Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[A m e n r i a]

This thread is wild. You know when I said Muhammad was morally inferior to Jesus (so why did Allah make Muhammad his final prophet and not the morally superior Jesus). Yeah. Jesus didn’t own slaves. Didn’t send armies to retaliate.

How can it not be obvious here who should actually be emulated.

Didn't I tell you there's nothing morally wrong with slavery? Still not supporting or condoning it, mind you, but just saying it's not exactly a sin. As for why, who knows?

I see, so the law of Caesar is still required, but not the law of God.

In the sense that God appoints them as leaders of secular governments. The only caveat is if following the law of Caesar means disobeying God, like worshipping Caesar as a god for example.

Mind explaining how this works? In monarchies, it's pretty much a given, but what about democracies, where the leader is elected and not appointed by God? Or oligarchies, or other forms of government for that matter. Maybe I should ask in the CDT, idk

I see so He no longer considers laws important as per your doctrine?

The best that I can put it is that he places more importance on the spirit of the law rather than the letter.

What are the greatest commandments?
1. Love God
2. Love your neighbor as you love yourself

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments (Matthew 22:36-40). The Old Testament law has three parts.
1. Ceremonial (no longer observed by Christians because they believe Jesus fulfilled it)
2. Civil (applies to the nation of Israel as it existed in the Old Testament)
3. Moral (the Ten Commandments, timeless and universal)

In Islam, how similar are the delineations of God's commands and laws? Which ones apply only to, say, Arabia during Muhammad's time? Which ones would be more like the Ten Commandments?

This is actually an interesting question and subject of debate even within Muslims. Modernists like myself and Dowasek, for example, think music is fine. Some extremist fringe groups think it should be outlawed. People can agree on one thing and completely disagree on another.

[Ansarullah]

Modernists like myself and Dowasek, for example, think music is fine.

"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."

[Washington Resistance Army]

Casual reminder that being against musical instruments is a massive blow to any claims of divine revelation given all we've learned about how universal and vital to human evolution the concept of music was. Someone receiving knowledge from the divine should have known all this and not gotten it entirely incorrect.

[Ansarullah]

we've learned about how universal and vital to human evolution the concept of music was.

1: Whether or not it helped us doesn't matter.
2: "vital to human evolution" how?
3: You do realize that the prohibition on music is a new one, right? Not every Prophet preached the exact same laws. They all preached monotheism and the core ideals of Islam, but exact laws were not the exact same.

[Kumarinadu]

Casual reminder that being against musical instruments is a massive blow to any claims of divine revelation given all we've learned about how universal and vital to human evolution the concept of music was. Someone receiving knowledge from the divine should have known all this and not gotten it entirely incorrect.

They listen to music. Nasheeds are music, its musical instruments that you’re not supposed to use. And even then there are exceptions like the daff. But yeah it’s a weird rule.

[Washington Resistance Army]

we've learned about how universal and vital to human evolution the concept of music was.

1: Whether or not it helped us doesn't matter.

But it does, there's a strong argument to be made we would not be the same species we are today if we never started making music.

2: "vital to human evolution" how?

It's pretty widely accepted that early singing and musical rhythms predate our ability to speak (by a very wide margin even, hominids a million years ago lacked the vocal tracts to fully speak like we do but they were advanced enough to make rhythmic noise and thus music) and the need to remember tune and sound might have spurred on increases in hominid intelligence and growth of the brain. This can be seen even today, humans remember music better than most anything else. I can perfectly recite songs I haven't listened to in over half a decade simply because they're music.

3: You do realize that the prohibition on music is a new one, right? Not every Prophet preached the exact same laws. They all preached monotheism and the core ideals of Islam, but exact laws were not the exact same.

Yes, and it's a massive blow to that Prophets claims of legitimacy. Allah by his very nature is all powerful and all knowing so why would he create a world where music is vital to the very essence of humankind only to then send a Prophet saying it's bad? It's contradictory and falls apart when you think critically about it with the only answer being that Muhammad simply didn't know the history or importance of it because he didn't actually have divine revelation.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Well, from a secular perspective...

The Old Testament is the culmination of both written and oral traditions originating from early agrarian tribal societies of the Levant, while the Quran was written in the disorganised medieval tribal societies of Arabia.

