Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Frank

"your Opinion Doesn't Count"

Recommended Posts

Well yes, but if I believed in a devil I would also believe in a god. So doesn't the fact that I don't believe in supernatural beings mean that I haven't been "presented with" the truth? I can't think of a single instance in my life where I haven't agreed with 'truth' when I know it to be true.

 

If the truth had been "presented " to me I would obviously have accepted it. That I haven't accepted it can only be because it has not been "presented" to me, or it is not the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Well yes, but if I believed in a devil I would also believe in a god. So doesn't the fact that I don't believe in supernatural beings mean that I haven't been "presented with" the truth? I can't think of a single instance in my life where I haven't agreed with 'truth' when I know it to be true.

 

Seriously, can't you just pick out the message what I'm trying to tell you? What I meant is that even knowing that there God exists doesn't make you a Believer. Honestly...

 

If the truth had been "presented " to me I would obviously have accepted it. That I haven't accepted it can only be because it has not been "presented" to me, or it is not the truth.

 

This is logicly fallacious.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Music is forbidden in Islam. A layman would be sinful if he said this without giving any evidence.

 

But you've just made a blanket statement which is incorrect (music as such isn't forbidden in toto; singing is music) even by a strict interpretation, and is disputed by many Muslims who don't in fact believe that even instruments are forbidden. You 'evidence' consists of presenting scholarly writings, which others can counter with other scholarly writings.

 

As neither you nor they are scholars (I'm assuming for the sake of argument - maybe you are) it is neither possible nor permitted for you to judge the scholars' scholarship (except by calling on the scholarship of still more scholars, whose scholarship you are not qualified to judge, and so ad infinitum) In the end it comes down to your opinion whether you are a musical Muslim or not. Or, more likely, the accident of whether or not your parents were musical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you've just made a blanket statement which is incorrect (music as such isn't forbidden in toto; singing is music) even by a strict interpretation, and is disputed by many Muslims who don't in fact believe that even instruments are forbidden. You 'evidence' consists of presenting scholarly writings, which others can counter with other scholarly writings.

 

Don't start nit-picking. What I meant was that music which uses instruments apart from the lawful ones is forbidden. I meant music in general, every music must be viewed case by case to be deemed lawful or unlawful. Stop jumping to hasty conclusions.

 

As neither you nor they are scholars (I'm assuming for the sake of argument - maybe you are) it is neither possible nor permitted for you to judge the scholars' scholarship (except by calling on the scholarship of still more scholars, whose scholarship you are not qualified to judge, and so ad infinitum) In the end it comes down to your opinion whether you are a musical Muslim or not. Or, more likely, the accident of whether or not your parents were musical.

 

Well, this is clearly not the case. This is a too simplified view of things, so I won't address it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously, can't you just pick out the message what I'm trying to tell you? What I meant is that even knowing that there God exists doesn't make you a Believer. Honestly...

 

Sorry, but who (other than supernatural beings like Satan) has ever "known" that a god exists yet rejected that god? You would have to be crazy. I know that monotheism invests heavily in the idea that many people both believe in a god but also reject that god, but I don't accept that it happens (except perhaps in verey rare cases) except in mental illness.

 

This is logicly fallacious.

 

How so? I'm perfectly serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I meant music in general, every music must be viewed case by case to be deemed lawful or unlawful.

 

OK, but to heave us back on topic, this "case by case" is an example of what I'm talking about. Who makes the decision about which music is haram? Will different scholars reach different decisions? Of course they will. If you aren't allowed to choose the scholar (or whoever it is) based on the hope that a particular scholar will make the decision you want, it's just random. So some Muslims might be forbidden from listening to (say) Mozart and others might not be. That's hardly a good way to experience the wonders of human achievement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but who (other than supernatural beings like Satan) has ever "known" that a god exists yet rejected that god? You would have to be crazy. I know that monotheism invests heavily in the idea that many people both believe in a god but also reject that god, but I don't accept that it happens (except perhaps in verey rare cases) except in mental illness.

