . So taking something which LOOKS like an agreement from him and leaving a clear saying is wrong . Here's an article with names MORE IMPORTANT than Al-Azhar or any other scholar these days .

http://islamqa.info/ar/ref/5000

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

I've read the link you gave me, i only ask that you read mine.
I will post them again:

http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2012/04/q-shari-rule-on-songs-music-singing.html
Sheikh Abu Iyas's article that shows that music in not forbidden, by refuting hadiths that claim otherwise by showing they are not authentic, and showing hadiths that permit music.

http://www.sailanmuslim.com/news/fatwa-on-music-by-the-grand-mufti-and-shaykh-of-al-azhar-shaykh-jad-al-haq-ali-jad-al-haq/orical
Al Azhar uses historical context and RELIABLE hadiths to see that music is not forbidden.

The problem with your link that it shows an ultracoservative scholar and they use unreliable hadith, and the quranic verses he gives does NOT forbid the verses, only that you sholdn't use music to "turn peoples heats away from God", and btw one of the scholars this guy gives, bin baz, said the world is flat.
He also gives weak hadiths that are refuted in Abu Iyas's article.
So read the article and Al Azhar's article, they show that it isnt forbidden, and give good evidence while refuting weak evidence.
Please read them before you respond.
Peace

[Black Muslim]

Unauthorized !? How can you say such a thing !? It says in Bukhari :

" Narrated Abu 'Amir or Abu Malik Al-Ash'ari: that he heard the Prophet saying, "From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful."

This is a crystal clear evidence that music is forbidden . Now look , there is a difference between music and singing . Singing is ok unless it contains immoral stuff and all . But music is completely forbidden . It's dangerous to change the meanings and twist words in order for them to match personal desires .

And this is another one

"It was narrated that Al-Awza'i said: "Umar bin 'Abdul-'Aziz wrote a letter to 'Umar bin Al-Walid in which he said: 'The share that your father gave to you was the entire Khumus,[1] but the share that your father is entitled to is the same as that of any man among the Muslims, on which is due the rights of Allah and His Messenger, and of relatives, orphans, the poor and wayfarers. How many will dispute with your father on the Day of Resurrection! How can he be saved who has so many disputants? And your openly allowing musical instruments and wind instruments is an innovation in Islam. I was thinking of sending someone to you who would cut off your evil long hair.""

So how come they deem them unauthorized ?

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

Peace
It seems you didnt read the links i sent you.
If you DID read them, Abu Iyas's article deals with this Hadith particularly, PS the 2nd one is not attributed to the prophet.
PLease read the 2 links.
i will post what sheikh Abu Iyas said about this hadith (ITS IN THE LINK, PLEASE READ IT BEFORE YOU RESPOND NEXT TIME, ITS NOT THAT LONG, i WONT RESPOND TO YOUR AGUEMENTS NEXT TIME UNLESS YOU READ IT)
This is what he said

