Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Frank

"your Opinion Doesn't Count"

Recommended Posts

Your may very well be all music as it doesnt differentiate on topic of song bases but simply by genre. The arguement still stands, why arnt all books poetry foods etc haram?

 

It isn't exactly by genre, people didn't know about rock music and stuff like that back in the day of the Prophet(pbuh). It is about wether the music has unlawful things in it or not. If not, cool. Why aren't all books, poetry, foods etc. unlawful? I don't know what you are trying to portray here, as all music in Islam isn't forbidden, but to answer your question, it is because the Prophet(pbuh) didn't forbid all books nor poetry nor foods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
It isn't exactly by genre, people didn't know about rock music and stuff like that back in the day of the Prophet(pbuh). It is about wether the music has unlawful things in it or not. If not, cool. Why aren't all books, poetry, foods etc. unlawful? I don't know what you are trying to portray here, as all music in Islam isn't forbidden, but to answer your question, it is because the Prophet(pbuh) didn't forbid all books nor poetry nor foods.

 

Im curious why such strict requirements are necessary for lawful music, in that it can only have lawful instruments and a human voice.

 

Ty for the clarification that it is based subject, but the musical instrument still boggles my mind. It would be like saying only books containing X abstract theme are lawful at the exclusion of all others. Still feels like a generalization to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im curious why such strict requirements are necessary for lawful music, in that it can only have lawful instruments and a human voice.

 

Ty for the clarification that it is based subject, but the musical instrument still boggles my mind. It would be like saying only books containing X abstract theme are lawful at the exclusion of all others. Still feels like a generalization to me

 

It is to test who obeys and who doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 'excuse' as you put it is the same. God doesnt want you to do it, Im just trying to be religiously sensitive (as certain jewish/christian laws make as much sense as music to me).

 

It seems you are the only one who keeps repeatedly using this same scenario (i.e. "God's will" and "test"), so I will answer it with what I hope will be a satisfactory answer.

 

Let me ask you something. If you were on a forum that taught, say, table etiquette and you wanted to know why people have to keep their mouths closed when chewing, the obvious response would be what? It's bad table manners. According to who? According to western society. There could exist other societies that consider it a sign of enjoying one's food to keep the mouth opened, which might please the host or hostess.

 

If you asked, "well, I want a scientific answer as to why my mouth needs to be open or closed", would that be sensible? No, it would not.

 

Just as it is bad table manners to chew with an open mouth according to this society, what is considered lawful or unlawful in Islam is decided by God. Why? Because God knows better than we do.

 

The people of Madina at the time of the prophet, upon hearing that alcohol had just become banned in Islam, threw out whatever alcohol they had. Some spit it out because it was already in their mouth, and others forced themselves to vomit it, all in complete obedience of the new law. Did they ask why? Did they need to know how alcohol destroys societies? No and no. If it had been orange juice that had become haraam, they would have reacted the same way. Because their faith in God was so powerful to the point where they didn't NEED answers. As the Qur'an says, many a nation has been destroyed for refusing to obey simple commands.

 

If you keep asking questions on an Islamic forum as to why or why not people do things, don't expect the sorts of practical reasons that YOU are used to. Because 1) you are from an entirely different culture and 2) you have completely different beliefs. You might not find it a satisfactory answer if someone tells you that it is a law in Islam, but deal with it, because it is.

 

If something is forbidden in Islam, it simply is. End of story.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salam.

 

You seem to take offence to my conclusion while at the same time agreeing with me. I dont quite understand. If it makes you feel any better, ALL higher ideals while secular or not are built upon fundamental assumptions that can be considered a bit shadey. My only beef with Islam in this regard (or any ideology that makes the claim) is that somehow its based on (secular)common sense. In this case the arguement is harmful beyond the fact that its agaisnt the will of God.

 

The example of alcohol is a bit different as it being physically harmful is documented and there have been several studies on it so any claims as to why you shouldnt do it go beyond simply, God says no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to take offence

 

No, I did not become offended. I was simply replying to your post.

 

My only beef with Islam in this regard (or any ideology that makes the claim) is that somehow its based on (secular)common sense. In this case the arguement is harmful beyond the fact that its agaisnt the will of God.
I would think that it is non-Muslims who want to base everything on common sense and are often disappointed that the reply we give them is that God commands it. At least, this is what your point seemed to be earlier.

 

The example of alcohol is a bit different as it being physically harmful is documented and there have been several studies on it so any claims as to why you shouldnt do it go beyond simply, God says no.

 

And would Muslims have reacted any differently if it had been, say, peanuts that had been made unlawful? Strawberries? Fish? No, they would not. Because it isn't the reason behind the decree that made people stop alcohol consumption. It is the fact that God ordered it so.

