Things in Islam I am curious about...

[Grace Seeker]

the prophet Abraham for example never committed a sin, nor did Jesus and Mohammad, most prophets never did sin at that, not according to Islamic belief atleast.

Never ever? Or never commited some big sin like shirk?

Are you suggesting that even in their childhood they never had a fight with anyone? Never covetted things that were not theirs, saying things like "I want that" or threw a childlike tantrum when they couldn't have it? Never lusted after a woman in their teen years? Never got angry with another person who opposed them?

Or are all those things that they likely did, but Muslims overlook them as not being sins in the case of the prophets (or perhaps anyone else as well)?

 

[YusufNoor]

Never ever? Or never commited some big sin like shirk?

Are you suggesting that even in their childhood they never had a fight with anyone? Never covetted things that were not theirs, saying things like "I want that" or threw a childlike tantrum when they couldn't have it? Never lusted after a woman in their teen years? Never got angry with another person who opposed them?

Or are all those things that they likely did, but Muslims overlook them as not being sins in the case of the prophets (or perhaps anyone else as well)?

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,


are you claiming that your Jesus Christ did all of those things?

 

[Grace Seeker]

are you claiming that your Jesus Christ did all of those things?

No. But what I claim for Christ as a Christian is rather irrelevant to understanding Islamic theology.

I understood that Muslims see all of their prophets as simple mortal humans. And, if I accept Malaikah's statement as being true, "the Prophet pbuh said that every person sins," then that would include the prophets (even Jesus and Muhammad, pbut) as well. Would it not?

But I have also seen in other threads that Muslims don't consider all things that Christians would call sin to be egregious enough to be considered an actual sin. Some things are looked upon more like a mistake that is somehow less than a sin. I'm asking questions. Trying to learn how Muslims think about these things is all.

How am I to understand these verses if Muhammad didn't at some point in his life sin?

PICKTHAL: Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin, and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours. (40:55)

PICKTHAL: So know (O Muhammad) that there is no Allah save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women. Allah knoweth (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest. (47:19)

 

[Grace Seeker]

I almost dread bringing this up again. After all, when I started this thread, I thought asking a question about music was a safe non-inflammatory way to start the thread. Little did I know. But I have learned.

So, why am I willing to introduce the subject of music to it again? Because many of those who have responded have done so in a way that rather than simply say it is an act of obedience, have tried to explain, even justify their understanding of the prohibition against music that involves instruments. That reasoning has often gone like a syllogism:

1) western music is often about violence and promiscuous sex
2) violence and promoiscous sex are bad
3) therefore western music is bad


that syllogism is usually followed by another

1) western music is bad
2) western music is usually produced by instruments other than the duff and human voice
3) therefore instruments other than the duff and human voice are bad


And then there is also the syllogism

1) western music is bad and encourages one to do bad things
2) music plays on the emotions making ideas easier to accept
3) western music is usually produced by instruments
4) therefore music produce by instruments is bad, because it leads one to do bad things as the music plays on one's emotions



Well, hopefully, one can see that those logic arguments all are guilty of making a judgment of the whole from a small part.

Yes, music can play on the emotions.
Yes, western music is often produced by instruments.
But this doesn't mean that it is going to produce a message that is bad or lead one to do bad things. (Maybe it is bad simply because Allah said so, but don't give me these illogical arguments that if it is western instrumental music, it is therefore automatically a given that it is going to enoucrage people to do bad things.) I submit to you a music video that throws the lie on that argument.


(Caution: it is a music video, don't click on the link if you will be offended. But, mods, I am hoping that given that I have provided this warning that you won't feel the need to delete, please.)


Let There Be Peace On Earth, sung by The Choirboys with piano accompianment


Seems to me there is a message in that music that is not only good, but that the whole world, everyone of us (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and the non-religious alike), need to hear. If music is the means to get that through to one's emotional core where values are formed and decisions are made, then so much the better.

Yes, some music is dirty. Yes, some music is trash. Yes, some music leads to people doing bad things and glorifies unrighteous behavior. The same is true of some poety, some prose, in other words the same is true of some non-instrumental means of communicating messages. Let's not throw out the music with the bad messages any more than we throw out the baby with the bathwater. Or if one is going to, come up with a better reason than the illogical arguments that have been given thus far.

 

[Uthman]

I think a lot of Muslims fail to acknowledge and communicate the fact that there is a difference of opinion amongst the scholars as to whether musical instruments are haraam. Personally, based on the evidence, I am of the opinion that they are haraam but I feel the need to make it clear that there is a difference of opinion nonetheless.

My personal choice not to listen to musical instruments is purely an act of obedience, since as far as I'm aware, neither Allah nor his messenger provided a reason for the prohibition. When it comes to Islam, I tend to close my intelligence and submit wholly to the will of Allah. That can be a very peaceful thing to do.

Apologies if I am repeating what has already been said before.

 

[Muhaba]

Music is forbidden in Islam simply because God says it is. but now we can see that there are harmful effects in music, even seemingly innocent songs sung to music may raise emotions in people and may cause them to do lewd behavior.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Music is forbidden in Islam simply because God says it is. but now we can see that there are harmful effects in music, even seemingly innocent songs sung to music may raise emotions in people and may cause them to do lewd behavior.

