DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**eocavrWM** · 09-04-2012, 03:22 AM

Grow up - are you seriously saying that listening to music is the same as zina? What's wrong with you brother? Which major scholar in our time from the reformist or liberal trends has deemed zina or gambling halal? What corrupt governments choose to do or military autocrats acting in the name of ''secularism'' do has no bearing or reflection on this discussion.

Why are you creating straw men? Listening to music is not a definitive issue - it is one where there is ample evidence of scholarly disagreement and controversy. It is best to leave it at that instead of acting like a playground bully. Your post is full of presenting false choices (its either my way or the highway sort of mentality - very ugly), self-righteousness and a horrible lack of knowledge about the scholarly discussion about music.

This sort of religious blackmail will not portray Islam has having a deep and meaningful alternative on how to live the good life. What type of religious discourse does not even tolerate a difference of opinion?

Shaykh Qaradawi is not ''some guy'' - he has been cited by the great scholar of our time Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah as one of the ''Imams of the Muslims'' of this time.

The answer brother Auzeer gave is actually close to the fatwa that Shaykh Qaradawi issued (music is permissible but you must be a responsible and conscientious consumer of music) - so don't vent your frustrations on him - if you have an issue with this opinion take it up with Shaykh Qaradawi who in our age is the most influential scholar and jurist to hold such an opinion. If not I suggest you shut your mouth and adopt that most wonderful of injunctions - live and let live within the wonderfully expansive boundaries of f scholarly difference in opinion.

So often people don't have a clue about ijma - ijma isn't the idea that what the opinion of the majority of jurists or schools of law becomes religiously binding - it is the idea that the UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT of all scholars and schools of law and jurists becomes religiously binding. Very simple example is the following - murder is forbidden - there can be no disagreement about this matter. Another simple matter is respecting one's parents - there can be no disagreement about this matter. Furthermore, praying 5 times a day is certainly a matter where there can be no disagreement. Which jurist has ever disagreed on these matters? And the brother Auzeer was not even talking about these matters! But you roped in these ridiculous examples to make his position look untenable.....

You just used extreme examples that quite frankly have never been entertained in the juristic tradition of classical Islam to make the brother look ridiculous when in actual fact you exposed your own ignorance.

For shame - what a pathetic response to what was a very genuine inquiry. The answer to the opening post is very simple - there are different opinions on this issue - please read up on all the different opinions and then recognize that all of them are LEGITIMATE (they are all recognized opinions held by jurists of high standing - far higher standing than any of us). Then choose your own path and accept to live and let live and not be self-righteous in your decision.

This goes for people who do listen to music and then frown on those who do not listen to it for religious reasons aswell - everyone should learn to accept and respect the decision their brother/sister makes - after all these are all opinion that have a basis in our jurisprudence.

My response to Auzer is not to do with the fact that there is a minority opinion that permits listening to music. It is due to the fact that this guy has said things before that are in clear contradiction with established laws. He has said that there is no need for hijab, for example. If you don't know the context, it is better to not jump the gun and make an accusatory post like the one you've made. After he posted his opinion, he made snide remarks instead of responding properly. He did not even appreciate the responses given by other brothers, instead calling them "lakeer k faqeers" and "narrow-minded".

Furthermore, who are you to say that the punishment for listening to music is not the same as zina? The fact is, we do not know the severity of punishments and we cannot simply say that this or that act is worse than the other. This is because there are many things that have been shown to be worse than zina which we would not believe if someone told us but we know they are worse since there are ahadeeth to prove their severity. For example, the lowest form of riba is worse than the worst form of zina. Backbiting is also worse than zina. So who are you to say what is or what isn't worse than listening to music? There are many people who have legitimized riba in today's time, despite knowing that it is worse than zina. Why is riba worse than zina? Many ulama have said that it may be because riba destroys societies and is seen as harmless at first glance. We can even see this with music, where people who listen to it see it as a norm and there being nothing wrong with it.

Also, I was not referring to Sh Qaradawi (Auzer did not once mention Sh Qaradawi so why on earth are you even bringing him up?) but the fact that people like Auzer like to pick and choose what they want to follow. Sh Qaradawi also says that hijab is mandatory but does Auzer believe that? Of course not (he's made this abundantly clear before). Sh Qaradawi also says that suicide bombing/martyrdom operations are permissible methods of jihaad. What would Auzer have to say to that?

Picking and choosing religious opinions to suit one's personal belief/needs/wishes is something even those who don't have a madhhab (e.g. Salafis) say is tantamount to following one's desires and following shaytaan.

As for your claim that all religious opinions are legitimate: that is extremely laughable. Majority of ulama concede differences of opinion being valid on things that are not completely set in stone, such as where to place hands in prayer, how many takbeerat there are in the Eid salahs, when to pray 'Asr, etc. but they do not concede minority opinions to be valid opinions automatically - minority opinions are judged on the legitimacy of their claim. For example, there is a minority opinion that claims that eating any food served by Christians and Jews, even if it contains pork, is permissible but of course this is rejected outright by our ulama.

A person can legitimize every single evil deed in his life by shopping around for minority opinions.

