Islamic Law

and
Society
Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415 www.brill.com/ils

Leisure and Entertainment (malāhī) in Contemporary

Islamic Legal ought:
Music and the Audio-Visual Media

Muhammad Al-Atawneh

Abstract
e status of leisure and entertainment (hereafter: malāhī) is an age-old issue that
emerged during the very early stages of Islam and is still being debated today. Gen-
erations of Muslim scholars and jurists have attempted to identify and delineate the
permissible and the forbidden in this regard to accommodate the socio-cultural contexts
of their respective societies. is article examines contemporary Islamic discourse on
entertainment, particularly music and audio-visual media, e.g., television, Internet,
cinema and theater. How do contemporary Muslim scholars define and relate to
malāhī? What is the nature and characteristics of legitimate entertainment and leisure-
time activities from the Islamic religio-legal perspective? I suggest that modern-day
Muslim scholars, like their predecessors, never came to an agreement on the nature
and scope of malāhī. ese scholars merely acknowledge that different ethico-legal
boundaries are applied to malāhī in contemporary Muslim societies.

Keywords
Islam, leisure, music, entertainment, audio-visual media

After a hiatus of almost three decades (1977-2006), resulting from his

conversion to Islam, Yūsuf Islām, previously Cat Stevens, is back. Islām
explained that when he realized that his career as a rock star was incom-
patible with his new religious beliefs, his break from music was inevi-
table: “… I heard another kind of voice saying that this [singing] is a
dangerous business. You should be away from it, all the associations

Correspondence: Muhammad al-Atawneh, Department of Middle East Studies, Ben-Gurion

University of the Negev, P.O. Box 15110, Beer Sheva, 84120, Israel. Email: HYPERLINK
“mailto:alatawnh@bgu.ac.il” alatawnh@bgu.ac.il

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/156851912X639932

398 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415

that go along with that way of life … I just decided to take the safest
position and get out” (Petridis 2006). Upon his return to singing in
2006, Yūsuf Islām stated: “My imām at the Central Mosque said there
was no problem with making music … He said if the songs are moral,
not offensive, then go ahead” (ibid.).
Yūsuf Islām’s story reflects an age-old dispute amongst Muslim jurists
regarding al-samāʿ, i.e., listening to music or singing. This issue, which
emerged during the first centuries of Islam, has been debated by Mus-
lim scholars with various degrees of intensity to this day. Yūsuf Islām’s
explanation for his decisions to leave and then return to his career in
music indicates that this dispute is still alive in our times. In fact, the
Islamic discourse on music is a part of the larger debate regarding malāhī
in modern Muslim society. Surprisingly, this issue draws little attention
from western scholars interested in Islamic law and culture. The most
relevant work on the subject is that of Amnon Shiloah, who focused
on the mystical dimension of music as used by ṣūfīs (see Shiloah 1997).
In this article I focus on modern Islamic legal perspectives on malāhī
by analyzing the views of leading Muslim scholars and religious institu-
tions. I examine the opinions, legal argumentation and methodology
of these scholars to better understand how modern-day Muslim schol-
ars define and relate to malāhī. What is the nature and characteristics
of legitimate entertainment and leisure-time activities from an Islamic
religio-legal perspective? In view of the vast range of subjects and issues
involved, and for the sake of clarity, I will confine myself to the most
recent legal discussions about music and the audio-visual media, e.g.,
television, internet, cinema and theater.1 After reviewing the Islamic
juristic discourse on malāhī, providing historical and comparative per-
spectives, I will analyze some exemplary case studies regarding music
and the visual media.

1)
I use the term ‘music’, hereafter, to signify both singing and its instrumental
accompaniment.
 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415 399

Islam and Entertainment: Overview

In principle, traditional Islamic sources acknowledge that malāhī are
needed for the performance of religious duties.2 For example, when
Ḥanẓalah al-Usaydī, one of the Prophet’s scribes, expressed his fear that
engaging in worldly affairs indicates hypocrisy, the Prophet is reported
to have said: “O Ḥanẓalah ... [there should be] time for this [viz., reli-
gious matters] and time for that [viz., worldly affairs]” (Muslim 2006:
1260-61). According to this ḥadīth, time should be devoted not only
to worship and religious duties, but also to worldly affairs. The Com-
panions of the Prophet and later jurists explained that malāhī are nec-
essary for human wellbeing and, thus, for the proper observance of
religious duties. For example, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, the fourth caliph, stated:
“Amuse yourselves for a while, for if hearts are exposed to too much
strain, they become blind” (Āl Rāshī 2002:270). Abū al-Dardāʾ, another
Companion, added that he used to amuse himself in order to strengthen
his memory and cognitive skills. In his view, excessive efforts or too
much stress may overwhelm the heart, leading to either apathy or burn-
out, and resulting in poor religious practice (al-Dhahabī 1986). It will
be noted that these early traditions do not define ‘entertainment’ or
delineate its parameters.
Subsequently, Muslim jurists identified entertainment, in general, as
being permissible (mubāḥ), based on the legal principle: “Things are
permissible unless proven to be unlawful” (al-aṣl fī al-ashyāʾ al-ibāḥa).3
Yet ‘idle talk’ (lahw al-ḥadīth) is mentioned in the Qurʾān (31:6): “But
there are, among men, those who purchase idle tales [talks]…’. This
verse seems to have provoked disputes over the extent to which it relates
to leisure time entertainment.4 Classical commentators provided dif-
ferent assessments of activities that qualify as of lahw al-ḥadīth. For
example, al-Ṭabarī (d. 923), argued that lahw al-ḥadīth has no concrete
meaning, and may therefore refer to any activity that diverts a person

