Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq,
Jan. 1, 2025 By AimanAbir18plus –
Own work, CC BY 4.0, Wikipedia
https://web.archive.org/web/20111021082053/http://hashemstudios-board.com/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=5066
By Miguel Hayworth
At first glance, a 2011 forum discussion about whether music is permissible in Islam appears insignificant. Compared to the grand themes of prophecy, end-times events, world politics, and divine leadership that dominate much of the material surrounding Abdullah Hashem and the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light (AROPL), a discussion about music seems trivial.
However, when examined carefully, the thread provides a revealing insight into how authority functioned within the movement and how followers were encouraged to process information.
The discussion began with a post by Abdullah Hashem, then a prominent representative of the Ahmad al-Hassan movement and later founder of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light.
Hashem quoted Ahmad al-Hassan as stating:
“Music is haram. And the songs are haram. And listening (intentional listening rather than unintentional hearing) to them is haram.”
The statement appears clear and absolute. Music is forbidden.
Yet immediately afterward, Hashem introduced an important qualification. He referenced a teaching attributed to Imam al-Rida that:
“The carrying out of the laws depends on the availability of the conditions.”
This raised an obvious question.
If music is absolutely forbidden, what are the conditions that might affect the application of that ruling?
The thread never provides a clear answer.
The Curious Responses
What happened next is perhaps more interesting than the original ruling itself.
Several followers immediately thanked Abdullah Hashem for “clearing misconceptions” and “clearing doubts.”
One member wrote:
“Thank you Abdullah for clearing the misconceptions and doubts of our heads.”
Another wrote:
“Thank you for clearing any misconceptions.”
Yet no actual explanation had been provided.
The ruling remained ambiguous. Music had been declared forbidden, but the conditions governing that prohibition were left undefined.
The certainty expressed by followers therefore appeared to come before the clarification itself.
This is a subtle but important observation.
Normally, clarification follows explanation. Here, affirmation appeared to precede understanding.
The Question Nobody Answered
One forum member asked the most obvious question:
“Could you please explain to us what the explanation of ‘music is haram’ is? What would be the conditions in this case?”
It was a reasonable request.
If a law depends upon conditions, those conditions need to be defined.
Yet the thread contains no authoritative clarification from Abdullah Hashem.
Instead, another follower attempted to construct an explanation himself.
He suggested that music might be permissible if the listener had pure intentions. He speculated that songs with positive messages, praise of God, or reflective themes might be acceptable. He even cited Bob Marley as a possible example.
In other words, ordinary members began trying to reconcile the contradiction themselves.
A Pattern Seen Elsewhere
Viewed in isolation, this may seem like an ordinary religious discussion.
But when placed alongside the broader themes of The Arrived series and the later Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light, a familiar pattern emerges.
A claim is presented as certain.
An exception or qualification is introduced.
The ambiguity is not fully resolved.
Followers work to harmonise the apparent contradiction.
The authority of the original source remains unquestioned.
The process is significant because it shifts the focus away from evaluating evidence and toward preserving confidence in authority.
Instead of asking whether the claim itself is correct, members focus on finding a way to make the claim work.
The leader remains right regardless of which interpretation is ultimately adopted.
Critical Thinking Versus Authority
Critical thinking normally begins with questions:
- What exactly is being claimed?
- What evidence supports the claim?
- Are there alternative interpretations?
- How are exceptions defined?
- Who determines those exceptions?
In the music discussion, these questions were largely absent.
Instead, the discussion operated on a different assumption:
The leader must already be correct.
If there appears to be a contradiction, the problem lies in the follower’s understanding rather than the statement itself.
The role of the follower therefore becomes finding a way to reconcile the ambiguity rather than testing the validity of the claim.
Why This Matters
Critics of Abdullah Hashem often focus on the movement’s more dramatic claims: prophecies, end-times predictions, political conspiracies, supernatural signs, and declarations of divine appointment.
Yet small discussions like this one may be just as revealing.
They show how authority operates at an everyday level.
The issue is not whether music is lawful or unlawful. Religious traditions have debated such questions for centuries.
The issue is how people are encouraged to think.
When followers repeatedly learn to resolve uncertainty by increasing trust in authority rather than by examining evidence, a particular mindset begins to develop.
Over time, that same approach can be applied not only to music, but also to prophecy, politics, theology, leadership claims, and interpretations of world events.
The music thread therefore serves as a small but telling example of a much larger pattern.
It illustrates how ambiguity can reinforce authority, how followers can be encouraged to fill in the gaps themselves, and how confidence in leadership can become more important than clarity of explanation.
Viewed in that light, a discussion about music becomes something much more significant: a window into the way belief itself was being shaped.