"There is one hadith remaining which was reported in Sahih al-Bukhari which is a mu’allaq hadith, and this is one of the evidences for the ones who say that music and musical instruments are not allowed, we shall look into this hadith in some detail:
This hadith although narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, it would be not correct to say that Bukhari narrated this hadith since Bukhari does not say (he informed us) or (he told us) or something of the similar words, he reports in a mu’allaq manner in the format (and Hisham ibn ‘Ammar said) and the mu’allaq Ahadeeth in Sahih al-Bukhari are not obliged to be taken as evidence although they can be referred to. The Ahadeeth mua’llaqa means that one narrator or more are not mentioned in the chain, and thereby the hadith is Munqat’i (unconnected), and I question: why did not Bukhari mention the one who narrated this hadith to him? Does this not indicate Imam Bukhari’s suspicion on the narration and the narrator, and therefore this hadith falls down from the level of being Saheeh.
Hisham bin ‘Ammar was a man of trust but when he became old his condition changed, his sayings could not be taken doubtlessly, Abu Hatim arRazi says (when Hisham became old he changed, he would read whatever was given to him and whatever was dictated to him, he would accept) and Abu Dawud from whom Al-’Ajari narrated (Hisham narrated four hundred Ahadeeth but his chains do not have a base),  and he also said that Hisham would take the Ahadeeth from Abu Mish’ar and then narrate them, and after this he i.e. Abu Dawud said (I was afraid he would create doubts in the matter of Islam itself). Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said: “He was somewhat fickle” and also said: “If you happen to pray behind him, repeat your prayers.” It is not correct to take Ahadeeth from such a narrator, moreover, Sahih Ahadeeth refute what he narrated.
Abu Dawud narrated in his Sunan with a good chain, starting with Hisham bin ‘Ammaar: (Abdul Wahab bin Najdah narrated to us, that Bashar bin Bakr narrated to us, from Abdul Rahman Ibn Yazid Ibn Jabir, that ‘Atiyah Ibn Qays narrated to us: I heard Abdul Rahman Ibn Ghanam al’Ash’ari say: Abu Amir narrated to us or Abu Malik, I swear by Allah another oath that he did not believe me that he heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) say: There will be among my community people who will make lawful (the use of) khazz and silk. Some of them will be transformed into apes and swine till the day of judgement”. And this has a strong chain with out any doubt but there is no mention of musical instruments and female singers, so it is obvious as to which of these narrations is preferred?
The Shari’a came inline with the innate nature of man and there is no proof to say that it is in conflict with the nature of man, and the singing as all of us know, is from the nature which I cannot comprehend that a man who lives for four years or more and does not listen to songs, our children from a very young age tend to sing and dance, so has Islam come to prohibit what is part of our nature?
In the end I say, if this was a hadith, with no contradiction with the other Saheeh Ahadeeth which we have presented, we would have relied upon it over weaker Ahadeeth. But the issue here is different, that there are many Ahadeeth which are Saheeh and Hasan and contradictory to this hadith, so how do we take it?
For these 5 reasons I do not take this hadith as an evidence for prohibiting singing and musical instruments."
the scholars i have mentioned before, such as ibn hazm, rehject this hadith for this very reason.

Bukhari is just a scholar, he is not divine, and scholars do make mistakes, and although he probably made less than, less say, Timidhi, he still did.
remember that.
I (nor sheikh abu Iyas, Abu Bakr bin Arabi, or ibn Hazm) are changing the meaning, we are saying that it is not authentic.
Bukhari=/= Authentic          Bukhari= most likely authentic
I cant emphasis this enough
and I cant emphaisis this enough, READ THE 2 LINKS I POSTED BEFORE YOU RESPOND NEXT TIME, THEY DEAL WITH EVERY SINGLE HADITH THAT FORBIDS MUSIC AND REFUTE IT, while showing evidence of the permisibily of music though other hadith.
I repeat, READ THE LINKS
Peace bro

[Black Muslim]

Now , I'm not in good condition to read all that . It's a good thing that I was able to write the last comment . So , bring the evidence here and explain it point by point and we'll see .

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

The links I have posted are kinda off long, but very informative, (In my last comment i only managed to copy and paste one section of the article), it would be hard to post it point by point, because it is long.
I hope you get better my brother, and when you do just read the links, save them on you desktop or something so you can always get back to it.
Or you canread them bit by bit, thats how I read the al Azhar article (Although Sheikh Abu Iyas's article was much more informative).
Anyway I hope you get better my brother in religion, im also a little on the down wide, got a mini-fever.
peace

[Black Muslim]

Firstly , I believe that if one saying tells us music is forbidden then it is forbidden . So let us stay with this one Hadith . It is mentioned in Bukhari . And the authorized of Bukhari is the second most truthful book after Quran . There are some few sayings within it which are weak or Israeli . But they're not over 8 or 9 as I remember . Anyway , you say that this one is weak . What for ? That's what we shoul focus on right now . Mention what makes it so and we'll see if it's true or not .

Go knows best .