2)
See Ibn Ḥazm (1987), 1: 430-9. On malāhī in Islamic thought, see further Shiloah 1987.
3)
According to Islamic law, the deeds and omissions of human beings fall into five ethico-
legal categories, called al-aḥkām al-khamsa: obligatory (farḍ or wājib); recommended
(mustaḥabb or mandūb); permitted (mubāḥ); reprehensible (makrūh); and forbidden
(ḥarām).
4)
English translations of Qurʾān are taken from Yūsuf ʿAlī 1989.
400 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415

from the Right Path, such as playing musical instruments, singing and
polytheism (al-Ṭabarī 2001, 18: 533-4). Along the same lines,
al-Zamakhsharī (d. 1144) suggested that lahw may include the perfor-
mance of evil and willful actions, such as talking nonsense, joking and
laughter, singing or engaging in musical activities and the like
(al-Zamakhsharī 1998, 5: 6-9). Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1209) went
even further, arguing that lahw means abandoning wisdom (al-Rāzī
1981, 25: 141-2).
Disagreement over the meaning of lahw al-ḥadīth is indicated in early
writings and treatises on music and entertainment. For example, Ibn
Abī al-Dunyā (d. 894), the tutor of the Abbasid caliphs al-Muʿtaḍiḍ (r.
892-902) and his son al-Muktafī (r. 902-908), wrote a book entitled
Dhamm al-Malāhī (Ibn Abī al-Dunyā 1993), in which he linked lahw
al-ḥadīth to music and song. Al-Mufaḍḍal b. Salamah (d. 905) and Ibn
Khurradadhbih (d. 911) each wrote a book entitled Kitāb al-malāhī,
dealing with musical instruments as well as music in general without
any negative reference to lahw al-ḥadīth (Shiloah 1997).5
Thus, classical jurists, from various legal schools, acknowledged the
need for malāhī, but they did not define ‘malāhī’ or delineate its pa-
rameters. In modern times, disputes among Muslim scholars over the
nature of malāhī seem to be escalating. This is evident both in the
modern legal literature and in the contemporary juristic discourse
regarding what is or is not to be considered as lahw al-ḥadīth. Some
scholars adopt a highly restrictive position, applying lahw to most forms
of modern secular entertainment, while others adopt a more flexible
position, according to which more forms of entertainment are allowed,
since they are vital to human well-being and performance. In a recent
book entitled The rules of play and recreation (Fiqh al-lahw wa’l-tarwīḥ),
Shaykh Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī compares the need for malāhī to the need
for food (al-Qaraḍāwī 2001). He criticizes contemporary jurists “who
turn their backs on worldly enjoyments, neither playing nor relaxing,
always keeping their eyes and their minds fixed on the Hereafter and
its concerns” (ibid.). The two case studies below illustrate the nature of
this contemporary legal dispute, and the means by which modern schol-
ars identify and delineate the permissible and the forbidden.

5)
On these books, see further Robson and Farmer (1938).
 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415 401

Musical Entertainment
Arguably, music best reflects the long-standing dispute regarding the
nature of entertainment in Islam. The Qurʾān contains virtually no
references to music. Nevertheless, classical commentators and jurists
sometimes apply certain Qurʾānic terms to music, as shown above: ‘idle
talk’ (lahw al-ḥadīth, 31:6), ‘falsehood’ (al-zūr, 25:72) and ‘[seductive]
voice’ (bi-ṣawtika, 17:64). ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Masʿūd (d. 652), one of the
Prophet’s Companions, identified lahw al-ḥadīth with singing: “I swear
by Him [Allah] … that it [viz., lahw al-ḥadīth] refers to ghināʾ (sing-
ing)” (Ibn Kathīr 2000). For al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 728), lahw al-ḥadīth
relates both to singing and to the playing of musical instruments
(mazāmīr) (ibid.). Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣaṣ (d. 981), an important Ḥanafī
scholar, applied the term ‘falsehood’ to all music (al-Jaṣṣaṣ 1992). Abū
al-Qāsim al-Ḍaḥḥāk (d. 723) and the later scholar Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī
(d. 1505) both considered singing to be a ‘seductive voice’ (al-Qurṭubī
2006; al-Suyūṭī 1981).
Unlike the Qurʾān, the Prophetic tradition makes repeated direct
references to music and its influence. One ḥadīth reads: “There will
come a day when some of my people will consider adultery, silk [for
men], female singers and musical instruments as lawful” (al-Bukhārī
2001:1022). Another ḥadīth associates the growing number of female
singers and musical instruments with the signs of the End of Days:
“When my People begin doing fifteen things … when female singers
and musical instruments become common … they will suffer tribula-
tions” (al-Tirmidhī 1977, 4:449). Also, “Song makes hypocrisy grow
in the heart, as water does herbage” (Abū Dāwūd 1997, 5:141). Another
ḥadīth promises harsh punishment to those listening to singing: “On
the day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of
whomever sits listening to a songstress” (Ibn al-Jawzī 1983:786).6
The reliability of these (and other) ḥadīths was contested by some
prominent classical scholars and jurists, including Ibn Ḥazm (d. 1064),
ʿAlī b. Ṭāhir al-Sulamī (d. 1106), Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 1111),
Abū Bakr Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 1148), al-Kāsānī (d. 1191), and Ibn
al-Humām (d. 1457). Ibn Ḥazm and Ibn al-ʿArabī argued that all of

