Answering Christianity Research Center

If its gonna be used for bad reasons, such as drugs, then it is forbidden, however, if its not, then it is ok.

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

Quote from: zulfiqarchucknorris on January 30, 2013, 02:24:58 PM

I probably didn't get it, but why "preferably all male"
peace

Ok joke is burnt.  Because of the possible fist fight that might break out .  We don't want the ladies to get caught in the middle of all of this.  And more males would be around to break it up.   .

I know youmight think im slow, (Ill admit, Im actually am VERY slow), bu i still dont get it

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

Dear canadian Atheist,
You arguement is not that convincing, since you should know that Islam is NOT symbolised by the moon, It was the symbol of Ottoman Turkey, which was then adopted by many other countries, for most of its history Islam didn't have a symbol, and you should know that in the Quran it clearly says
The sun and the moon are merely creations of God.
Do your research buddy
Peace

sure
if you go to thins liks
http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=0&tSoraNo=1&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=no&LanguageID=2 english
http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=0&tSoraNo=1&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=no&LanguageID=1 Arabic

put in the verse and see the meaning
if you are an arabic speaker i recomment using the arabic one because it gives more tafsir, the eng one only gives 4.
PS i meant dowry not dawry, i mean by mahr.
peace

but ALL the tafsirs say that it means marrying without giving the dawry.