The New Testament, between those two, is allegedly an account of teachings made at the height of Pax Romana and of classical imperialism. It was written in an orderly, law-abiding society of a kind that ancient Judea and medieval Arabia very much were not.

From a purely historical context it is not difficult to see why Jesus is a more open, peaceful, and progressive (in the 21st Century sense of that term) figure than either the Old Testament God or Mohammed the Prophet.

[A m e n r i a]

Modernists like myself and Dowasek, for example, think music is fine.

"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."

Yes, this hadits is what the fundamentalists like to fall back on when haramizing music.

1: Whether or not it helped us doesn't matter.

But it does, there's a strong argument to be made we would not be the same species we are today if we never started making music.

2: "vital to human evolution" how?

It's pretty widely accepted that early singing and musical rhythms predate our ability to speak (by a very wide margin even, hominids a million years ago lacked the vocal tracts to fully speak like we do but they were advanced enough to make rhythmic noise and thus music) and the need to remember tune and sound might have spurred on increases in hominid intelligence and growth of the brain. This can be seen even today, humans remember music better than most anything else. I can perfectly recite songs I haven't listened to in over half a decade simply because they're music.

3: You do realize that the prohibition on music is a new one, right? Not every Prophet preached the exact same laws. They all preached monotheism and the core ideals of Islam, but exact laws were not the exact same.

Yes, and it's a massive blow to that Prophets claims of legitimacy. Allah by his very nature is all powerful and all knowing so why would he create a world where music is vital to the very essence of humankind only to then send a Prophet saying it's bad? It's contradictory and falls apart when you think critically about it with the only answer being that Muhammad simply didn't know the history or importance of it because he didn't actually have divine revelation.

The last point hits the nail right in the head. In addition, since the voice of the heart is the voice of God, it would be nonsensical to forbid expression, which is what music's for.

[Insaanistan]

Music itself is not haram. Much of the music we hear today, however, is.

[Kahvran]

Music itself is not haram. Much of the music we hear today, however, is.

Uh oh, these hip-hop music with all the lyrics just talking about sex, ass, drugs, and twerks.

Anyways, forbidding music sounds ridiculous even for me as a Muslim. Some forms of dhikr and praises tend to be sung in a rhythm akin to something we consider a music.

[Insaanistan]

Music itself is not haram. Much of the music we hear today, however, is.

Uh oh, these hip-hop music with all the lyrics just talking about sex, ass, drugs, and twerks.

Anyways, forbidding music sounds ridiculous even for me as a Muslim. Some forms of dhikr and praises tend to be sung in a rhythm akin to something we consider a music.

This is quite true, though we must be careful not to refer to them as music.
Nonetheless, music remains permissible, and an integral part of every culture on earth.
Even the Taliban listen to music, despite forbidding people from doing so.

[Kahvran]

Yeah. My music teacher, who is also a Muslim, once said that "it is okay to play music and sing a song as passionate as you want, but take a break when it's the time of prayer".

[Insaanistan]

Yeah. My music teacher, who is also a Muslim, once said that "it is okay to play music and sing a song as passionate as you want, but take a break when it's the time of prayer".

MashâAllah!

[Lower Nubia]

Big oof.



Big problem with this one. First, it confuses the intentional moral relativism of Ancient Israel with the moral Absolutism of Christ's incarnation. Two, as Christ is God, we're all slaves anyway because "Potter and pot". No man can own another, Christ, as a man, owned nobody. Christ, as God, owns everyone.

Trying to pretend God's revelation was purely cultural relativism is a hard case to prove because the people of Israel were punished over and over for disobeying it.

The second point is ill-considered. By the same reasoning no man can rule because we're all subjects of God

Yes, it was cultural revisionism. Breaking the law requires punishment, that doesn’t mean it isn’t relativistic. It’s very simple, kingdoms can’t be moral absolutes because countries need to be pragmatic; fight battles, declare wars, execute for treason, spy for information, etc… etc… countries demand moral relativism as the result of the situation, now put that situation in the ANE, one of the most difficult periods to survive in human history and it’s not difficult for it to be dictated by moral relativism. By the time of Christ the Roman Empire had eliminated the absolute need of henotheism, and the moral absolute of Christ was possible without requiring the moral grey of countries.

[Lower Nubia]

This thread is wild. You know when I said Muhammad was morally inferior to Jesus (so why did Allah make Muhammad his final prophet and not the morally superior Jesus). Yeah. Jesus didn’t own slaves. Didn’t send armies to retaliate.