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

OK lets start with that
First we have to know that Bukhari is not perfect, he is just a scholar, not divine or divinly inspired., and scholars make mistakes
I mentioned why this Hadith is weak by quoting part of Abu Iyas's article
I will mention that part again

"There is one hadith remaining which was reported in Sahih al-Bukhari which is a mu’allaq hadith, and this is one of the evidences for the ones who say that music and musical instruments are not allowed, we shall look into this hadith in some detail:
This hadith although narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, it would be not correct to say that Bukhari narrated this hadith since Bukhari does not say (he informed us) or (he told us) or something of the similar words, he reports in a mu’allaq manner in the format (and Hisham ibn ‘Ammar said) and the mu’allaq Ahadeeth in Sahih al-Bukhari are not obliged to be taken as evidence although they can be referred to. The Ahadeeth mua’llaqa means that one narrator or more are not mentioned in the chain, and thereby the hadith is Munqat’i (unconnected), and I question: why did not Bukhari mention the one who narrated this hadith to him? Does this not indicate Imam Bukhari’s suspicion on the narration and the narrator, and therefore this hadith falls down from the level of being Saheeh.
Hisham bin ‘Ammar was a man of trust but when he became old his condition changed, his sayings could not be taken doubtlessly, Abu Hatim arRazi says (when Hisham became old he changed, he would read whatever was given to him and whatever was dictated to him, he would accept) and Abu Dawud from whom Al-’Ajari narrated (Hisham narrated four hundred Ahadeeth but his chains do not have a base),  and he also said that Hisham would take the Ahadeeth from Abu Mish’ar and then narrate them, and after this he i.e. Abu Dawud said (I was afraid he would create doubts in the matter of Islam itself). Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said: “He was somewhat fickle” and also said: “If you happen to pray behind him, repeat your prayers.” It is not correct to take Ahadeeth from such a narrator, moreover, Sahih Ahadeeth refute what he narrated.
Abu Dawud narrated in his Sunan with a good chain, starting with Hisham bin ‘Ammaar: (Abdul Wahab bin Najdah narrated to us, that Bashar bin Bakr narrated to us, from Abdul Rahman Ibn Yazid Ibn Jabir, that ‘Atiyah Ibn Qays narrated to us: I heard Abdul Rahman Ibn Ghanam al’Ash’ari say: Abu Amir narrated to us or Abu Malik, I swear by Allah another oath that he did not believe me that he heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) say: There will be among my community people who will make lawful (the use of) khazz and silk. Some of them will be transformed into apes and swine till the day of judgement”. And this has a strong chain with out any doubt but there is no mention of musical instruments and female singers, so it is obvious as to which of these narrations is preferred?
The Shari’a came inline with the innate nature of man and there is no proof to say that it is in conflict with the nature of man, and the singing as all of us know, is from the nature which I cannot comprehend that a man who lives for four years or more and does not listen to songs, our children from a very young age tend to sing and dance, so has Islam come to prohibit what is part of our nature?
In the end I say, if this was a hadith, with no contradiction with the other Saheeh Ahadeeth which we have presented, we would have relied upon it over weaker Ahadeeth. But the issue here is different, that there are many Ahadeeth which are Saheeh and Hasan and contradictory to this hadith, so how do we take it?
For these 5 reasons I do not take this hadith as an evidence for prohibiting singing and musical instruments."

I would also like to add that hisham bin ammar is considered unreliable by ibn hajar, even bu al albani.
Peace

[There is only one God]

Firstly , I believe that if one saying tells us music is forbidden then it is forbidden . So let us stay with this one Hadith . It is mentioned in Bukhari . And the authorized of Bukhari is the second most truthful book after Quran . There are some few sayings within it which are weak or Israeli . But they're not over 8 or 9 as I remember . Anyway , you say that this one is weak . What for ? That's what we shoul focus on right now . Mention what makes it so and we'll see if it's true or not .
Go knows best .

Are you serious? That book was written by a human, humans make mistakes. You can never give a book a title like that.

[Black Muslim]

Are you serious? That book was written by a human, humans make mistakes. You can never give a book a title like that.

I didn't give it that title After scholars investigated and spent decades in the books of Hadith , they found out that Bukhari is the most accurate book among them . Sure , it has some weak narrations but it is still more accurate than the others . I didn't say he doesn't make mistakes

As for Thu-Alfiqar , I really want good for you . I didn't engage in this argument with you for show or challenge . But because I want to warn you . So let us look at what you quoted .

This hadith although narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, it would be not correct to say that Bukhari narrated this hadith since Bukhari does not say (he informed us) or (he told us) or something of the similar words, he reports in a mu’allaq manner in the format (and Hisham ibn ‘Ammar said) and the mu’allaq Ahadeeth in Sahih al-Bukhari are not obliged to be taken as evidence although they can be referred to.