6)
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haythamī (d. 1565) compiled most of the ḥadīths on music, some forty of
them, in his book on al-samāʿ (see al-Haythamī 1983).
402 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415

the ḥadīths that maintain that singing is prohibited are inauthentic (Ibn
Ḥazm 1933, Ibn al-ʿArabī 2003).7 Subsequently, some prominent
jurists claimed that there is no solid evidence that music is prohibited
in Islam. According to the Ḥanafī jurist al-Kāsānī (d. 1191), music can
have a positive influence on people. Indeed, singing and listening to
certain musical instruments, such as bamboo flutes and tambourines,
may help to eradicate loneliness and, as such, is permissible (al-Kāsānī
1974). Ibn al-Humām (d. 1457), another prominent Ḥanafī scholar,
argued decisively that singing, per se, is not wrong; the medium need
not be banned, but the messages must suit the Sharīʿa (Ibn al-Humām
2003). Ibn al-Humām applied the stricture regarding al-samāʿ selec-
tively, according to the themes of the songs and the activities accom-
panying such singing. For example, prohibited singing may involve any
of the following: descriptions of a living person’s beauty and features;
the virtues of wine, encouraging wine-drinking; the intimate details of
private, personal matters; or songs that mock and ridicule others. On
the other hand, songs that describe nature, e.g. flowers and streams,
religious hymns, or songs in praise of relatives, are permissible. He
sanctioned the playing of tambourines at weddings and celebrations,
even when they were rimmed with bells (ibid.)
The view of modern jurists on al-samāʿ generally follows that of their
classical predecessors. Contemporary scholars may be divided into two
major groups. The dominant group follows the view that most music
is permissible in principle, as long as the contents and performance
accommodate Islamic legal and ethical norms. These jurists perceive
singing as melodious words and music as ‘noise’ that is not wrong in
and of itself. Problems arise if the contents of a song are improper or if
the activities associated with the music are inappropriate, such as mixed
dancing or inebriation. Shaykh Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (d. 1996), a
prominent member of this group, did not find any authentic traditions
specifically banning music; indeed, he found several traditions indi-
cating that music was practiced during the lifetime of the Prophet.
Al-Ghazālī further argued that Islam prefers recreation to excessive
prayers or fasting (Al-Ghazālī 1989).

7)
On the reliability of these ḥadīths, see further Ibn Ḥazm 1987, 1: 430-9.
 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415 403

The legal methodology adopted by al-Ghazālī is manifested in his

words: “What is good [in song] is good and what is bad [in song] is
bad” (ḥasanuhu ḥasan wa-qabīḥuhu qabīḥ) (al-Ghazālī 1989:70). That
is to say, one must be selective regarding both the content and the
practice of music. To this end, he created a hierarchy of music and
singing that seems to be inspired by the five ethico-legal categories used
to assess the actions of human beings.8 At the top of this hierarchy are
the recitation of the Qurʾān, the call to prayer, and chanting (anāshīd).
These are followed by songs related to family celebrations, caravan
chants, work songs and the music of military bands. At the bottom of
the hierarchy, we find sensuous music performed during immoral activ-
ities, or music likely to elicit prohibited practices, such as the consump-
tion of drugs and alcohol, or promiscuity and prostitution (al-Ghazālī
1989).
Al-Ghazālī’s legal methodology, manifested in a selective content-
based treatment of music, is demonstrated in legal opinions issued by
important religious institutions such as al-Azhar in Egypt and the Euro-
pean Council of Iftāʾ, and in the writings of leading scholars, such as
Shaykh Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī, Shaykh Aḥmad al-Sharabāṣī (d. 1980) and
others. Shaykh al-Qaraḍāwī noted that he listens to songs about reli-
gious subjects, family matters and patriotic topics sung by Umm
Kulthūm, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, Fayzah Aḥmad and Shādiyah
(al-Qaraḍāwī 1998). He considers such themes to be positive, educa-
tional and compatible with the Sharīʿa. He added, however, that sing-
ing is prohibited when it is intended to arouse sexual feelings, or is
accompanied by the drinking of alcohol, nakedness, or prohibited inter-
action between men and women (al-Qaraḍāwī 2001).
The second group of scholars, best represented by Wahhābīs, outlaw
most entertainment involving music. For the Wahhābīs, almost all types
of music qualify as lahw al-ḥadīth and are therefore forbidden, since
they provide an arena for temptation, seduction and other immoral
practices (al-Dawīsh 2000; al-Shuwayʿir 1997). This prohibition in-
cludes attending parties and musical events and the airing of instru-
mental music and singing, even in the official Saudi media. This is
clearly indicated in a legal opinion (fatwā) issued by the Permanent

8)
See footnote 1 above.
404 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415

Committee for Scientific Research and Legal Opinion (henceforth:

CRLO)9 in response to the following questions: “Are the songs that we
are hearing on the [official] radio and television forbidden? What about
listening to instrumental music? Is this permissible? How do you explain
the fact that some Muslim scholars excelled in musicology and used
music in the treatment of their patients?”
Scholars, headed by Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn Bāz (d. 1999),10 divided
their answer to the above questions into two parts. First, in response to
the question about the status of songs broadcast by the official Saudi
media, they wrote: “Yes, songs broadcast by radio and television are
prohibited, because they are considered lahw, most of which [viz., the
contents] may arouse one’s libido, love and passion; [songs] resemble a
pickaxe designed to demolish morals … spreading immorality amongst
Muslim societies” (Fatāwā al-Lajna, 26:217). These scholars suggest an
alternative use of Islamic chanting (anāshīd) and Qurʾānic recitation
(ibid.). In response to the second question, about instrumental music,
they wrote that although some classical scholars, such as Abū Naṣr
al-Fārābī (d. 950), were musicologists, these scholars were not proficient
in religious matters, and they are not proper role models. Only eminent
Muslim scholars, the four caliphs and other righteous forebears (the
salaf) are to be emulated. As for the therapeutic value of music, this is
rejected as well (ibid.).
Wahhābī restrictions on music are clearly visible in various areas of
Saudi daily life. For example, in response to a Saudi questioner who
claimed that annual regional festivals include Saudi and foreign male
and female singers, the CRLO responded:

