Part of me wants to say that prohibiting music is silly, or at best a holdover from attempts to stamp out music to other gods. But on the other hand, I can certainly grasp the idea of giving up something that is not in itself bad in order to draw closer to God.
Part of me wants to say that prohibiting music is silly, or at best a holdover from attempts to stamp out music to other gods. But on the other hand, I can certainly grasp the idea of giving up something that is not in itself bad in order to draw closer to God.
The question for Islam and all religions who would prohibit anything that is not harmful is, why would god want to forbid us from living free (and don't bring up, oh free to steal, murder, et all, because you know that not even worthy of debate...)
Quran portrays pork to be an extremely vile thing to eat, see 6:145 below. It is implied to be even worse than eating a carcass or drinking fresh blood. That's why muslims have a big aversion to it. Besides, pork is equal or more fatty a meat then other common meats, with no greater nutrients compared to the rest; and it is more likely to carry parasites if it is not well cooked. So even without religion, it is advocatable (is that even a word?) to avoid pork.
Quran said:
6:145 - Say: "I find not in the Message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine - for it is an abomination - or what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked other than Allah's." But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, thy Lord is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
About music, I'll have to disagree with Salah-al-Din. Below are the verses I found listing a variety of sinful actions of worldly nature without any mention of music.
Quran said:
Spoiler:
6:151 - Say: "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from": join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want - We provide sustenance for you and for them - come not nigh to shameful deeds, whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom. 6:152 - And come not nigh to the orphan's property, except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength; give measure and weight with (full) justice; no burden do We place on any soul, but that which it can bear, whenever ye speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned; and fulfil the Covenant of Allah: thus doth He command you, that ye may remember. 6:153 - Verily, this is My Way leading straight: follow it; follow not (other) paths: they will scatter you about from His (great) Path; thus doth He command you, that ye may be righteous.
5:3 - Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject Faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 5:4 - They ask thee what is lawful to them (as food). Say: Lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure: and what ye have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.
7:33 - Say: The things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; assigning of partners to Allah, for which He hath given no authority; and saying things about Allah of which ye have no knowledge.
5:72 - ...But said Al-Masih: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
I see no reason for Allah not to include a forbiddance of music in Quran, so I deduct Muhammad's comments were not necessarily literal. Looking at each of your quoted hadiths:
Salah-Al-Din said:
“There will appear people in my Ummah, who will hold adultery, silk, alcohol and musical instruments to be lawful”
This hadith mentions "sex,alcohol,luxury,music" together, so, extravagant partying may be forbidden, or rap may be forbidden. But it doesn't say "ban all music" to me.
Salah-Al-Din said:
“Soon there will be people from my Ummah (Islamic nation) who will consume alcohol: they will change its name (and drink it). On their heads* will be instruments of music and singing. Allah will make the ground swallow them up, and turn them into monkeys and swine.”
This doesn't say anything, all Ummahs have music and singing, in the form of national anthem if nothing else.
Salah-Al-Din said:
Prophet Muhammad (s) prophecized a great penalty and doom that would be inflicted upon the Muslims by Allah. He was asked: "O Messenger of Allah! When will this be?" The Prophet (s) replied: "When female singers and musical instruments appear and alcohol will commonly be consumed.”
This could have said when people go to space, or have means to discuss Islam with people from all over the world. And Muslims in our time obviously have difficulties in the world, so his prophecy is valid without banning music.
Salah-Al-Din said:
"Allah...commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affairs of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance."
Ok, no musical affair of pre-Islamic ignorance. That's why a thousand years ago medieval muslims were using music in hospitals for the treatment of mental patients. Also worth mentioning is the sufi music, which came out from prayer and islamic faith. And the ezan (Muslim call to prayer) is musical, as well as recitation of Quran (I mean more musical than just poetic).
Probably we'll agree to disagree once again (I agree that there are songs with extremely immoral lyrics out there, I disagree all music should be banned in account of the few bad apples). I suppose we each choose how to believe in what we believe.
Also keep in mind that most muslim countries have music.
As far as descriptions in Quran are concerned, it is the classic fire theme, with abundunce of hot and disgusting liquids, squeezed spaces, torture and misery, etc. There are too many to list here, let's just say "drinking liquids that will shred your bowels while the face is turned inside out with fire, and yet being unable to die" and leave it at that.
Thanks for sharing your erudition with us. If you will allow me, I have some questions.
1. What criterion do you employ to determine morality?
2. Do you object to objective criticism of Islam (i.e. non-Muslim examination and judgment of the Quranic prescriptions). If so, what would be the proper academic approach for such examination? what is the ideal platform that must be achieved on which the Quranic presciptions can be criticized by the standards of intellectual scrutiny?
As for the first question, that's a tough question.