Now , they say that this Hadith is Muallaq and that one narrator is missing from the start of the chain . The reason for this is that Bukhari said "The son of Hisham said" . But the fact is that Bukhari did see the son of Hisham and therefore , if he says this then he's saying the name of the first narrator . And Bukhari mentioned it as a "Majzuum Muallaq" ( Affirmative Muallaq ) . And by looking at "Taqreeb Ilm Al-Hadeeth" , level one , page 147 we see Tariq bin Awad saying "ما كان منها بصيغة الجزم فإنه صحيح النسبة إلى مَن أُضيف إليه؛ فإن البخاري لا يستجيز أن يَجْزِم عنه بذلك ما لم يصح عنده عنه" Which means that is the saying is affirmatively mentioned by Bukhari then it is authorized . Simply put , because he met the man and heard from him knowing he's fair , he mentioned it affirmatively . Therefore , there is no problem in this chain .

God knows best .

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

Peace
there are 8 things i have to mention
1. the statement you gave basically means that the author assumes bukhari is correct all the time
"إن البخاري لا يستجيز أن يَجْزِم عنه بذلك ما لم يصح عنده عنه"
2. No where does it mention that he met the man.
3. Scholars agree that muallaq hadiths cannot be used for rulings.
4. Its not just a muallaq hadith, its also munqati'
5. we should also note something which is suspicious in the chain
how come he says "حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو عَامِرٍ ـ أَوْ أَبُو مَالِكٍ ـ الأَشْعَرِيُّ ", Abu Amir narrated to us or Abu Malik al Ashari narrated to us, the author couldn't remember who narrated it to him.
6. In his book, Al-Ahkam , Al-Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn Al-`Arabi says, “None of the hadiths maintaining that singing is prohibited are considered authentic (by the scholars of the Science of Hadith Methodology).” The same view is maintained by Al-Ghazali and Ibn An-Nahwi in Al-`Umdah . Ibn Tahir says, “Not even a single letter from all these Hadiths was proved to be authentic.”
Ibn Hazm says, “All the hadiths narrated in this respect were invented and falsified.”
These people represent 3 different points of views
Ibn Hazm was a salafi
Abu Bakr Ibn Arabi was an anti-sufi (dont get mixed up by him and the extreme sufi ibn arabi)
Ghazali had sufi influence
7. also the unknown narrator could be weak, maybe the one who narrated it to him is strong, and who he narrated it to is strong, but he is unknown, maybe weak, maybe strong we dont know.
8. This is only 1 out of 5 reasons, remember Bukhari is human, he makes mistakes, like all of us.
with this plus the author reasons i have cited below, it shows that this particular hadith is weak.
I except MOST of Bukhari but i admit that he sometimes makes mistakes, although less then others like Abu Dawood (father of David)

PS, out of curiousity, where are you from Black Muslim?
Im from Saudi Arabia
Peace

[Black Muslim]

2. No where does it mention that he met the man.

Oh yes he did .
قال البخاري رحمه الله تعالى في التاريخ الكبير (8 /199، ترجمة 2701): هشام بن عمار السلمي الدمشقي سمع يحيى بن حمزة والوليد بن مسلم.

3. Scholars agree that muallaq hadiths cannot be used for rulings.

As I said , Bukhari did meet Hisham and heard from him , therefore , when he says "Hisham said" then it's in the same level of "To Hisham" .

4. Its not just a muallaq hadith, its also munqati'

How come ? The whole chain is here :

قال هشام بن عمار: حدثنا صدقة بن خالد حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن جابر حدثنا عطاء بن قيس الكلابي حدثني عبد الرحمن بن غنم الأشعري قال حدثني أبو عامر، أو أبو مالك الأشعري - والله ما كذبني - أنه سمع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول:

And if we suppose that it is unconnected , what about the other paths telling this Hadith ?

In The authorized of The son of Hibban 8\265\6719 he says : "Al-Husain bin Abdullah Al-Qittan told us : Hisham bin Ammar said ... to the end of the Hadith .

 And there are many other ways . IF this one in Bikhari was really unconnected then the others are not .

God knows best .