9)
In Saudi Arabia there are two official religious institutions for issuing legal opinions: the
Board of Senior ʿUlamāʾ and the Permanent Committee for Scientific Research and Legal
Opinion. ese two institutions, led by the Grand Muftī, constitute the ‘religious pyramid’
in Saudi Arabia. While the BSU issues fatwās on major public issues, the CRLO is
responsible for conducting research, administering private iftāʾ, and providing administra-
tive support for the BSU (See al-Atawneh 2010).
10)
ʿAbd-al ʿAzīz Ibn Bāz was the head of the Board of Senior ʿUlamāʾ until his death in
1999. Ibn Bāz, one of the most authoritative Sunni religious scholars in the 20th century,
held many important religious positions; most notably, he was the Grand Muftī of the
Kingdom from 1993 until his death at the age of 89 (see al-Shuwayʿir 1997).
 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415 405

It is prohibited for Muslims to hold celebrations and festivals that include

abominable acts (munkarāt), such as songs and music, free intermingling
between men and women, sorcerers and charmers … ere is abundant legal
evidence against these matters … Accordingly, attendance at such festivals,
funding or advertising of such celebrations is prohibited (ibid.: 225).

Wahhābī scholars do allow women to sing for all-female audiences at

wedding celebrations, on the condition that they choose their words
in such a way “… that they do not contain suggestive lyrics” (ibid.:
219).
For Wahhābīs, it is prohibited not only to listen to music, but also
to study and teach it. They reject music instruction, the singing profes-
sion, the performance of music and the buying or selling of musical
instruments. This is manifested in the response by the CRLO to a query
submitted by a questioner from Kuwait who asked whether the manda-
tory teaching of music in the official primary schools in his country is
consistent with Sharīʿa practice. The CRLOʾs response was as follows:
“It is not permissible to teach music, or to study it … due to the dan-
ger embodied in it and due to the fact that such action is at odds with
Islamic sources” (al-Dawīsh 2000, 12:183-4). Note that learning music
is also prohibited for women, despite the aforementioned permission
to sing for other women. However, it seems that these jurists are refer-
ring to spontaneous singing, rather than to singing by professionals,
i.e., women may enjoy music and sing, but they may not study it.
Similarly, a CRLO fatwā recommended that a singer abandon his
profession and find a new ‘legitimate’ job that would not conflict with
the Sharīʿa. Working in radio and television, however, is permissible,
as long as one avoids music broadcasting: “The singing and playing of
music are entirely prohibited and it is forbidden to produce or broad-
cast music or to help another to do so ... and any profits from such
actions are ill-gained” (Fatāwā al-Lajna, 26:247). In response to an
inquirer who asked whether he might sell his piano, after realizing that
piano playing is forbidden according to the Sharīʿa, the CRLO replied:
“It is not permissible to sell musical instruments, since they have no
value according to Sharīʿa and led to ill-gained money, because it is
received for a prohibited object” (ibid.: 251).
406 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415

The above discussion on musical entertainment points to a broad

range of opinions and great diversity in practice in the contemporary
Muslim world. Does the same hold for visual entertainment?

Visual Entertainment
In the Muslim world, the status of images of humans and fauna, i.e.,
God’s creatures, is a highly debated issue in the area of modern visual
media. Photography, sculpture or creating a likeness of people or
animals (taṣwīr) is prohibited according to a number of ḥadīths as an
affront to God’s exclusivity of Creation. One ḥadīth states: “There is
no greater sinner than one who tries to create something like My Cre-
ation. Let him create a particle, or a seed, or a grain of barley” (Muslim
2006, 2:1016). Another ḥadīth reads: “Those who endure the most
grievance or suffering on the Day of Resurrection are the ones who
create a likeness” (ibid., 2:1013; Ibn Ḥanbal 1978, 1:375; al-Nasāʾī
1930, 8:216).
Unlike ḥadīths related to al-samāʿ, these hadiths have been accepted
as reliable by scholars from several legal schools. Nonetheless, this did
not prevent serious disputes regarding visual entertainment, particularly
in light of the proliferation of the visual media in modern times. Mus-
lim jurists are constantly being challenged to apply Sharīʿa to new forms
and situations involving visual media, e.g. official identification cards
and advertising.
A quick glimpse at the religio-legal discourse on visual-media and
its application in the field of entertainment reveals that scholars are
again divided into two groups. The first group consists of scholars
belonging to different schools of Islamic thought who, in principle,
support the broad use of visual media and entertainment. Muḥammad
ʿAmārah, a prominent member of this group, stated that the visual
media may provide artistic expressions of beauty, in accordance with
human nature, and that these media are not necessarily unIslamic
(ʿAmārah 2005). These modern scholars find the above-mentioned
ḥadīths that forbid the creation of likenesses to be relevant only to the
earliest stages of Islam, claiming that they do not apply to modern-day
visual technology. Shaykh Aḥmad al-Kutty, a senior scholar at the
Islamic Institute of Toronto, explains the problem regarding the cre-
ation of likenesses:
 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415 407

[e creation of likenesses] … was closely associated with paganism or shirk

[polytheism]. People were in the habit of carving images and statues for the
sake of worship. Islam, therefore, declared taṣwīr [the creation of likenesses]
forbidden because of its close association with shirk … e function of
photography today does not fall under the above category. Even some of the
scholars who had once been vehemently opposed to photography under the
pretext that it was a form of forbidden taṣwīr have later changed their posi-
tion on it - as they allow even for their own pictures to be taken and published
in newspapers, for videotaping lectures and for presentations; whereas in the
past, they would allow it only in exceptional cases, such as passports, drivers’
licenses, etc. e change in their view of photography is based on their as-
sessment of the role of photography … (al-Kutty 2003).

