Listening to a daff that has metal circles around its edge
In the answers to questions no. 20406 and 9290 we have already stated the ruling on the daff, and said that it is permissible for women and not for men to beat it and listen to it. The daff which is permissible is that which is open on one side only. If it is closed on both sides or closed on one side and has a small opening on the other side, then it is more like a tablah (drum). The daff that is permissible is the one that does not have any metal circles either inside it or around the edge.
If the daff has metal circles, then you have to break it because it is not permissible. Imam Ahmad stated that if you break it, you do not have to offer compensation to the owner.
As for the daff that is free of such things, it is permissible for women to use it on occasions other than weddings.
Ghidha’ al-Albaab Sharh Manzoomat al-Adaab, 1/243.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked:
There is a kind of drum that is covered on one side, and the other side is mostly covered but has a small opening. Does this count as a kind of daff?
This is a kind of drum, and may be worse than an ordinary drum, because with this kind of drum the sound comes out through this opening and vibrates more, so it is more resonant than if it were fully closed or fully open. So it is not permissible to use this as a daff is used, because the daff is undoubtedly less effective than this. This gives a vibrating sound and is more entertaining.
Liqaa’aat al-baab al-Maftooh, question no. 1141.
The basic principle concerning musical instruments is that they are haraam; an exception is made in the case of the daff on certain occasions. The daff which is exempted is that which does not have any extra things such as rattles or metal circles. We have already discussed the ruling on musical instruments in the answer to question no. 5000.
The ahaadeeth which speak of beating the daff mention three occasions: Eid, weddings and the return of one who has been away. You can read the evidence for that in question no. 20406.