 

Maybe pride is one of those reasons?

 

How so? I'm perfectly serious.

 

Because what you accept as true doesn't necessarily translate to the Truth and what you reject doesn't neccesarily translate to a lie. The Truth is a reality that cannot be changed. It wouldn't matter if the whole mankind thought that the Truth was a lie, the Truth would still be the Truth.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, but to heave us back on topic, this "case by case" is an example of what I'm talking about. Who makes the decision about which music is haram? Will different scholars reach different decisions? Of course they will. If you aren't allowed to choose the scholar (or whoever it is) based on the hope that a particular scholar will make the decision you want, it's just random. So some Muslims might be forbidden from listening to (say) Mozart and others might not be. That's hardly a good way to experience the wonders of human achievement.

 

How do you know that different scholars will reach different decisions. You know nothing about Islamic scholarship and you're already dictating "truths". You're giving me an oversimpliefied view, so I won't address it.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(You know, of course, that your refusing to adress a topic makes me conclude that you are admitting error.)

 

Of course different scholars will reach different conclusions. If they could all reach the same conclusion there would be published lists of which (say) composers were haram and which weren't. There would be no need for a clumsy "case by case" system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(You know, of course, that your refusing to adress a topic makes me conclude that you are admitting error.)

 

Of course different scholars will reach different conclusions. If they could all reach the same conclusion there would be published lists of which (say) composers were haram and which weren't. There would be no need for a clumsy "case by case" system.

 

Stop jumping to conclusions. I won't address a topic that is oversimplified, point blank, take it how you want it.

 

Stop talking nonsense. What I meant by "case by case basis" was that we have to look at each music form separately just as we view killing case by case. Not every killing is unlawful and not every music is unlawful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe pride is one of those reasons?

 

Another monotheist theme there. Does Islam believe that Satan is an angel fallen due to pride as Chritianity does? Again, I think that monotheism's anti-pride stance is for its own social control purposes, not because it happens much (if at all) that people believe in a god but refuse to follow that god's instructions out of pride.

 

Because what you accept as true doesn't necessarily translate to the Truth and what you reject doesn't neccesarily translate to a lie. The Truth is a reality that cannot be changed. It wouldn't matter if the whole mankind thought that the Truth was a lie, the Truth would still be the Truth.

 

Probably, but that isn't what we are talking about. We're talking about people rejecting the truth after they are "presented with" it. I asked for a definition of "presented with", because I don't believe that it is likely that I would reject the truth once I knew that it was the truth (it might even be logically impossible). Therefore if your god exists but I do not believe in him, the only possibility is that I don't know that your god's existence is the truth. That is, I have not been "presented with" the truth in such a manner as will allow me to undertand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another monotheist theme there. Does Islam believe that Satan is an angel fallen due to pride as Chritianity does? Again, I think that monotheism's anti-pride stance is for its own social control purposes, not because it happens much (if at all) that people believe in a god but refuse to follow that god's instructions out of pride.

 

No, Satan is not a fallen angel. There are other reasons besides pride. Arrogance is one of them, or mistrust in God's power over you.

 

Probably, but that isn't what we are talking about. We're talking about people rejecting the truth after they are "presented with" it. I asked for a definition of "presented with", because I don't believe that it is likely that I would reject the truth once I knew that it was the truth (it might even be logically impossible). Therefore if your god exists but I do not believe in him, the only possibility is that I don't know that your god's existence is the truth. That is, I have not been "presented with" the truth in such a manner as will allow me to undertand it.

 

People might reject the Truth even if they'd KNOW that it's the Truth, but that's a different type of rejection we are speaking of then.

 

Your statement about not accepting the Truth because it has been presented to you in a manner which doesn't allow you to understand it, can be true and false. This also will be viewed case by case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stop talking nonsense.

