Does my father have the right to take whatever he wants of my wealth?
Question

                I have always heard that music, singing and dancing are haram in 
My father keeps quoting a hadith that says all that a son posesses belongs to his father. Is this correct? 
If so, does this mean that a father can take part of or all of the son's posession against his son's will? 
I am aware that it is the duty of the son / daughter to look after the parents, be kind to them and ensure that they are fed, clothed and have somewhere to live. Can a father really take his son's posessions (both alive, both not in dire need) again his son's wishes?
Praise be to Allah.1.The
      hadeeth is:
It was
      narrated from Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah that a man said: “O Messenger of
      Allaah, I have wealth and children, but my father wants to take all my
      wealth.” He said, “You and your wealth are for your father.”
      (Narrated by Ibn Maajah, 2291; Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh,
      2/142 from the hadeeth of Jaabir, and 2922; Ahmad, 6902 from the hadeeth
      of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr).
      
      
      And Ahmad narrated from ‘Amr ibn
      Shu’ayb from his father from his grandfather, who said: A Bedouin came
      to the Messenger of Allaah  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
      him) and said: “My father wants to take all my wealth.” He said,
      “You and your wealth are for your father. The best that you can eat is
      what you have earned, and your children’s wealth is part of what you
      have earned, so eat it and enjoy it.”
      This
      report has other isnaads and corroborating reports which make it saheeh.
       
      
      (See Fath
      al-Baari, 5/211; Nasb
      al-Raayah,3/337)
2.The
      laam in the hadeeth (li
      in li abeeka – for your
      father) does not mean possession, rather it means permission.
 Ibn
      al-Qayyim said: 
The laam
      in the hadeeth does not mean possession at all… If we say that it means
      permission, then the hadeeth makes sense, otherwise it does not have any
      significance.
       
      
      (I’laam
      al-Muwaqqi’een, 1/116)
       
      
      3.One
      of the things which indicate that it does not mean possession is the fact
      that the son’s children, wife and mother can inherit from him. If his
      wealth were the property of his father, no one would be able to take his
      property except the father.
       
      
      Al-Shaafa'i
      said:
Because
      it was not proven. When Allaah decreed that a father could inherit from
      his son, He made him (the father) like other heirs. He may even have a
      smaller share than many other heirs, which proves that the son is the
      owner of his own wealth, not the father.
(al-Risaalah,
      p. 468)
4.This
      permission is not absolute. It is subject to four conditions.
       
      
      Shaykh
      Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah preserve him) said:
This
      hadeeth is not da’eef (weak) because it has corroborating reports. What
      this means is that if he (the son) has wealth, the father has the right to
      enjoy that wealth and to take whatever he wants from it, but this is
      subject to certain conditions:
 The
      first condition: that by taking it he does not cause harm to his son. If
      it does cause harm – such as taking his cover with which he protects
      himself from the cold, or he takes his food with which he wards off hunger
      –it is not permissible for the father to do this.
The
      second condition: it should not be something that the son needs. If the
      son has a concubine whom he sleeps with, it is not permissible for the
      father to take her, because his son needs her. Similarly, if the son has a
      car which he needs for getting about, and he does not have enough cash to
      buy a replacement, then the father does not have the right to take it
      under any circumstances.
The
      third condition: he should not take the wealth from one of his sons in
      order to give it to another, because this creates enmity between the sons
      and because it means preferring one of the children over another, if the
      second son is not in need. If he is in need, then the father’s giving
      something to the one who is in need and not to the ones who are not in
      need, does not mean that he is preferring one child over another; on the
      contrary, it is obligatory for him to do this.
Whatever
      the case, the hadeeth is something which the scholars refer to and use as
      evidence. But there are conditions attached, as we have mentioned. The
      father does not have the right to take one son’s wealth and give it to
      another son.
      
      
      And Allaah knows best.
       
      
      (Fataawa
      Islamiyyah,4/108, 109)
      
      
      There is also a fourth condition, which is that the father should be in
      need of the wealth that he is taking from his son. This condition is
      clearly stated in some ahaadeeth.
      
      
      It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said:
      the Messenger of Allaah  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
      said: “Your children are a gift from Allaah to you: ‘He
      bestows female (offspring) upon whom He wills, and bestows male
      (offspring) upon whom He wills’ [al-Shoora 42:49 – interpretation of
      the meaning]. So they and their wealth are for you, if you have
      need of it.”
      
      
      (narrated by al-Haakim, 2/284; al-Bayhaqi, 7/480)
      
      
      The hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah
      al-Saheehah, 2564, where he says:
      
      
      This hadeeth contains an important fiqhi point which is that it explains
      that the famous hadeeth, “You and your wealth are for your father” (al-Irwaa’
      838) does not give the father absolute permission to take whatever he
      wants from his son’s wealth. Far from it! But he may take whatever he is
      in need of.
      
      
      And Allaah knows best.