If something is innocent, it is innocent. I don't think that the song I linked to above is going to be the reason anyone engages in lewd behavior. If after listening to that song someone does something lewd, I submit to you that they were predisposed to it as a result of something else, and the presence of that song was merely coincidental to it. Might it not have been the book they read, the movie they saw, or even the sandwich they ate that was the precipitating factor?

No doubt some music can lead to lewd behavior, but I think it is a stretch to say that such activity justifies the prohibition. If that was legitimate rationale, why are there not similar prohibitions against books, magazine, movies that likewise cause people to do lewd behavior?

I can understand Osman's response that simply says that it is because Allah said so, and that's good enough for him. He doesn't need to justify it beyond that. To say, Allah said so, and here is a reason that justifies Allah's command is demeaning to Allah, who should be submitted to simply because he is Allah.

Those who seek to provide justifications for Allah's actions seem to me to set themselves up as Allah's protector, and I doubt that he needs any such protection, especially when the arguments fail to be convincing. If "music may raise emotions in people and may cause them to do lewd behavior" is a legitimate reason for calling it haraam, then should not that same reasoning be applied to every other thing that may raise emotions in people can cause them to do lewd behavior? And it simply isn't.

 

[Muhaba]

Never ever? Or never commited some big sin like shirk?

Are you suggesting that even in their childhood they never had a fight with anyone? Never covetted things that were not theirs, saying things like "I want that" or threw a childlike tantrum when they couldn't have it? Never lusted after a woman in their teen years? Never got angry with another person who opposed them?

Or are all those things that they likely did, but Muslims overlook them as not being sins in the case of the prophets (or perhaps anyone else as well)?

Before prophethood, prophet Moses hit a man on behalf of an israelite who was arguing with him and the man died. Prophet Moses didn't mean to kill the man but he had struck him. When Prophet Abraham saw a star, moon, and sun, he called each of them god but when each of them disappeared, he realized that none of them is God; that there is only one God and He is the creator of all these things. But once they became Messengers of God, they never disobeyed God knowingly nor did they sin.

 

[islamlover_girl]

I think a lot of Muslims fail to acknowledge and communicate the fact that there is a difference of opinion amongst the scholars as to whether musical instruments are haraam.

Yes there is a difference of opinion amongst the scholars, but if we r talking about chant or poetry ( without music except duff ) and don`t contain any bad words or meanings that is pure halal ,one of alsahaba (prophet companions) was a poem his name is Hassan Ibn Thabet .
Also if we r talking about music which contains any bad or sexual meanings that s pure haram.
The difference of opinion is when the song is respectable ,don`t contain any bad meanings but produced by instruments other than the duff and human voice, when there is a difference of opinion amongst the scholars muslim have to ask his heart,and its better to do what is more far from haram.

Difference of opinion amongst the scholars is due to diffrence in interpretation the holly quran and hadithes .

 

[Grace Seeker]

Before prophethood, prophet Moses hit a man on behalf of an israelite who was arguing with him and the man died. Prophet Moses didn't mean to kill the man but he had struck him. When Prophet Abraham saw a star, moon, and sun, he called each of them god but when each of them disappeared, he realized that none of them is God; that there is only one God and He is the creator of all these things. But once they became Messengers of God, they never disobeyed God knowingly nor did they sin.

So I take it that you would disagree with Alcurad's assessment:

the prophet Abraham for example never committed a sin, nor did Jesus and Mohammad, most prophets never did sin at that, not according to Islamic belief atleast.

You would not say never ever. You would only say not after they became prophets.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Also if we r talking about music which contains any bad or sexual meanings that s pure haram.

But in this case it is still haraam even without any music. The bad or sexual meanings themselves are sufficient to classify it as haraam. In other words, it's "haraamness" is not dependent simply on it being music.

 

[alcurad]

So I take it that you would disagree with Alcurad's assessment:

You would not say never ever. You would only say not after they became prophets.

no, not never ever, also, prophets are also humans, and prone to sin, only they undergo the trials of prophet hood then achieve prophetic status.

and no, music is not explicitly forbidden except-to an extent- in a single narration/hadeeth, the only one that actually could be used as evidence for forbidding it, and there it is condemned in accompanying drunkenness and lewd behavior.
the doctrine of forbidding music is Not based on any strong set of evidence, all the verses/narrations are general, or are not the prophet's words rather someone else's. actually some point to the Allowance of music rather than the opposite.

we as muslims need to remember that no matter how highly someone is held, they are Not to be equivalent to the prophet in any regard, let alone issuing commands and prohibitions.

 

[islamlover_girl]

But in this case it is still haraam even without any music. The bad or sexual meanings themselves are sufficient to classify it as haraam. In other words, it's "haraamness" is not dependent simply on it being music.

Yes in this case it is still haraam even without any music.
And as I told u before if a song (with music)contains only good meanings there is a difference of opinion amongst the scholars if it is halal or haram, and it`s better to choose the more safe opinion .