 

I don't much mind you insulting me, but I do mind you insulting human discourse by resorting to insults rather than arguments.

 

What I meant by "case by case basis" was that we have to look at each music form separately just as we view killing case by case. Not every killing is unlawful and not every music is unlawful.

 

So I take it that many musical forms have already been judged on a case by case basis and that scholars unanimously agree that certain musical forms are permitted. Where would I find a list of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another monotheist theme there. Does Islam believe that Satan is an angel fallen due to pride as Chritianity does? Again, I think that monotheism's anti-pride stance is for its own social control purposes, not because it happens much (if at all) that people believe in a god but refuse to follow that god's instructions out of pride.

 

No, Satan is not a fallen angel. There are other reasons besides pride. Arrogance is one of them, or mistrust in God's power over you.

 

Probably, but that isn't what we are talking about. We're talking about people rejecting the truth after they are "presented with" it. I asked for a definition of "presented with", because I don't believe that it is likely that I would reject the truth once I knew that it was the truth (it might even be logically impossible). Therefore if your god exists but I do not believe in him, the only possibility is that I don't know that your god's existence is the truth. That is, I have not been "presented with" the truth in such a manner as will allow me to undertand it.

 

People might reject the Truth even if they'd KNOW that it's the Truth, but that's a different type of rejection we are speaking of then.

 

Your statement about not accepting the Truth because it has been presented to you in a manner which doesn't allow you to understand it, can be true and false. This also will be viewed case by case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't much mind you insulting me, but I do mind you insulting human discourse by resorting to insults rather than arguments.

 

You give such oversimplified views and use bad examples.

 

So I take it that many musical forms have already been judged on a case by case basis and that scholars unanimously agree that certain musical forms are permitted. Where would I find a list of them?

 

All musical forms are unlawful unless specified otherwise. Why don't you just ask if for example Mozart is lawful? The answer is no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On other Islamic forums (I don't go on the appropriate boards on this one, so I don't know if it happens here) it's common to see older/stricter/whatever people tell others (often converts) that their opinion is meaningless, and that they are behaving in a non-Islamic manner by attempting to interpret the Koran rather than following the scholars.

 

I can understand this - I get incredibly frustrated with people getting excited about conspiracy theories when they have far too little knowledge of the subjects to have a valid opinion. For example, unless you are an academic historian specialising in the Nazi era in Germany, you really shouldn't imagine that you can judge the veracity of a Holocaust-denier's webite. The layperson can of course cite genuinely qualified people in defense of their views.

 

However. While I agree that a long tradition of scholarship produces an infinitely more subtle understanding of Islamic rules than any individual starting from zero knowledge, there is a problem. The scholars disagree. There are radically different versions of rules, and no means for the layperson to choose between them. In the end it DOES come down to their individual's opinion of which scholar is correct. There's no mechanism (eg, a Pope) for deciding on a definitive version of the rules. And as breaking the rules can see you end up in hell for eternity, it's fairly important.

 

but it is not. Hell approaches when you wittingly being corrupt within yourself, *unwittingly* following a 'wrong' opinion of a scholar is surely not going to mean you burn eternally, that is something for the jews and christians to beleive.

 

think about it - would you rather have a flexible system with some basis in writing, that is not beholden to one human's interpretations (such as a Pope in a Palace), or would you prefer to have your entire religion resting upon the whims and stray thoughts of one person's interpretations?

 

personally, i think that 'organised religions' with complex religious rules are more of a bane than a boon to mankind, but if i had to compare Islam to catholicism then i would go with Islam. And there is NO chance of me reverting, before anyone here gets their hopes up. :sl:

 

 

salaam younes: can you tell me in simple terms what the nature of 'satan' is in Islam theology then?

 

 

 

frank: assume for a minute you have had a revelation, and for a period outside of time you were directly presented with the REALITY of a perfectly conscious universe, a universe filled with love and beauty in all, even down to the smallest molecutes, the tiniest vibrations, the whole vastness and interconnectedness or the entire Universe.