 

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't exactly by genre, people didn't know about rock music and stuff like that back in the day of the Prophet(pbuh). It is about wether the music has unlawful things in it or not. If not, cool. Why aren't all books, poetry, foods etc. unlawful? I don't know what you are trying to portray here, as all music in Islam isn't forbidden, but to answer your question, it is because the Prophet(pbuh) didn't forbid all books nor poetry nor foods.

 

 

PUHLEEEEEZE! You think that all music which uses instruments except the Daff (sp?) is haram, and even purely vocal or vocal and Daff music might be haram.

 

People, possibly to avoid slippery stuff it might be better if we considered only the question 'why is the piano forbidden in Islam', or the flute or the triangle or the kazoo or the symphony orchestra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I did not become offended. I was simply replying to your post.

 

I would think that it is non-Muslims who want to base everything on common sense and are often disappointed that the reply we give them is that God commands it. At least, this is what your point seemed to be earlier.

And would Muslims have reacted any differently if it had been, say, peanuts that had been made unlawful? Strawberries? Fish? No, they would not. Because it isn't the reason behind the decree that made people stop alcohol consumption. It is the fact that God ordered it so.

Salam.

 

We seem to be 100% in agreement then :sl: And no, I was not scrutizing the rational, as I said, all ideas of higher morals or ideologies contain a 'God says' when stripped down, they simply choose to call their god by a different name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We seem to be 100% in agreement then :sl: And no, I was not scrutizing the rational, as I said, all ideas of higher morals or ideologies contain a 'God says' when stripped down, they simply choose to call their god by a different name.

 

Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining. :sl:

 

PUHLEEEEEZE! You think that all music which uses instruments except the Daff (sp?) is haram, and even purely vocal or vocal and Daff music might be haram.

 

Narrated Abu 'Amir or Abu Malik Al-Ash'ari that he heard the Prophet saying, "From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful..." [bukhari Volume 7, Book 69, Number 494v]

 

why is the piano forbidden in Islam', or the flute or the triangle or the kazoo or the symphony orchestra.

 

If anything is unlawful in Islam, it is because God forbids it.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But unfortunately you don't have a system whereby Muslims can agree on what god permits or forbids. Much like the current Christian debate over the permissiblity of homosexual bishops. Some say one thing based on the best theology, others say another, also based on the best theology.

 

It's obvious that much religious law is really human law, flawed and changeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But unfortunately you don't have a system whereby Muslims can agree on what god permits or forbids. Much like the current Christian debate over the permissiblity of homosexual bishops. Some say one thing based on the best theology, others say another, also based on the best theology.

 

It's obvious that much religious law is really human law, flawed and changeable.

 

We have just explained to you what is forbidden and what is not and all you come up with is this?

 

The Prophet(pbuh) made a prophecy in which he said that people among his Ummah will make musical instruments lawful, but whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you've explained your opinion of what is forbidden. Many Muslims are of the opinion that musical instruments are not haram. Both you and they base your opinions on the arguments of scholars, who differ on this and other things. How else could sects arise? Which sect is right? Another matter of opinion.

 

Layna said she agrees to disagree with Muslims who hold opposing views. How about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you've explained your opinion of what is forbidden. Many Muslims are of the opinion that musical instruments are not haram. Both you and they base your opinions on the arguments of scholars, who differ on this and other things. How else could sects arise? Which sect is right? Another matter of opinion.

 

That's because those scholars didn't use the Sunnah(Prophetic tradition). They only gave their opinion which was backed by almost zero proof. Islam is based on the Prophetic tradition, we don't care about a scholar's opinion unless it's backed up with evidence.

 

Layna said she agrees to disagree with Muslims who hold opposing views. How about you?

 

I also agree to disagree, but the matter about music is clear though. I can't force people to change their views.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Layna said she agrees to disagree with Muslims who hold opposing views. How about you?

 

Not only do I disagree with them, but I have a Hadith saying that, one day, THEY will try to make music lawful. The prediction doesn't get any more clear.

 

But unfortunately you don't have a system whereby Muslims can agree on what god permits or forbids. Much like the current Christian debate over the permissiblity of homosexual bishops. Some say one thing based on the best theology, others say another, also based on the best theology.

 

All 4 schools of thought, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, and Hanafi all agree that music is haraam based on the Hadiths. So yes, there is a system, but some people choose to ignore it.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Islam is based on the Prophetic tradition, we don't care about a scholar's opinion unless it's backed up with evidence.

 

I know that you require 'evidence' and haven't suggested otherwise. It isn't the scholar's opinion I'm talking about, it's the way non-scholars decide which scholars to believe. They choose the one who, in their opinion, provides the best/most evidence, right?

 

People disagree over which scholars have proven their case (you flatly state that Islam forbids musical instruments but that isn't the case; it's a question under discussion) and there isn't a system to enable definitive rulings to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that you require 'evidence' and haven't suggested otherwise. It isn't the scholar's opinion I'm talking about, it's the way non-scholars decide which scholars to believe. They choose the one who, in their opinion, provides the best/most evidence, right?