 

[alcurad]

forbidding that which is allowed, allowing that which is forbidden are both major sins.
we should follow what is more correct in regards to evidence, regardless of how pious the other option sounds. now of course, something being allowed does not you have to do it.

 

[islamlover_girl]

There is a hadith told us that (maazef) is haram.Some see that (maazef) means any place contains music prodused by instruments and some see that it means only a place which contains dance and win with the music.There is a difference of openion amongst the scholars in this issue due to difference of interpretation of the the hadith and quran .We must understand that threre is difference of openion in many issues in Islam thats not a bad thing ,it happens since the time of prophet Mohammed pbuh .Once he asked alsahaba(his companions) to pray Alasr prayer in a place called ( Bani qariza )where they were traveling to,The time of Alasr prayer was about to end so some of alsahaba prayed Alasr before reaching ( Bani qariza ) that they think that the words of prophet Mohammed pbuh means to hurry up and some prayed it after its time but in ( Bani qariza ),when prophet Mohammed was told about this he said that both of them are right.Diffrence of openions amongst the scholars happens a lot in Islam and person in this case have to ask his heart , all openions( of official religious leaders) r right.

 

[alcurad]

that particular hadeeth is mostly weak:

"There is a general rule in Shariah that states that everything is lawful unless proven unlawful. There is not substantial proof in this hadîths because of the following reasons:

Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanuti stated: "The Hadith referred to in saying that it is haram as narrated by al Bukhari is not fulfilling the requirements of the Sahih in al Bukhari's collection. 1) Al Bukhari in Hadith al Ma'azif himself narrated the Hadith to be of a broken chain of narrators in which there is a gap between al Bukhari and the second narrator, so he drops the first narrator in his chain. That is called Mu'allaq.

Some scholars tried to connect the chain through other means like whan ibn Hajar did in his dissertation (connecting what is disconnected) in which he connected the Isnad of this Hadith. But still, one of the main narrators whose name is Hisham ibn Ammar as profiled in Tahthib at-Tahthib by ibn Hajar is not reliable enough for some scholars to be a source of a narration that depends on somebody like him. 2) Even when we said the Hadith is Sahih, there are questions that would emerge when we study the version of the Hadith when it says, "People will make adultery, pure silk, liquor and Ma'azif into Halal." We know that adultery is Haram by another proof and it is a unanimous Hukum. Pure silk is not of consensus Hukum. If a Muslim says Zina is Halal deliberately, then they are considered a kafir. However, if a Muslim says pure silk is not Haram, he is not a kafir.

We know that liquor is Haram as it is in the Qur'an, but where do we find an authentic hadith or Qur'an to tell us that Ma'azif are Haram other than this source. The last point is to get the clear meaning of Ma'azif in arabic dictionaries because there are more than one meaning for Ma'azif. It is acceptable for a Muslim to hear somebody says Makruh but not Haram because Haram is in need of clear-cut meaning and certain narration."

http://www.mynaraps.com/music.htm

 

[islamlover_girl]

This words r from the link u added

Argument #4:
All of the schools of thought including Maliki, Shafii, Hanbali and Hanafi say that music is Haram

Response:
Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanuti stated:

"The majority of schools say music is haram, but there are some other reliable schools that say it is halal."

We must look at the evidence provided by all scholars and then take into consideration what the music is being used for.

That`s what I mean by the word difference in opinions amongst the scholars.
Maliki, Shafii, Hanbali and Hanafi(which r the best scholars known in Islam) say that music is Haram, otheres say that it`s halal .

 

[Grace Seeker]

If something is either halal or haraam in Islam today, would it be reasonable to assume that it has always been that way, even in the Islam taught by prophets before Muhammad?

 

[alcurad]

influence from other beliefs/religions is one of the major reason why ^that is not true always, we don't have any united authority from which matters are defined as halal/haram, although some attempts have been made.

it really depends on the evidence brought forth, so most of the matters that are considered halal/haram are usually considered so in the qur'an and the sunnah, but there have been matters in which debates have been ongoing for centuries, with no clear culmination either way-most of the arguing was regurgitating as it were-, this was on the other hand due to differences in what was indeed a commandment/prohibition, or simply a cultural practice etc.

bear in mind that what we start with is that any matter/practice not explicitly forbidden is halal, that is to say, all actions/etc are allowed except for the ones which are restricted. there is a narration of the prophet that goes:

"The halal is that which Allah has made lawful in His Book and haram is that which He has forbidden, and that concerning which He is silent He has permitted as a favour to you."
(Reported in Al-Hakim, classified as sahih (sound), and quoted by al-Bazzar).(Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah).

"Allah has prescribed certain obligations for you, so do not neglect them; He has defined certain limits, so do not transgress them; He has prohibited certain things, so do not do them; and He has kept silent concerning other things out of mercy for you and not because of forgetfulness, so do not ask questions concerning them."
(Daraqutni)

also, much depends on the intention, even a 'normal' action or utterance that was done/said with a bad intention it is forbidden.

 

[YusufNoor]

If something is either halal or haraam in Islam today, would it be reasonable to assume that it has always been that way, even in the Islam taught by prophets before Muhammad?

no!