 

you realise it is your acts that make up who your are, you realise that Love is the supreme goal of all beings, you have tasted Ambrosia, the Food of Heaven - and you know that the true meaning of being Judged.

 

this you directly experience, and need no more words to bring the Majesty and Beauty of God into your consciousness.

 

from that moment on you will always compare your own acts with the perfection you have experienced, and you will know when you are not behaving as well you could, when you fall from your *own* grace, and you will always have perfection to judge your acts against, not even excluding the smallest, most fleeting thought.

 

 

this is not a God you can haggle with, this is not some book-keeper at the end you can argue about your sins with, this is YOU, your perfect self sitting and listening to you ever second of every day of every year, do you understand that to someone who has experienced this, your questions are meaningless, mere rhetorical argumentation?

 

 

peace,

gnuneo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salaam younes: can you tell me in simple terms what the nature of 'satan' is in Islam theology then?

 

And also upon you

 

Satan is a being who has free will, just like humans, but unlike Angels. He has vowed to be an ennemy unto the children of Adam(pbuh) and to make them stray from the Path. He became a Kafir/Unbeliever by refusing to bow to Adam(pbuh) because he thinks that he is superior to Adam(pbuh) even if it was God commanding him. Before commiting kufr/disbelief(these English words don't do the Arabic ones much justice) he was living among the Angels and he knows God exists.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks.

 

so if i were to conceptualise him, and not anthropomorphise him, would it be in rough terms he is like the human Ego?

 

 

peace and love. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many thanks.

 

so if i were to conceptualise him, and not anthropomorphise him, would it be in rough terms he is like the human Ego?

peace and love. :sl:

 

And also upon you

 

Well if human Ego=a sane individual who makes his own choices, then yes. Satan has a body though, but we don't know what he looks like, he is invisible to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Music is forbidden in Islam

This hurts. i don't understand how you can survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All musical forms are unlawful unless specified otherwise. Why don't you just ask if for example Mozart is lawful? The answer is no.

 

OK, I'm astounded. Well done. But I'll restrain myself and stick to the topic:

 

Is is this another instance of your 'shorthand'? Is it another way of saying "The scholars I follow say that most of Mozart's music is unlawful but other scholars give different opinions, and some or many Muslims accept those different opinions."?

 

If you're really saying that there is consensus that Mozart's music is unlawful, can you point me to the list? I'm genuinely curious as to who is and isn't a lawful composer.

 

(By the way, and this is off topic, but I thought the general rule was that unless something was specifically banned it was permitted. Does music fall into a different category?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but it is not. Hell approaches when you wittingly being corrupt within yourself, *unwittingly* following a 'wrong' opinion of a scholar is surely not going to mean you burn eternally, that is something for the jews and christians to beleive.

 

think about it - would you rather have a flexible system with some basis in writing, that is not beholden to one human's interpretations (such as a Pope in a Palace), or would you prefer to have your entire religion resting upon the whims and stray thoughts of one person's interpretations?

 

personally, i think that 'organised religions' with complex religious rules are more of a bane than a boon to mankind, but if i had to compare Islam to catholicism then i would go with Islam. And there is NO chance of me reverting, before anyone here gets their hopes up. :sl:

salaam younes: can you tell me in simple terms what the nature of 'satan' is in Islam theology then?

frank: assume for a minute you have had a revelation, and for a period outside of time you were directly presented with the REALITY of a perfectly conscious universe, a universe filled with love and beauty in all, even down to the smallest molecutes, the tiniest vibrations, the whole vastness and interconnectedness or the entire Universe.

 

you realise it is your acts that make up who your are, you realise that Love is the supreme goal of all beings, you have tasted Ambrosia, the Food of Heaven - and you know that the true meaning of being Judged.

 

this you directly experience, and need no more words to bring the Majesty and Beauty of God into your consciousness.