For al-Kutty, the act of creating likenesses is legitimate, although the

goals and intentions must be assessed to determine permissibility. That
is, the visual media, in and of themselves, are neither good nor bad; as
in the case of musical entertainment, visual media must be monitored
for content, and immoral or unacceptable behavior is to be avoided.
Methodologically speaking, al-Kutty applies the above-mentioned prin-
ciple: “Things are permissible unless proven to be unlawful”, i.e., visual
images are generally permitted, unless they violate the Sharīʿa, e.g. are
pornographic.
This approach appears in the writings of other contemporary schol-
ars who treat the visual media as a double-edged sword: on the one
hand, they may be misused to corrupt society, on the other, they may
be used to educate and promote virtue. With regard to movies, Shaykh
al-Sharabāṣī from al-Azhar makes the following argument:

Movies, unlike plays, depend more on pictures. According to actors, acting

aims at analyzing life experiences. It depicts faults as something to be avoided
and highly praises virtue and calls people to adhere to it. It exposes lessons
and experiences in a way that makes the message presented indirectly, through
inspiration. As long as acting, either cinematic or theatrical, achieves this
aim, presents morality and good taste, does not expose private parts or pro-
voke sexual instincts, it is deemed lawful, as religion does not prohibit this
kind of acting (al-Sharabāṣī 2003).

He adds that Muslims should use sophisticated technology in the service

of religion, to spread Islamic values and spiritual principles, as well as
to fill the minds of the new generations with patriotism. He urges film-
408 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415

makers all over the world to respond to the call of religion, morality,
and patriotism and to produce films that strengthen virtuous principles
in mankind and that promote good relations among people (ibid.).
Similarly, Shaykh al-Qaraḍāwī argues that modern visual technology
has become indispensable, given its effectiveness in imparting knowl-
edge. He notes, however, that while the visual media may contribute
to mental, spiritual, psychological, ethical and social enhancement, they
can also be extremely harmful and corrupting. This is indicated in one
of his fatwās. ʿAlī, from Egypt, queried the ‘Islam Online’ website, ask-
ing Shaykh al-Qaraḍāwī about his position on watching TV in light of
the varied programming provided by hundreds of satellite stations avail-
able throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds. Al-Qaraḍāwī responded
as follows:

TV, radio, magazines and newspapers are used for many purposes. We can-
not qualify them as good or evil, lawful or unlawful. It depends on the way
they are used and on the quality of the programs and information they pres-
ent … Whenever there is a good program being shown on TV, there is
nothing wrong with watching it, but a good Muslim should turn it off the
moment it presents licentious materials. e same is true for magazines. In
addition, if a person sees that he cannot exercise restraint or apply methods
of regulating when and how he makes use of these means of media, then it
is better for him not to have them at home … (al-Qaraḍāwī 2004).

Al-Qaraḍāwī and other contemporary scholars allow visual media,

adopting a pragmatic legal methodology of choosing the benefits over
potential harm and disregarding the Sharīʿa legal principle: “Preventing
harm takes priority over gaining benefits” (darʾ al-mafāsid yataqad-
damʿalā jalb al-maṣāliḥ).11 These scholars are lenient in the face of the
daily challenges of modernity in the realm of visual entertainment.
A more conservative approach is taken mainly by Wahhābīs, who
reject almost all types of visual media and entertainment that contain
likenesses. The painting and sculpture of likenesses are absolutely pro-
hibited. This is clearly indicated in the CRLOʾs response to an inquiry
with regard to printed media and likenesses:
… e purchase and use of newspapers or magazines that include important
data, such as news and scientific matters, is permitted despite the pictures

11)
On this principle, see furtheral-Shāṭibī 1969.
 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415 409

of human beings or animals included in them. is is due to the fact that
their intended use is for their written contents, while the likenesses are merely
supplemental … complying in principle with the tenets of the Sharīʿa
(al-Dawīsh 2000, 1:459-60; al-Shammaʿī [n.d.], 1:316-17).

Clearly, illustrated images in print media are prohibited. However, it is

permitted to purchase newspapers and magazines and other print media
that include likenesses. For the CRLO, likenesses in print media are
not a primary legal problem (aṣl), but rather a subsidiary (farʿ) one—a
case of incidental illustrative byproducts of valuable written material.
According to the CRLO, “Rules relate to the principal object, not to
its subsidiaries” (al-ḥukm yatbaʿ al-aṣl al-maqṣūd dūna al-tābiʿ). For this
reason, one must not regard the act of buying a newspaper as the pur-
chase of likenesses, which is indeed forbidden. Buying a newspaper is
permitted, even recommended, since Muslims must be well-informed
and involved in society. Therefore, the use of print media is permitted
despite the likenesses included in them (al-Dawīsh 2000).
As for television, the TV is considered a ‘necessary evil’ that must be
‘rightly used’ to promote religious and educational objectives, not for
amusement or recreation. This is clear in the response by Shaykh Ibn
Bāz, the previous Saudi Grand Muftī, to the following question from
a Saudi citizen: “You have asked the public to make the best use of the
media, including those that accommodate photographs. However, some
of the propagators (duʿāt) recommend abstaining from such use, espe-
cially media with photos. What do you have to say in this regard?” Ibn
Bāz responded as follows:

ere is no doubt that the use of mass media to expose the truth disseminated
by Sharīʿa laws, to expose heresy and to warn against it–is one of our loftiest
aims, if not a prescribed duty of the highest order. While some of the ʿulamāʾ
[religious scholars] have reservations about the use of television, based upon
reliable hadīths, which forbid the creation of likenesses, others approve, on
condition that it serves religious purposes and is based on the principle which
states: ‘Choose the lesser evil in order to avoid carrying out complete evil for
lack of any other choice, and realize the highest benefit of the two choices’
(al-Shuwayʿir 1997, 5:265-6).