 

Those who deny that music is unlawful don't look at the whole evidence. No need to discuss with a person who accepts only the evidence he likes and ignores the rest.

 

People disagree over which scholars have proven their case (you flatly state that Islam forbids musical instruments but that isn't the case; it's a question under discussion) and there isn't a system to enable definitive rulings to be made.

 

There is. Don't talk about something of which you have no knowledge, you'll get exposed in a second. As sister Layna said all the four Islamic schools of though forbid music, that's 1400 years of classical scholarship. Yes, there is a system which enables to make definitive rulings, take a look at ALL the evidence then make a judgement.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, if there were definitive rulings there would be no disputes between scholars and no sects. At best you're arguing for a sort of democracy: "most scholars think X, so X must be the right answer" or "I can quote more verses than you".

 

Slightly off topic, how would you criticize the fatwah on music by Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut? There's a post describing it (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?s=&sh...st&p=319059"]here.[/url]

 

Also off topic, but how would differences of scholalry opinion be resolved in a Caliphate? does the sect of the Caliph dictate the ruling opinion? What if there was a Shia Caliph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also off topic, but how would differences of scholalry opinion be resolved in a Caliphate? does the sect of the Caliph dictate the ruling opinion? What if there was a Shia Caliph?

 

Firstly, sects are not allowed in Islam. Anyone who claims to follow a sect is already misguided. Period.

 

Secondly, the right path of Islam IS clear for anyone seeks it. There will always be those who try to mislead others for petty reasons, or those who follow them out of ignorance.

 

"(Allah says)"And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allaah (i.e., this Qur'aan), and be not divided among yourselves." [3:103]

 

The Messenger of Allaah said: "I counsel you to have Taqwaa of Allaah and to hear and obey, even if an Abyssinian slave were to command you. For, verily, whoever amongst you lives (to grown old), he will see many differences. So stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided khaleefahs. Cling tightly onto it and hold onto it with your molar teeth. And beware of newly invented matters. For, indeed, every newly invented matter is an innovation, and every innovation is a thing that leads astray, and everything that leads astray is in the Hellfire. [Abu Dawood]

 

"The Jews divided into seventy-one sects and the Christians divided into seventy-two sects. My Ummah will divide into seventy-three different sects, all of which will be in the Fire except one: Those who are on the like of what I and my Companions are on at this time." [At-Tirmidhi]

 

Anyone who claims to follow a path different from that of the sunnah of the prophet, and anyone who spends his time trying to refute other people and "expose" them as liars, is misguided.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, if there were definitive rulings there would be no disputes between scholars and no sects. At best you're arguing for a sort of democracy: "most scholars think X, so X must be the right answer" or "I can quote more verses than you".

 

There are definitive rulings, you don't just know about them. We don't care about sects and thousands of different opinions unless they are backed with proof. A sort of democracy in this case is good because the majority of the qualified people can give you the best answer, plus quoting more evidence is the best, since we are talking about Islam.

 

Your reasoning is bad because the reason why the difference of opinion arises is because some people don't look at the whole evidence. When a difference of opinion arrises because of ignorance then this can't be used as proof to back your statement that there is no definitive ruling.

 

Slightly off topic, how would you criticize the fatwah on music by Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut? There's a post describing it (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?s=&sh...st&p=319059"]here.[/url]

 

Basically the heavy evidence from the Sunnah is ignored, therefore we are not interested. It's like if a scholar came and said that murder was lawful based on his own reasoning, but the evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah negates it, then we wouldn't be interested. I know that the example was a bit extreme, but sometimes you have to use these sort of examples.

 

Also off topic, but how would differences of scholalry opinion be resolved in a Caliphate? does the sect of the Caliph dictate the ruling opinion? What if there was a Shia Caliph?

 

Anything that comes from the 4 schools of thought would be acceptable, that is the position of Ahl ul Sunnah wa'l Jam'ah. If there was a Shia Caliphate, I don't really know, but I don't expect their rule to be any different from the Sunni rule. (Of course there'd probably be minor differences, but they'd really be non-issues).

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically the heavy evidence from the Sunnah is ignored, therefore we are not interested.

 

Who is "we"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is "we"?

 

We, the people who depend on concrete proof based on Hadiths and the Qur'an.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It occurs to me that if a Caliphate had been instituted in the 1960s, there's a good chance that the choice of Caliph would have been the head of the most prestigious Islamic university in the world. That is, Shaykh Mamud Shaltut. Your Caliph would have considered that music was permissable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious authorities like scholars aren't usually Caliphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It occurs to me that if a Caliphate had been instituted in the 1960s, there's a good chance that the choice of Caliph would have been the head of the most prestigious Islamic university in the world. That is, Shaykh Mamud Shaltut. Your Caliph would have considered that music was permissable.

 

He wouldn't have gotten away with making new laws for Islam.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. He was a scholar and thus entitled to 'make laws' just as all scholars do when they pass judgement on the evidence.

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  

×