 

from that moment on you will always compare your own acts with the perfection you have experienced, and you will know when you are not behaving as well you could, when you fall from your *own* grace, and you will always have perfection to judge your acts against, not even excluding the smallest, most fleeting thought.

this is not a God you can haggle with, this is not some book-keeper at the end you can argue about your sins with, this is YOU, your perfect self sitting and listening to you ever second of every day of every year, do you understand that to someone who has experienced this, your questions are meaningless, mere rhetorical argumentation?

peace,

gnuneo.

 

That sounds like a halfway feasible understanding of god. If you've experienced it, congratulations. I have had tiny, fragmentary glimpses. (Usually, I might add, while doing things which would see me killed by the Inquisition or sharia courts and tortured eternally by Allah and perhaps Yaweh.) But that god obviously does not demand worship like a petulant adolescent or threaten (and possibly even carry out) torture. That god is delighted that you exist, and the idea that you are walking a tightrope between paradise (which can be here and now) and eternal torture just doesn't exist in that god's mind. Just because people (and I'm not talking about any religion in particular here) use the word "god" to describe the thing they worhip does not mean it has to be accorded the same respect as a concept that really does deserve repect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, I'm astounded. Well done. But I'll restrain myself and stick to the topic:

 

Is is this another instance of your 'shorthand'? Is it another way of saying "The scholars I follow say that most of Mozart's music is unlawful but other scholars give different opinions, and some or many Muslims accept those different opinions."?

 

Sometimes there can exist two different rulings, difference of opinion is allowed in Islam. It's comparable to a second degree function in math, there can be two right answers, if both are reached with a right method. However, in the case of music, some scholars are wrong. Nobody is free from critcism and nobody's opinion will be accepted unless backed with evidence handled with a sound methodology.

 

If you're really saying that there is consensus that Mozart's music is unlawful, can you point me to the list? I'm genuinely curious as to who is and isn't a lawful composer.

 

You only have to check the music genre and you'll know if it's lawful or unlawful. For example, all classic and rock music is unlawful. I can tell you what is lawful. In short music that uses a permissable musical intstrument such as the tambourine and the human voice are permitted unless the music contains unlawful stuff like singing about fornication, clubs etc.

 

(By the way, and this is off topic, but I thought the general rule was that unless something was specifically banned it was permitted. Does music fall into a different category?)

 

You're right in general, something is lawful if not specified otherwise. However, music is not just one category, it has sub-categories just as killing has sub-categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, in the case of music, some scholars are wrong. Nobody is free from critcism and nobody's opinion will be accepted unless backed with evidence handled with a sound methodology.

 

But your belief that some scholars are wrong is based on your belief that other scholars are right. How do you convince someone who believes in the other scholars that they are wrong? As I asked earlier, do you just agree to disagree? If there is some sort of objective criteria you can use to choose the correct interpretation, why isn't it used to produce definitive rulings?

 

(As a matter of interest, on what points do you disagree with Sheykh Mahmud Shaltut's fatwah on music? It's in the Music section of the Controversial Issues board. It seems eminently sensible to this layperson.)

Edited by Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This hurts. i don't understand how you can survive.

 

Ironically, I survive better now than I did when I used to listen to music. To each his own, right?

 

Music hinders memorization of the Qur'an. The human brain, though complex and with much raw potential, is still limited and can only retain so much information from day to day. Try memorizing one page of something, and then go sit in a corner with your headphones plugged in and listen to music for the next hour.

 

Music is an addiction. I mean, everything from classical to heavy metal. I don't mean everyone becomes addicted, but it does occupy much of many people's time, to the point where they're neglecting Islam and star-worshipping the singers/rappers.

 

Music is haraam. Pure and simple.

 

Islam is about prevention. No alcohol to prevent uninhibited behavior and impaired judgement. No pre-marital sex to prevent complications. No pre-marital relationships to prevent pre-marital sex. And no music to prevent a lack of closeness with God.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×