Clearly, for Ibn Bāz, making the ‘right use’ of television is permitted
for promoting religious objectives. However, any other programs,
410 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415

mainly those on which men and women interact or when actors act
inappropriately, are prohibited.
Ibn Bāz’s successor, Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Āl al-Shaykh, the current
Saudi Grand Muftī, recently outlawed Turkish soap operas like ‘Nour’
and ‘The Lost Years’, shown on Arab TV, for being at odds with the
Sharīʿa:

It is not permitted to look at these serials or watch them. ey contain so

much evil; they destroy people’s ethics and are against our values … Any TV
station that airs them is against God and His Messenger ... ese are serials
of immorality. ey are prepared by people who are specialists in crime and
error, people who invite men and women to the Devil (Mokhtar 2008).

Āl al-Shaykh does, however, sanction watching TV, so long as the pro-

gramming is in accordance with Sharīʿa tenets as interpreted by the
Wahhābīs, i.e., as expressed in the Qurʾān, religious sermons, business
reports and news broadcasts.
As for plays and movies, one may not watch them or engage in any-
thing related to the theater or film industry; it is forbidden to establish
them, manage them, work in them or even attend performances and
showings. In fact, at a conference on leisure, visual arts and literature
held at King Saud University, Shaykh ʿAbd al-Azīz Āl al-Shaykh stated
that cinema and theater are incompatible with Islam, because they
distract people from work and weaken their efforts to make progress:
“Theatrical performance, whether it is a cinema or a song, would gen-
erally make an impression that is against Sharīʿa. People need only those
[art forms] that are useful to them to change their way of life [in an
Islamic manner]” (Asia News, 26 March, 2009). Also a CRLO fatwā
states: “It is not permissible for a Muslim to establish a cinema, or to
manage it, whether for himself or for another, since cinema today, across
the globe, shows obscene images and scenes that promote lewdness and
immorality” (Fatāwā al-Lajna, 26:277). Similarly, the viewing of for-
eign films, in which the content is deemed to be contradictory to the
Sharīʿa, is prohibited. CRLO does, however, allow official inspectors
to screen suspect movies in order to evaluate them for approval
(al-Dawīsh 2000, 12:351-2).
As for the Internet, initially treated with suspicion by Wahhābīs, it
came to be endorsed and even utilized by the religious scholars them-
 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415 411

selves (al-Hājiri 2004; Teitelbaum 2002).12 Wahhābīs soon realized that

the Internet can serve as a powerful tool to disseminate information for
social, religious and educational purposes. However, they continue to
express their fear of the unknown and of the unrestrained and often
immoral content on the Web, such as pornography. Therefore, the
Internet presents modern Islam with a legal challenge in terms of the
‘harm versus benefit’ dichotomy. In order to cope with this dilemma,
the official Wahhābī religious institution sought the assistance of official
authorities to set up an ambitious system capable of filtering ‘undesir-
able’ online sites, thus neutralizing the problematic nature of the Inter-
net. Once the risk of contact with such undesirable material has been
diminished, the Internet can more readily be accepted for use. Never-
theless, a ‘women-and-the-Internet’ debate continues, mainly in tradi-
tional sectors of society where the Internet is denounced as leading
to immoral behavior. Thus, the current Grand Muftī, Āl al-Shaykh,
responded to a question posted in this regard as follows:

In my opinion, the Internet is both a blessing and a curse at one and the
same time. It is a blessing as long as it used for doing God’s will, command-
ing good and forbidding evil. However, it is liable to be evil when it aggravates
God … I call upon believing women who use the Internet to use it to follow
the rules of God and to spread them … We have to disseminate the message
of God, as promised by the Prophet in the ḥadīth by Bukhārī: ‘God will
spread this Islam until it reaches every house and under every tree.’ I call our
leaders, starting with King Fahd, Crown Prince ʿAbd Allāh and the Chief
Chairman of the Islamic Dissemination Council (Majlis al-Daʿwa al-Aʿlā),
to promulgate Internet studies primarily in schools and society (Āl al-Shaykh
2000)

Based on the principle of public interest, this fatwā endorses the

use of the Internet, privileging its benefits over its potentially harmful
effects. The Grand Muftī stresses the positive aspects of the Web as an
extremely powerful instrument for promoting social, cultural and edu-
cational goals. In his view, the Internet fulfills the lofty aims of dis-
seminating Islam, since it facilitates the missionary’s task. There is no
doubt that this is an attempt to ‘Islamize’ the Internet, indicating a high

