Our muslim posters might be in a better position to explain this, but my understanding is that Saudi Arabia’s interpretation of Islam, based on Wahhabi beliefs, is not considered mainstream by most practitioners. Steve Coll’s The Bin Ladens goes into some fascinating detail about how Saudi Arabia’s interpretation of Islam grew from what was once just a small sect that originated from “desert culture stoicism” (as Tamerlane puts it) into prominence over the other forms of the religion largely because of its close association to the Saudi royal family. In exchange for promoting Wahhabi beliefs and “purify” Islam from what they viewed as heretical practices, the founder of the Saudi royal royal family was able to obtain military help from the cleric who founded Wahhabismto conquer much of what is Saudi Arabia today. As oil wealth poured into Saudi Arabia, the government, either formally or through donations by royal family members, started funding schools and publications that exported their strict interpretations into other parts of the world. This saw its apex during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, radicalizing much of the area. That is to say, what we in the West view as a prominent interpretation of Islam is not necessarily what is practiced outside of Saudi Arabia or historically.
It really is. SA has a population of ~31 million ( not all Sunni ) which is probably pretty close to the worldwide total for the Wahhabi sect as well ( not all SA Muslims are Wahhabi, but overwhelmingly they live in SA and the neighboring Gulf states ). That’s out of about 1.7 billion Muslims. It really can’t be emphasized enough just how much of an outlier they are.
Agree, and thanks for putting it that way. I guess my view is that SA is more visible on the world stage as well as in the US, due to them being an ally in the region, and due to their main export. It’s interesting that Wahhabism being pushed in SA is mainly at odds with US human rights positions, yet we easily look the other way as a matter of convenience.
Anyway, back to the OP. It would be good to have any of our resident Muslim dopers weight-in on that.
There’s a third hadith on this topic. Even though I’m unable to remember it precisely, it’s about some companion of the prophet who chastises musicians he meets on the road. But of course whether his opinion is authoritative or just a personal dislike nobody should care about is open to debate.
Note that the second one you quote allows for the use of some instruments in some circumstances, and that the first one is used also to support the opposite stance : that music is in fact lawful.
If you read comments of Muslim scholars who condemn music, you’ll note that their opposition is based not only on interpretation of scriptures, but also on the usual puritanical reasons : it encourages bad behaviours and distracts from religion.
Finally, some conservative clerics argue that since the issue isn’t clearly settled, it’s better to stay on the safe side and abstain from listening to music just in case it would in fact be haram. I would note that it’s for the same reason that they want people to grow a beard, this being also based on a hadith whose meaning is very disputable. This kind of reasoning (“let’s stay on the safe side”) seems also to have been the rule in the Jewish rabbinic tradition.
there is nothing to weigh in on, the idea is wrong. The oudwould not have been refined and developed in the Islamic world. It is not new, the celebration of the music.
So you can enjoy the music like the lamentation of Ya Rayah, or the sudanese Umri ma bansa, and even the Wahhabi oriented Khalij - Gulf, it it the music is popular and people do not like the puritanical ones, so you can be amused by the silliness of the Emirati, Al Jassmi.
The Saudis and the salafiste that they promote are the ones engaged in bida3.
The idea that the music is banned or the instruments has no good support, it is just the usual game of the sour unpleasant ones, as clairobscur says, it is the usual argument of the puritanicals in any religion.
Also due to SA being oil-rich, and funding Wahhabist religious training for religious teacher of other countries and other tradtionss.
Indonesian religion is being heavily influenced by SA religion by this method. You may find that even in the USA, some of your religious leaders have had education in SA.
I’m no expert on Islam, and of course anecdotes do not equal data, but I think most of Turkey would be very surprised to hear music is unlawful in Islam. I spent a year in Ankara teaching English and they pretty much used any excuse they could to play music. Instrument stores were quite easy to find (had my violin re-strung at one and learned a couple of folk tunes while I was there), and I still have a number of books on Turkish music theory I need to go through someday. Fascinating stuff. They have a tradition of folk music called fasıl that is played in cafés, restaurants, and bars everywhere.
As has been tangentially pointed out above, the quotes cited come from a collection of hadith, which are narratives that do not form part of the Quran (in fact, most were written centuries afterward); they are not universally accepted by all branches of Islam as applicable religious doctrine. Though some do, it’s a mistake to assume that they therefore apply to Islam as a whole. Much the same way as assuming all Christians hate homosexuals after running across a demonstration by the Westboro Baptist Church.
That does not pertain to eating them, which is what the poster spoke about.
I am not wishing to engage in work/
I am merely wanting to make the bang on my instrument of leisure for the entire duration of a day.
You know all those a capella groups with vocal percussion? Those are really popular with the Church of God people I know. I also note they seem to be better natural singers.
I wonder if the same is true in those Islamic sects, or if vocal percussion would be too secular.
??
What are you asking? What ‘sects’?
The people against music are against all music, not instruments.
They only believe Quranic recitation, which they exclude from the idea of music, as the sole thing of valid distraction.
Ambrosio Spinola: Thank you for posting that link. I was unaware of that, and it made my day.
Yes. Think Bible Belt and dancing.
Besides the Church of Christ, the Eastern Orthodox apparently don’t use musical instruments either, so it’s not that small a minority of Christians.
http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/why-do-the-orthodox-not-use-musical-instruments-in-worship/
The Quran and hadith are vague as to why they would ban some music or suggest specific music (so that the suggestion is that is all that is allowed.)
It would seem to be that mostly they ban worshiping false gods… or letting the musicians words influence their life too much. Perhaps the idea was that the instruments from europe would come with european music… ergo christian themes.
But the various quotes do not specify WHY… it was always a bad question because no can work out WHAT let alone WHY.
That’s strictly in a liturgical sense, though. My Eastern Orthodox grandmother was quite the fan of Hee Haw ;). I think the discussion here was focused more on a shunning of instrumental music generally, not just in the context of worship.
Saudi Arabia has a national anthem, though. How did that happen?
I’m aware that there is a subset of fundamentalist Presbyterians who have this belief…the Psalms-only folks are indeed distinct from the no-instruments folks, who sing all sorts of songs!
When I googled “Psalms only Presbyterian”, I found that there is, in fact, a Wikipedia entry on denominations which only sing Psalms, and that there’s a term for it – “exclusive psalmody.”