How can it not be obvious here who should actually be emulated.

Didn't I tell you there's nothing morally wrong with slavery? Still not supporting or condoning it, mind you, but just saying it's not exactly a sin. As for why, who knows?

The only person that can own slaves is God, because we’re logically slaves to him anyway. This is why Israel could have them, because the Imago Dei extension through Israel is the concept in my first sentence. Israel was subsumed in Christ so it no longer extended to a nation or people who were the “actors of God’s Will”, now God, through Christ’s death and resurrection, acts directly in the sacraments.

[Chess Reloaded]

@WRA

The theory of evolution as presented by scientists says it's not possible to breed zebras to be domesticated, but given enough time you could breed human beings out of them. Even if we take the doctrine at face value, your hot take on music doesn't hold up because it appeals to Lamarckism, and that's not how scientists believe evolution works. It's also just a poor point in general, if humanity gained its current state because some tribes developed greater intelligence from figuring out how to eradicate others, developing weapons and tactics to do so, and then propagated their genes by rape, according to your faulty appeal, genocide and rape become moral imperatives. It just doesn't hold up.

[A m e n r i a]

Yeah. My music teacher, who is also a Muslim, once said that "it is okay to play music and sing a song as passionate as you want, but take a break when it's the time of prayer".

A reasonable stance we can all agree on.

Didn't I tell you there's nothing morally wrong with slavery? Still not supporting or condoning it, mind you, but just saying it's not exactly a sin. As for why, who knows?

The only person that can own slaves is God, because we’re logically slaves to him anyway. This is why Israel could have them, because the Imago Dei extension through Israel is the concept in my first sentence. Israel was subsumed in Christ so it no longer extended to a nation or people who were the “actors of God’s Will”, now God, through Christ’s death and resurrection, acts directly in the sacraments.

Not according to the big guy eldritch entity Himself, but I get where you're coming from.

[Diarcesia]

In the sense that God appoints them as leaders of secular governments. The only caveat is if following the law of Caesar means disobeying God, like worshipping Caesar as a god for example.

Mind explaining how this works? In monarchies, it's pretty much a given, but what about democracies, where the leader is elected and not appointed by God? Or oligarchies, or other forms of government for that matter. Maybe I should ask in the CDT, idk

Broadly speaking, "appointed by God" here means that a certain person becoming the leader of a country is not an accident. God let it happen as part of his will and plan.

[Ansarullah]

Yes, this hadits is what the fundamentalists like to fall back on when haramizing music.

Not an argument against it. I don't question what the Prophet (sallahu alaihi wasallam) says.
If the Hadith is unreliable, prove it.

Yes, and it's a massive blow to that Prophets claims of legitimacy. Allah by his very nature is all powerful and all knowing so why would he create a world where music is vital to the very essence of humankind only to then send a Prophet saying it's bad? It's contradictory and falls apart when you think critically about it with the only answer being that Muhammad simply didn't know the history or importance of it because he didn't actually have divine revelation.

WAS vital. Music in the time of Nabi (sallahu alaihi wasallam) was degenerate and music continues to be so. It is prohibited because if Muslims listen to music, we are exposing ourselves to degeneracy.

[The Alma Mater]

It is prohibited because if Muslims listen to music, we are exposing ourselves to degeneracy.

So ? Are muslims so weak that they cannot resist ?

[Ansarullah]

So ? Are muslims so weak that they cannot resist ?

?

[Diarcesia]

So ? Are muslims so weak that they cannot resist ?

?

I guess Alma Mater is asking if being tempted is the same as committing the sin.

[Ansarullah]

being tempted is the same as committing the sin.

Doesn't matter. You shouldn't be exposing yourself to it at all.

[Diarcesia]

being tempted is the same as committing the sin.

Doesn't matter. You shouldn't be exposing yourself to it at all.

One thing to consider is not everyone is tempted by the same things. Blanket prohibitions on things can make it look more like a list of "things X scholar gets turned on".

[Ansarullah]

One thing to consider is not everyone is tempted by the same things

80% of modern music will encourage you to sin in some way. It's not always sexual. For example, the music I hear on the radio talks about drinking or dancing with half-naked girls, the next station over can talk about how hot someone else's girlfriend is, and so on. It's varied enough that music will tempt ANYONE to sin.