British site Islamiccentre.org on use of Loudspeaker in Ibadaths

Generally SYF is against the usage of loudspeaker in Ibadath mainly for two reasons.


1. The base of ibadath is itthiba-ul-rasool (precedence of Prophet Muhammed-SA). Without an evidence that considerable in shariat, alteration in ibadath is haram.


2. According to Shafi fiqh, the Khatheeb has to make hear of his own voice to 39 of the kamileen (eligible to praticipate in Jumua), while delivering Khuthuba. In Hanafi fiqh, the Mublligh should be a participant in the Namaz. In other words the moumoomeen (followers in jamaath) has to follow the actual voices of either the Imam or the Muballigh.  I shall quote one question and answer from the famous British (UK) Islamic site, islamiccentre.org as under:

"I want to know offering Namaz on the microphone is Haram or not ?

Question: I want to know offering Namaz on the microphone is Haram or NOT. In Bombay more than 80% Masjid having Microphones. Huzoor Mufti E Azam Hind (R.A.) had given Fatwaa not to pray Namaaz on Loud speaker then why todays Mufti praying on Microphone and claiming that they are on Maslake Alahazrat. Answer: The use of microphone in Azan and Salah has been a difficult issue for many scholars over the last century. One point to make perfectly clear is that the reason why some scholars forbid its use is not on the basis that they are backward-minded and are against new technology. Rather the issue is whether the sound emitted from the speaker is the Imam’s (or Muezzin’s) own voice, or is it the equipment involved. Our scholars are clear that a person cannot read Salah on the instructions of someone who is not in Salah. At first, when scientific experiments were conducted with amplifying equipment, it was suggested that the audible voice was in fact the echo of the speaker. A second experiment was conducted later, when it was discovered the audible voice was the speaker’s actual voice (and not the sound of his echo). This is the central issue in the dispute as to whether microphones are permissible in Salah or not. The Muftis who have allowed the practice of using a microphone for Azan and Salah do so on the opinion that the audible voice emitted from the equipment is the speaker’s voice per se. Hence, acting upon the Imam’s word is permissible [in Salah]. The Muftis who outlaw the practice do so on the opinion that the emitted voice from the equipment is not the speaker’s voice. Therefore, it is not permitted to perform Ruku’ and prostration upon this emitted voice, because it is now synonymous with following the instructions of someone who is not in Salah, something which invalidates the Prayer. Various decrees are available from the Barelwi scholars in their books on the issue of using a microphone for Azan and prayer. Most have forbidden the practice though some have allowed it. In some books of decrees, both its permissibility and prohibition have been mentioned. From the Barelwa school of thought, two decrees have been written by Mufti Amjad ‘Al ‘Azami in Rabi’ al-Awwal 1355/June 1936. The first declares it permissible to use such equipment, whereas the second prohibits it. In these two decrees, Mufti Sahib has merely explained the principle of using a microphone, and has not offered evidence. In one decree, he writes, ‘There are no visible reasons for its prohibition. Some have declared its usage as synonymous to Ta’lim min al-Khaarij [i.e. a person not in prayer who becomes involved in it externally]. However, according to my humble opinion, the microphone can only be declared as Ta’lim min al-Khaarij if it has its own autonomy and the sound emitting from it is its own. But this is not the case; the sound emitted from the microphone is in essence the speaker’s voice…the microphone is a means to relay the voice of the Imam, and the sound [emitting from the microphone] is the Imam’s voice per se.’ In the commentary of Fatawa Amjadiyya, Mufti Muhammad Sharif al-Haq declares the fatwa outlining its prohibition as the correct opinion. He adds, ‘The first decree itself suggests that it was written at a time when detailed knowledge on the working of microphones was not available. When more knowledge did become available and its functioning became clear, the latter decree was given. It renders the prayer null and void because its usage is synonymous to Ta’lim min al-Khaarij.’ The famous scholar from the Barelwis, Mufti Sahib Daad (President, Jam’iyya Ahl Sunna, Karachi) wrote a detailed and referenced decree –consisting of seventy pages and named Decrees on Microphone- and printed it through Anjuman Ihya al-Sunna in 1369/1950. This contained the assisting notes and verifications from the major scholars of the three sects of thought (Ahl Hadith, Deoband and Barelwi). All gave a unanimous decree that using a microphone in prayer is not permissible, and results in the prayer being null and void. Regarding the permissibility of using a microphone for Azan and prayer, Mufti Muhammad Nur Allah Na’imi issued twenty decrees. This detailed analysis consists of 127 pages. Mufti Sahib explained his position in an analytical manner. From the Barelwi scholars, he is the sole scholar who has unequivocally declared the permissibility of using microphones in his decrees. To support his stance, Mufti Sahib referred to dozens of references from classic books of jurisprudence and decrees. He also offered evidenced refutations of all objections raised on using such equipment in the mosque for Aan and prayer. Mufti Sahib issued these decrees between Jamada al-Awwal 1376/January 1957 and Rajab 1388/October 1968." SYF response in this regard is: It is neither the echo nor the speaker's actual voice. It is a scientific truth that the voice of a loudspeaker is a mechanical and artificial sound produced by utilising the externally applied electric current. That is why the terms 'Tape Recorder', 'Loudspeaker' etc. used, 1. Tape Recorder. Tape recorder is not a device used to store and release the sound energy as per our requirement. When we light a torch, the charge of the battery will become down. And after the use of certain period, it will be completely discharged. To use again either the battery has to be replaced or recharged. Similarly if the sound emission from a Tape Recorder is due to storage of sound, after certain attempts/period there won't be any sound with the Tape Recorder. But if there is no technical error, we will not feel any end to hear the sound from a Tape Recorder. From this it is understood that the Tape Recorder is used to produce 'photocopies' of the original sound. The only similarity is that the sound produced by a Tape Recorder will be in the same wave form and frequency of the original sound. Tape Recorder will only "RECORD" the wave form / frequency of the sound. 2. Loudspeaker. If we have sufficient amplifiers and loudspeakers we can spread a small voice to all over the world. Do you think the entire sound belongs to a single person?  We may enhance the volume of lime water by adding fresh water to it. But as the volume of fresh water increase, the taste and nature of the solution become differ. After a certain limit, the solution will feel as fresh water only. Similarly if the intensity of the voice produced before the microphone is enhanced by utilising the external electricity, after a certain limit there will not be any voice but full of noise only! From this it is understood that the loudspeaker is not an apparatus used to intensify the voice produced before the microphone but that produce an intensified artificial sound in compliance with the wave form and frequency of the original sound. Hence the term Loudspeaker. Meaning of speaker is 'one who speaks' and loudspeaker is "one who speaks loudly". If anybody want the technical evidence to prove that the sound of loudspeaker is mechanical/artificial, please contact to  Abbas.P.S, Assistant Engineer, Industrial Engineering Department, Electronic Switching Division, Indian Telephone Industries Ltd (A Government of India Undertaking), PALAKKAD - 678 623, KERALA, INDIA. Ph. 0091 9447 467 667.     E-mail : abbasiti@yahoo.co.in, abbasiti@gmail.com