12)
See, for example, http://www.alifta.net/default.aspx; www. ibnbaz.com; www.ibnothai
meen.com; www.ibn-jebreen.com.
412 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415

motivation on the part of the Saudi Grand Muftī to accept some tech-
nological innovations. In fact, the Grand Muftī follows his predecessor,
Shaykh Ibn Bāz, who endorsed certain technological innovations based
on the same principles and similar arguments.13
In practice, the Internet has been available in Saudi Arabia since
1994, although access was initially restricted to official, academic,
medical and research facilities. King Fahd approved public access in
1997 but ordinary citizens did not gain access until 1999. This delay
came as a result of the authorities’ determination to implement filters,
designed to deny access to so-called undesirable sites. In February 1998,
Ṣaliḥ ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, then President of the Riyadh-based King Abd
al-ʿAzīz Center for Science and Technology (KACST), announced the
KACSTʾs objectives as follows:

… protecting society from material on the Internet that violates Islam or

encroaches on our traditions and culture. is Committee will determine
which sites, such as pornographic sites and others, are immoral and will bar
subscribers from entering such sites. ere are many bad things on the Inter-
net. at is why we have created a mechanism to prevent such things from
reaching our society, so that a home subscriber to this service can be reas-
sured. We have programs, software and hardware that prevent the entry of
material that corrupts or harms our Muslim values, tradition and culture
(Quoted in ʿUkaẓ newspaper, February 24, 1998; al-Atawneh 2010: 120).

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān explained that Internet service became possible only

after determining with certainty that all the negative aspects had been
eliminated.14

Conclusion
In principle, contemporary Muslim scholars recognize that malāhī are
a vital human need, necessary even for the proper practice of religious
duties. However, they disagree over the nature and scope of legitimate
entertainment. In this regard, two major legal positions compete in
contemporary Islamic legal discourse. The first demonstrates flexibility,

13)
See Ibn Bāz’s fatwā on television, above.
14)
Ibid.
 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415 413

permitting musical and visual entertainment in general, so long as it

does not contradict the ethico-legal norms of the Sharīʿa. The problem
lies not in the media technology itself, but in the potential negative
contents and effects, which must be monitored and filtered. Hence,
audio-visual entertainment is always subject to scrutiny, leaving open
the boundaries of legitimate entertainment to ongoing interpretation.
Jurists holding this position rely heavily on the principle of public in-
terest as the main mechanism for allowing the use of modern entertain-
ment. This is demonstrated, for example, by the fatwā that endorses
the use of the Internet, privileging its benefits over its potentially harm-
ful effects.
The second, more conservative position restricts the use of audio-
visual media to a large extent. This position, represented mainly by
Wahhābī scholars, who rely heavily on Prophetic traditions, holds most
entertainment to be lahw al-ḥadīth, prohibited by the Qurʾān. In their
view, audio-visual entertainment distracts people from righteous wor-
ship, produces mental damage and demoralizes Muslim societies.
Modern-day Muslim scholars, like their predecessors, have not come
to an agreement on the nature and scope of music and entertainment.
These scholars merely acknowledge that different ethico-legal boundar-
ies are applied to music and entertainment in 21st century Muslim
societies. These divergent religio-legal views on malāhī in the Muslim
world reflect the spectrum of intra-religious cultural views in contem-
porary Muslim societies. As a result, for Muslims, legitimate malāhī
takes various forms in different countries as influenced by local culture.

References
Abū Dāwūd, Sulaymān b. al-Ashʿath (1997). Sunan Abī Dāwūd. Beirut: Dār Ibn
Ḥazm.
Āl al-Shaykh, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (2000). “Fatāwā”. al-Daʿwā, 27 October.
ʿAmarah, Muḥammad (2005). Al-Islām wa’l-Funūn al-Jamīla. Cairo: Dār al-Shurūq.
Āl Rāshid, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn (2002). Hākadhā ʿAllamanī Muḥammad al-Ghazālī. Beirut:
Dār al-Warrāq.
Asia News 2009, “Cinema and Theatre Contrary to Islam, Says Saudi Grand Mufti”.
Viewed 5 April 2010, http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Cinema-and-theatre-con
trary-to-Islam,-says-Saudi-grand-mufti-14831.html.
Al-Atawneh, Muhammad (2010). Wahhābī Islam Facing the Challenges of Modernity:
Dār al-Iftāʾ in the Modern Saudi State. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
414 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415

