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

**katespepach** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

No a person cannot legitimize every single evil deed by looking for minority opinions - that is absolute rubbish. Its a lazy excuse used to silence dissent. We can easily establish the severity of listening to music in comparison to zina.

Zina is a hadd offence - it is a major violation of God's natural law and the severity of that transgression is explicitly and clearly mentioned in the Quran without the need for any interpretation whatsoever. Music on the other hand is not - this is basics of Islamic fiqh 101.

There is clear differences and scholarly controversy over music. Islamic civilization produced some of the most sophisticated and refined musical theory - one can easily think of Al Andalus as an example of this.

You have no proof by virtue of UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS (not a numerical majority by absolute unanimous consensus) to suggest minority opinions are religiously inadmissible and tantamount to sinning and transgressing God's law (yes I concede sometimes following minority opinions is unwise but you cannot use a blanket statement on this regard) and you are confusing fiqh-al-aqalliyyat (the opinions that you mention such as legalizing the eating of haraam meat has only to my knowledge ever been justified on the basis of Muslims living as a minority community in a non-Muslim majority country). Disregarding the discussion on this contentious issue of fiqh - minority opinions have a valid basis in the juristic literature.

Furthermore you cast aspersions on the faith of another brother by coming out with all sorts of rubbish such along the lines of ''you place greater significance on your desires, this world instead of the Hereafter''. What need is there for this - keep your opinions to yourself on this regard.

I urge everyone to listen to this brilliant lecture by Shaykh Abdullah on Following the Mashhur:

http://www.lamppostproductions.com/?p=3727

And his paper on ijma is absolutely brilliant:

http://www.lamppostproductions.com/f...0Consensus.pdf

You are either willfully ignorant or are blind.

First of all, the punishment for zina (adultery) is stoning but that isn't found in the Qur'an, yet it is overwhelming agreed to be the punishment. On the other hand, modernists and progressives use the fact that stoning for adultery isn't mentioned in the Qur'an to say that it is not the punishment for adultery. So even that paltry example you're trying to use is inadmissible since many people have even tried to denounce it. In fact, many modernists have said that none of the hudud punishments apply to our present times, and that we must instead be more obedient to the secular, democratically selected punishments.

And you're naive to believe that "absolute unanimous consensus" even exists. Even on the most basic concepts of fiqh, there is no unanimity. Even when many classical ulama have cited consensus on an issue, there have always been detractors who have held minority opinion. As I've said, even consuming any meat from non-Muslims becomes permissible and yes, it is when one is living in a non-Muslim society - but then that is because it is nearly impossible to get haraam meat in Muslim societies (well, not anymore with the importing of haraam meat). So, if a person follows one opinion when living in the West (i.e. that all meat is permissible because one is a minority) and then another opinion is adopted when one goes to a Muslim country where haraam meat is available, is there not a clear contradiction? That is called following desires. Now, as I've mentioned before, Shaykh Qaradawi and even that Tahir ul Qadri that he linked to say that hijab is fardh, obligatory. Auzer does not believe it is necessary, that a woman wearing a shirt and trousers is wearing sufficient clothes. So why does he choose their opinion on music and make up his own ideas with regards to hijab? And he has referenced Javed Ghamdi for his support, even though that guy is no scholar.

I would not have any real issue with Auzer if he had not responded as he did (you seem to be turning a blind eye to how he has responded) and if he didn't have a history of creating controversy, even on established beliefs, such as wearing hijab. There have been many people before who have come and tried to legitimize music but none of them that I've seen would be so utterly hypocritical and fitnah-mongering.

And you're also unaware of the "diversity" of "scholarship" where it is so easy to justify any evil thing because so and so "scholar" said so. As brother Maripat has posted, a person can say, "Look at Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya); he hangs out with ghayr mahram women so it MUST be permissible."

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#24
katespepach Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 495 Senior Member	No a person cannot legitimize every single evil deed by looking for minority opinions - that is absolute rubbish. Its a lazy excuse used to silence dissent. We can easily establish the severity of listening to music in comparison to zina. Zina is a hadd offence - it is a major violation of God's natural law and the severity of that transgression is explicitly and clearly mentioned in the Quran without the need for any interpretation whatsoever. Music on the other hand is not - this is basics of Islamic fiqh 101. There is clear differences and scholarly controversy over music. Islamic civilization produced some of the most sophisticated and refined musical theory - one can easily think of Al Andalus as an example of this. You have no proof by virtue of UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS (not a numerical majority by absolute unanimous consensus) to suggest minority opinions are religiously inadmissible and tantamount to sinning and transgressing God's law (yes I concede sometimes following minority opinions is unwise but you cannot use a blanket statement on this regard) and you are confusing fiqh-al-aqalliyyat (the opinions that you mention such as legalizing the eating of haraam meat has only to my knowledge ever been justified on the basis of Muslims living as a minority community in a non-Muslim majority country). Disregarding the discussion on this contentious issue of fiqh - minority opinions have a valid basis in the juristic literature. Furthermore you cast aspersions on the faith of another brother by coming out with all sorts of rubbish such along the lines of ''you place greater significance on your desires, this world instead of the Hereafter''. What need is there for this - keep your opinions to yourself on this regard. I urge everyone to listen to this brilliant lecture by Shaykh Abdullah on Following the Mashhur: http://www.lamppostproductions.com/?p=3727 And his paper on ijma is absolutely brilliant: http://www.lamppostproductions.com/f...0Consensus.pdf You are either willfully ignorant or are blind. First of all, the punishment for zina (adultery) is stoning but that isn't found in the Qur'an, yet it is overwhelming agreed to be the punishment. On the other hand, modernists and progressives use the fact that stoning for adultery isn't mentioned in the Qur'an to say that it is not the punishment for adultery. So even that paltry example you're trying to use is inadmissible since many people have even tried to denounce it. In fact, many modernists have said that none of the hudud punishments apply to our present times, and that we must instead be more obedient to the secular, democratically selected punishments. And you're naive to believe that "absolute unanimous consensus" even exists. Even on the most basic concepts of fiqh, there is no unanimity. Even when many classical ulama have cited consensus on an issue, there have always been detractors who have held minority opinion. As I've said, even consuming any meat from non-Muslims becomes permissible and yes, it is when one is living in a non-Muslim society - but then that is because it is nearly impossible to get haraam meat in Muslim societies (well, not anymore with the importing of haraam meat). So, if a person follows one opinion when living in the West (i.e. that all meat is permissible because one is a minority) and then another opinion is adopted when one goes to a Muslim country where haraam meat is available, is there not a clear contradiction? That is called following desires. Now, as I've mentioned before, Shaykh Qaradawi and even that Tahir ul Qadri that he linked to say that hijab is fardh, obligatory. Auzer does not believe it is necessary, that a woman wearing a shirt and trousers is wearing sufficient clothes. So why does he choose their opinion on music and make up his own ideas with regards to hijab? And he has referenced Javed Ghamdi for his support, even though that guy is no scholar. I would not have any real issue with Auzer if he had not responded as he did (you seem to be turning a blind eye to how he has responded) and if he didn't have a history of creating controversy, even on established beliefs, such as wearing hijab. There have been many people before who have come and tried to legitimize music but none of them that I've seen would be so utterly hypocritical and fitnah-mongering. And you're also unaware of the "diversity" of "scholarship" where it is so easy to justify any evil thing because so and so "scholar" said so. As brother Maripat has posted, a person can say, "Look at Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya); he hangs out with ghayr mahram women so it MUST be permissible."
	Quote