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

Also in all chains, they go to hisham bin ammar, who is weak according to ahmed ibn hanbal, ibn hajar, abu dawood, abu bakr ibn arabi, ibn hazm, anbari, al asadi, and Al Albani.
Bukhari reported this hadith in a muallaq manner, وَقَالَ هِشَامُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ, and Hisham bin Ammar said, which means bukhari didn't give the name of the narator who narrated it to him, he reported it in a muallaq matter, AND____ said, the letter وَ in arabic means "and", which means someone else reported it to bukhari, thiswas the way the scholars expressed it (unless another chain was mentioned before it, which was not). also the other hadiths who have similar wordings such as the ones in abu dawwod dont even mention music, and i agree that the other things: Adultery and Drunkness, are forbidden 100%.
the full chain is this for this particular hadith, which we agreed to stick to bukhari "drinks book" hadith 16.
وَقَالَ هِشَامُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ حَدَّثَنَا صَدَقَةُ بْنُ خَالِدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ يَزِيدَ بْنِ جَابِرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَطِيَّةُ بْنُ قَيْسٍ الْكِلاَبِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ غَنْمٍ الأَشْعَرِيُّ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو عَامِرٍ ـ أَوْ أَبُو مَالِكٍ ـ الأَشْعَرِيُّ وَاللَّهِ مَا كَذَبَنِي سَمِعَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ
other that the muallaq manner, and Hisham bin Ammar, we can see that one narator forgot who narated it to him, so he possibly had a loss of memory, which weakens this particular hadith even more. If it was just 1 flaw we could maybe pass it, but this has more than one flaw, so it is weak, it also cannot be used for rulings because it is muallaq, which cannot be used to derive rulings.
Im not sure about this but i dont think Bukhari travelled to Damascus, only Bukhara, Mecca, Samarqand, and Baghdad.and if Bukhari did meet Hisham bin Ammar, he didn't narrate tis particular hadith from him, the hadith was theorectically passed between them by an unamed medium, as i have shown clear evidence above, we should also note that . Just to tell you about the hadith in ibn habban, the dates dont match, i check he was born 1 1/2 generations after bukhari, thats why ibn habban is, at best, the fourth most authentic hadith book, and thats a little exagerating. which means it has more mistakes then Bukhari, Muslim, etc. and each has let say 20 mistakes. My main arguements here is Hisham Bin Ammar and the fact that any muallaq hadiths cannot be used for rulings, and the unknown nature of the subnarrator, these are only the ones im concentrating on, as i said, this hadith has MANY flaws, rare for somethings thats in Bukhari.
and i agree with you God knows best.
You have your view i have mine, our religion wasn't built on the prohibition of music, and/or this hadith, and/or bukhari, who was born circa 230 years after the prophet.
peace

[There is only one God]

Now , I'm not in good condition to read all that .

Oh no! I might die if I read a paragraph :/

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

He could be talking about the entire articles:
http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2012/04/q-shari-rule-on-songs-music-singing.html
http://www.sailanmuslim.com/news/fatwa-on-music-by-the-grand-mufti-and-shaykh-of-al-azhar-shaykh-jad-al-haq-ali-jad-al-haq/
you should read them to "there is only one God", there really interesting and helpful and useful.
and some illnesses cant have you concentrating.
Anyway i hope you get better my friend, Black Muslim.

[QuranSearchCom]

Now , I'm not in good condition to read all that . It's a good thing that I was able to write the last comment . So , bring the evidence here and explain it point by point and we'll see .

Hope you get well, insha'Allah, dear brother.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[zulfiqarchucknorris]

If your talking about the illness that your not able to concentrate for much time, like a page or paragraph for example , and then have to start all over again because you cant remember, but then lose concentration again, then REALLY feel sorry for you, i understand your situation, and i will give a prayer for you to get better, can i send a request to all people to read this to send him a prayer, even if your not muslim, just a resoectful non-muslim.
Get better soon Black Muslim
I know, 3 times already, butwhats the harm?
Peace

[There is only one God]

Yes, so I would like to start by saying that music is not haram. My proofs are:
The speed of the Sun when it is orbiting is twice that of the Earth, or was assumed to be during the period when the geocentric system of the solar system was widely accepted. Whoops, there goes my concentration 

[MuslimBoy]

As-Salam Walekum Everyone!
I think Brother "Black Muslim" is right!! Singing from Your Vocal is permissible but the involvement of musical instrument is forbidden!!
Thanks