Al-Bukhārī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad (2001). Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ
al-Turāth al-ʿArabī.
Al-Dawīsh, Aḥmad (2000). Fatāwā al-Lajna al Dāʾima li’l-Buḥūth al-ʿIlmiyya wa’l-Iftāʾ
wa’l-Daʿwa wa’l-Irshād. Riyadh: Maktabat al-ʿAbīkān.
Al-Dhahabī, Muḥammad (1986). Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla.
Fatāwā al-Lajna al-Dāʾima li’l-Buḥūth al-ʿIlmiyya wa’l-Iftāʾ (Online). Viewed 4 April
2010, http://www.alifta.net/Fatawa/FatawaChapters.aspx?MenuID=0&View=tree
&NodeID=1&PageNo=1&BookID=3&Rokn=false.
Al-Ghazālī, Muḥammad (1989). Al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya Bayna Ahl al-Fiqh wa-Ahl
al-Ḥadīth. Cairo: Dār al-Shurūq.
Al-Hājirī, Iyyās Sāmir (2004). Tārīkh al-Intirnit fī al-Mamlaka al-ʿArabiyya al-Saʿū-
diyya. Riyadh: I.S. al-Hājirī.
Al-Haythamī Ibn Ḥajar, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad (1983). Kaff al-Raʿāʿ ʿan Muḥarramāt
al-Lahw wa’l-Samāʿ. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.
Ibn al-ʿArabī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad (2003). Aḥkām al-Qurʾān. 4 vols. Beirut: Dār
al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Salām, Abū Muḥammad ʿIzz al-Dīn (1980). Qawāʿid al-Aḥkām fī Maṣālīḥ
al-Ānām. Beirut: Dār al-Jīl.
Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, Ḥāfiẓ (1993). Kitāb Dhamm al-Malāhī. Beirut, Muʾassasat al-Kutub
al-Thaqāfiyya.
Ibn al-Jawzī, Abū al-Faraj (1983). Al-ʿIlal al-Mutanāhiya fī al-Aḥādīth al-Wāhiya. Bei-
rut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.
Ibn al-Humām, Kamāl al-Dīn (2003). Fatḥ al-Qadīr. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.
Ibn Ḥazm, Abū Muḥammad ʿAlī (1933). Al-Muḥalla. 11 vols. Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa
al-Munīriyya.
Ibn Ḥazm, Abū Muḥammad ʿAlī (1987). “Risāla fī al-Ghināʾ al-Mulhī a-mubāḥ huwa
am Maḥẓūr.” In: Rasāʾil Ibn Ḥazm al-Andalusī. 4 vols. Beirut: al-Muʾassasa
al-ʿArabiyya li’l –Dirāsa wa’l-Nashr.
Ibn Ḥanbal, Aḥmad (1978). Musnad al-Imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal. 9 vols. Beirut: al-
Maktaba al-Islāmiyya.
Ibn Kathīr, Ismāʿīl Abū al-Fidā (2000). Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr. 15 vols. Cairo: al-Farūq
al-Ḥadītha li’l-Ṭibāʿa wa’l-Nashr.
Al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Abū Bakr Aḥmad (1992). Aḥkām al-Qurʾān. Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth
al-ʿArabī.
Al-Kāsānī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Abū Bakr (1974). Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ fī Tartīb al-Sharāʾiʿ. Beirut:
Dār al-Kutub al-ʿArabī.
Al-Kutty, Aḥmad (2003). “Fatwā on Photography”, Islam Online. Viewed 5 April
2010, http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Islamonline-English-
Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545144.
Mokhtar, Hassnaʾa (2008). “Kingdom’s Grand Mufti Condemns ‘malicious’ Turkish
Soap Operas”. Arab News, 28 July. Viewed 5 April 2010, http://archive.arabnews.
com/?page=1&section=0&article=112178.
Muslim, Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Naysābūrī (2006). Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 2 vols. Riyādh: Dār Ṭība.
 M. Al-Atawneh / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 397-415 415

Al-Nasāʾī, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Aḥmad (1930). Sunan al-Nasāʾī. Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa
al-Maṣriyya.
Petridis, Alexis (2006). “Why I am singing again: Yusuf Islam”. The Guardian. 11
December. Viewed 5 April 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2006/nov/11/
folk.popandrock/print.
Al-Qaraḍāwī, Yūsuf (2001). Fiqh al-Ghināʾ wa’l-Mūsīqā fī Ḍawʾ al-Qurʾān wa’l-Sunna.
Cairo: Maktabat Wahba.
Al-Qaraḍāwī, Yūsuf (1998). “Ḥiwārāt”. al-Rāya al-Qaṭariyya. 11 September, p. 9.
Al-Qaraḍāwī, Yūsuf (2004). “Watching TV: Permissible?“ Islam Online. Viewed 5
April 2010, http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Islamonline-
English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544868.
Al-Qurṭubī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad (2006). Al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān. Beirut:
Muʾassasat al-Risāla.
Al-Rāzī, Muḥammad Fakhr al-Dīn (1981). Al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr. 32 vols. Beirut: Dār
al-Fikr li’l-Ṭibāʿa wa’l-Nashr wa’l-Tawzīʿ.
Robson, James, and H. G. Farmer (1938). “The Kitāb al-Malāhī of Abū Ṭālib
al-Mufaḍḍal Ibn Salama”. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and
Ireland (2): 231-49.
Al-Shammāʿī, Qāsim [n.d.]. Fatāwā Islāmiyya. Beirut: Dār al-Arqam.
Al-Sharabāṣī, Aḥmad (2003). ʿFilms and Drama in the Islamic Perspectiveʾ. Islam
Online. Viewed 5 April 2010. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?page
name=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544786.
Al-Shāṭibī, Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm (1969). Al-Muwāfaqāt fī Uṣūl al-Aḥkām. Cairo:
Maktabat Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṣabīḥ.
Shiloah Amnon (1987). “Malāhī”. EI2, vol. VI, 214-16.
Shiloah Amnon (1997). “Music and Religion in Islam”. Acta Musicologica 69 (2):
143-55.
Al-Shuwayʿir, Muḥammad (1997). Majmūʿ Fatāwā wa-Maqālāt Mutanawwiʿa. Riyādh:
Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1997.
Al-Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn (1981). Al-Iklīl fī Istinbāṭ al-Tanzīl. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub
al-ʿIlmiyya.
Al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b. Jarīr (2001). Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī. 26 vols. Cairo: Hajr li’l-Ṭibāʿa
wa’l-Tawzīʿ wa’l-Iʿlan.
Al-Tirmidhī, Abū ʿĪsā Muḥammad (1977). Al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ. 5 vols. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat
Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī.
Teitelbaum, Joshua (2002). “Dueling for daʿwa: State vs. society on the Saudi Internet”.
Middle East Journal 56 (2): 222-39.
Yūsuf ʿAlī, ʿAbdullāh (1989). The Holy Qurʾān. Brenthwood, Md.: Amana Corp.
Al-Zamakhsharī, Abū al-Qāsim (1998). Al-Kashshāf. 6 vols. Riyadh: Maktabat
al-ʿAbīkān.