09-04-2012, 03:22 AM	#16
eocavrWM Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 520 Senior Member	Grow up - are you seriously saying that listening to music is the same as zina? What's wrong with you brother? Which major scholar in our time from the reformist or liberal trends has deemed zina or gambling halal? What corrupt governments choose to do or military autocrats acting in the name of ''secularism'' do has no bearing or reflection on this discussion. Why are you creating straw men? Listening to music is not a definitive issue - it is one where there is ample evidence of scholarly disagreement and controversy. It is best to leave it at that instead of acting like a playground bully. Your post is full of presenting false choices (its either my way or the highway sort of mentality - very ugly), self-righteousness and a horrible lack of knowledge about the scholarly discussion about music. This sort of religious blackmail will not portray Islam has having a deep and meaningful alternative on how to live the good life. What type of religious discourse does not even tolerate a difference of opinion? Shaykh Qaradawi is not ''some guy'' - he has been cited by the great scholar of our time Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah as one of the ''Imams of the Muslims'' of this time. The answer brother Auzeer gave is actually close to the fatwa that Shaykh Qaradawi issued (music is permissible but you must be a responsible and conscientious consumer of music) - so don't vent your frustrations on him - if you have an issue with this opinion take it up with Shaykh Qaradawi who in our age is the most influential scholar and jurist to hold such an opinion. If not I suggest you shut your mouth and adopt that most wonderful of injunctions - live and let live within the wonderfully expansive boundaries of f scholarly difference in opinion. So often people don't have a clue about ijma - ijma isn't the idea that what the opinion of the majority of jurists or schools of law becomes religiously binding - it is the idea that the UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT of all scholars and schools of law and jurists becomes religiously binding. Very simple example is the following - murder is forbidden - there can be no disagreement about this matter. Another simple matter is respecting one's parents - there can be no disagreement about this matter. Furthermore, praying 5 times a day is certainly a matter where there can be no disagreement. Which jurist has ever disagreed on these matters? And the brother Auzeer was not even talking about these matters! But you roped in these ridiculous examples to make his position look untenable..... You just used extreme examples that quite frankly have never been entertained in the juristic tradition of classical Islam to make the brother look ridiculous when in actual fact you exposed your own ignorance. For shame - what a pathetic response to what was a very genuine inquiry. The answer to the opening post is very simple - there are different opinions on this issue - please read up on all the different opinions and then recognize that all of them are LEGITIMATE (they are all recognized opinions held by jurists of high standing - far higher standing than any of us). Then choose your own path and accept to live and let live and not be self-righteous in your decision. This goes for people who do listen to music and then frown on those who do not listen to it for religious reasons aswell - everyone should learn to accept and respect the decision their brother/sister makes - after all these are all opinion that have a basis in our jurisprudence. My response to Auzer is not to do with the fact that there is a minority opinion that permits listening to music. It is due to the fact that this guy has said things before that are in clear contradiction with established laws. He has said that there is no need for hijab, for example. If you don't know the context, it is better to not jump the gun and make an accusatory post like the one you've made. After he posted his opinion, he made snide remarks instead of responding properly. He did not even appreciate the responses given by other brothers, instead calling them "lakeer k faqeers" and "narrow-minded". Furthermore, who are you to say that the punishment for listening to music is not the same as zina? The fact is, we do not know the severity of punishments and we cannot simply say that this or that act is worse than the other. This is because there are many things that have been shown to be worse than zina which we would not believe if someone told us but we know they are worse since there are ahadeeth to prove their severity. For example, the lowest form of riba is worse than the worst form of zina. Backbiting is also worse than zina. So who are you to say what is or what isn't worse than listening to music? There are many people who have legitimized riba in today's time, despite knowing that it is worse than zina. Why is riba worse than zina? Many ulama have said that it may be because riba destroys societies and is seen as harmless at first glance. We can even see this with music, where people who listen to it see it as a norm and there being nothing wrong with it. Also, I was not referring to Sh Qaradawi (Auzer did not once mention Sh Qaradawi so why on earth are you even bringing him up?) but the fact that people like Auzer like to pick and choose what they want to follow. Sh Qaradawi also says that hijab is mandatory but does Auzer believe that? Of course not (he's made this abundantly clear before). Sh Qaradawi also says that suicide bombing/martyrdom operations are permissible methods of jihaad. What would Auzer have to say to that? Picking and choosing religious opinions to suit one's personal belief/needs/wishes is something even those who don't have a madhhab (e.g. Salafis) say is tantamount to following one's desires and following shaytaan. As for your claim that all religious opinions are legitimate: that is extremely laughable. Majority of ulama concede differences of opinion being valid on things that are not completely set in stone, such as where to place hands in prayer, how many takbeerat there are in the Eid salahs, when to pray 'Asr, etc. but they do not concede minority opinions to be valid opinions automatically - minority opinions are judged on the legitimacy of their claim. For example, there is a minority opinion that claims that eating any food served by Christians and Jews, even if it contains pork, is permissible but of course this is rejected outright by our ulama. A person can legitimize every single evil deed in his life by shopping around for minority opinions.
	Quote