 What did you say? Cat Stevens? Converted to Islam? In 1978, I was a young boy who would hear the echoes of the news of the day spreading around my family's circle. The breaking news, just arriving, but delayed from months ago, was that Cat Stevens, a hippie full of free love, had converted to Islam. This was a major source of pride for my family as well as for my immediate microcosm of a Muslim community. Islam had won one over. But with it came a tale that never really sat well with me. From the very first moment I heard it. And this was a rumor that Cat Stevens, who had by then changed his name to Yusuf Islam, had gone through a process of self-mutilation. The rumor was that Yusuf Islam had sliced off the tip of his tongue. Literally, it seemed the first cut was indeed the deepest. This myth was served too well by Yusuf Islam's absence from the public scene for the following couple of years. Fortunately, years beyond that, I discovered that this was all untrue. I guess this narrative was pushed by some Muslims to reflect the immense commitment that the new Islam had for the old Islam. To abandon music and song entirely and eternally for his faith. Cat Stevens and Yusuf Islam were both victims of an Islamic debate that still continues on to this very day. When the Muslim world has yet to come to terms with the morality or immorality of song and music. There is zero consensus on this question and the varieties of rulings from Muslim scholars across the ages ranges from one extreme to the next. Of course, the various Muslim sects come into play here and there are some sects and their jurists who might have more openness towards the permissibility of song and music. Shia and Sufi denominations, for example, believe that any song and music that glorifies Allah and the faith is an elemental part of the worship. But the reality is far more complex. There is a cacophony of interpretations from those who state that all music and song are sinful on one side and on the other. Those that state song and music were never labeled immoral and hence were allowed. And to further complicate things, there exists a whole series of religious rulings that state a morality position in between these two extremes. Music only during festivities, all music, but no song, no song except those that praise the faith. Some musical instruments, but neither wind nor string instruments, only open-faced drums with some song. It's just pure and utter confusion. Wait a second, I might have misspoken. Zero consensus is not accurate. There is one point that all agree upon, be it song or speech, that anything immoral or explicit be profanity, sexually suggestive, indecent, falsehoods, disrespectful or blasphemous is not accepted in song. So I suppose this consensus is a certain type of conservatism, a conservatism that is fundamentally about being respectful to ourselves and to those around us. If we're to address the element of song in Islam, then this would definitely be the first in universal filter applied when we look at what would be morally acceptable as song. So what gives Muslim scholars the basis to position song and music in the realm of the prohibited? In Islam, separating the lawful from the forbidden has always been through the referencing of the irrevocable source book, Naqoran. To be clear, there are no exact references by word towards music or song in Naqoran. The closest that Muslim jurists have come to linking song and not music to Naqoran is with the word Lahu Al-Hadeeth, meaning Distractive Speech or Idol Talk, and it is found specifically within Surat Luqman verse 6. But there are some who employ idol talk only to lead others away from Allah's way, without any knowledge, and to make a mockery of it, they will suffer a humiliating punishment. In this verse, Lahu Al-Hadeeth suggests not only idol talk, but theatrics that might draw believers away from exercising their faith, resulting in a losing of one's way in worship, and ultimately suffering severe punishment. So that is all there is in Naqoran, but for the majority of Muslims, though, there is another source for Islamic law, and that is the sunnah, the traditions and practices of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him that were taken as religious and moral guidance. This law was preserved through the various hadiths, initially verbally transmitted records, and were passed down from one generation to another through clearly identified chains of narrators. Subsequently, in the 8th and 9th centuries, these hadiths and their change of recounters were documented and formalized in written form by well-renowned Muslim scholars, such as Muhammad al-Bukhari. Just a side note here, hadiths are ranked in quality from the highest level of sahih, meaning sound or correct, hassan, meaning good, and the lowest level, va'if, meaning weak. The classification of the hadith from one quality level to another comes down to the reliability and uninterruptedness of the chain of transmission, as well as with any potential contradiction or clashes with orthodox belief. And in one specific hadith is where for certain Islamic scholars in history and the present lies the strongest and most applied argument against music. From among my followers, there will be some who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks, and the use of musical instruments as lawful. The hadith clearly concludes by association that musical instruments are not an acceptable form of expression for Muslims, since all actions listed are considered immoral by Islam, adultery, wearing of silk, and the consumption of alcohol. And jurists further conclude that in having all these impermissible acts linked together is reason enough to outlaw song and music in its entirety. And this is where the counter argument also resides, in the interpretation of this specific hadith. Other as credible Muslim scholars clarify that such an interpretation of the hadith conflicts with the orthodox teachings of Islam, and hence the hadith can't be considered as sahih. Their argument in retort to the against music camp resides with the listing of the wearing of silk as a universally sinful act. This is not a correct depiction of the prohibition, in the Quran it is clearly explained that only men are highlighted as not being allowed to wear silk, and even then there are exceptions. Women, on the other hand, are free to don silk in attire. And to explain further, the scholars who don't align with the prohibition of music conclude that these actions of the hadith have to be observed in the aggregate by associating certain types of music that accompany these vices, and which become a means towards such immoral behavior. So in isolation, musical instruments are innocent. There are other hadiths that tell of more arguments that song and music were indeed accepted by the Prophet. Clear instances, when encountering singers or celebrations, the Prophet allowed for the continuance of such expression and celebration without any stoppage. A final and maybe most effective and clear foundational edict that governs most of Islamic law and supports the cause for admissibility of song and music is that within the Quran, God had clearly identified a main principle. That everything is allowed unless it was clearly pinpointed as not. From my own personal perspective, I think the question is more about song than it is about music. Music without song dismisses the many arguments against its acceptability. Song through lyrics and expression can be influential and suggestive in many ways that can be detrimental to one state of being. However, with clear-cut guidelines to the element of respect to oneself and decency towards those in the public domain when it comes to the content, method and lyrics of song, one can transcend even the negative iteration of song. Also, an approach of moderation and adopting the middle ground is a great and golden principle of Islam that has been clearly stated in the Quran in many places. And that can benefit believers in achieving an ethical, moral and enjoyable balance in life accompanied by song and music. Ultimately, due to the fact that there is no consensus and the evidence is arguable, I leave it to you, the viewer, to decide for yourself what is morally right and what is wrong. Faith is a personal endeavor and hence the conclusion is yours alone, private and personal.