As for the second question: do I object to objective criticism of Islam? I'll answer that honestly. I do not condone *any* criticism of Islam. In my faith, it is blasphemous to *criticize* Islam. I simply tolerate it of others because they are not Muslims, and so of course I kindly listen to their objections and then I try responding to them. In Islam, we are not allowed to question our faith or its doctrines *if* these questions are asked to raise criticism; the only times we are allowed to ask such questions is not with the intention of criticism but rather of removing doubt in our hearts and of increasing our faith.
So what reason do you think music is forbidden? I mean it really can't be that bad, lewd music is a no brainer as to why it is sinful. But even just soft tones with no lyrics?
Music has always been associated with a "music culture." If you look throughout history, this "music culture" has always been at the forefront of lewdness and obsenity. Today is no exception. One only needs to see the latest and most popular music on MTV to see the degradation of a society's moral fabric. Almost all music is about love outside and before marriage, which is considered a form of minor fornication/adultery in Islam.
Because music has historically always been associated with lewdness and obsenity, it was declared Haram (forbidden). Any benefit from music was deemed to be far outweighed by the negative effects of music in society.
It should be noted that at the time of the Prophet (s), the "music culture" involved pagan women dancing to drums in a very lewd fashion (for the times). The Christian Church also forbade music for the very reason, and you will find that the first churches prohibited music, condemning it as pagan. And you will find that even music such as country music or ballroom dancing music was considered lewd at the time it was "invented." For those times, it was considered lewd. It was only after that society slowly became acclimated (and de-sensitized to it) that it became acceptable.
I have never heard of her before. However, I just find it curious that you imply that you think she is very brave for dressing half-nude. I do not know what is courageous about this?
If you look at Jpop, you will find many elements in it which are forbidden in Islam, such as the music videos that involve pre-marital relations, inter-gender mixing, etc. This violates the austerity and serenity that Islam tries to preach.
You may then counter this by mentioning some form of music that does not have these elements, such as classical music. (Even classical music was said to tug at the carnal desires of man.) Islam is a religion of prevention, and evil is nipped in the bud. For example, a Muslim is not allowed to go to the bar, even if he does not drink alcohol himself. It's a prevention from evil, or even entertaining the idea of sinning. Men and women inter-mixing is discouraged, in order to *prevent* fornication/adultery. So Islam cuts off all the roads to sin, and seeks to prevent little ants into developing into monsters of sin. Therefore, music can start off as something fine, but it seems that it always develops into something sinful and lewd, as it progresses and advances. A categoric prohibition on music is therefore more effective, thereby nipping that in the bud.
Part of me wants to say that prohibiting music is silly, or at best a holdover from attempts to stamp out music to other gods. But on the other hand, I can certainly grasp the idea of giving up something that is not in itself bad in order to draw closer to God.
When I gave up music, I realized that I really benefitted from doing that, from a spiritual sense.
I understand that others will have varying opinions and I do not mean to enforce my opinion on others. You have the right to listen to music. I am simply stating the Islamic position on music.
So, Salah al-Din, you're saying music contains elements which are forbidden in Islam, but you respects other people's choices on music?
What about classical music or instrumental music? Do they contain elements which are forbidden?
My I ask exactly how you benefited from giving up music? This is not trolling, I just wonder how other people felt spiritually when they give up some material thing such as music.
I understand that others will have varying opinions and I do not mean to enforce my opinion on others. You have the right to listen to music. I am simply stating the Islamic position on music.
I don't understand. A quick look at Wikipedia shows that there is a large and long standing tradition of Islamic music, and the advocates that music is haraam for Muslims is that of the Salafi, Wahabi, and Deobandi traditions of Islam, as well as a large number of those of Barelwi persuasion. No offense intended, but perhaps it might be better to explain that it is a belief of a particular tradition, instead of that of Islam as a whole? It's the same type of thing why it wouldn't be a could idea for a evangelical Christain to say that such-and-such controversial belief is something that Christians have, when it is a belief of that particular sect.
As for the second question: do I object to objective criticism of Islam? I'll answer that honestly. I do not condone *any* criticism of Islam. In my faith, it is blasphemous to *criticize* Islam. I simply tolerate it of others simply because they are not Muslims, and so of course I kindly listen to their objections and then I try responding to them. In Islam, we are not allowed to question our faith or its doctrines *if* these questions are asked to raise criticism; the only times we are allowed to ask such questions is not with the intention of criticism but rather of removing doubt in our hearts and of increasing our faith.
I'm pretty sure he means scholarly criticism, as opposed to mere malicious criticism. The type of thing done in secular theology and the like, for example, as well as scholarly discussions on the historicity of the religion. Is that the same type of thing?
The question for Islam and all religions who would prohibit anything that is not harmful is, why would God want to forbid us from living free (and don't bring up, oh free to steal, murder, et all, because you know that not even worthy of debate...)
I am not a Muslim but my religion does prohibit things that are relatively harmless (as well as things which are harmful but not obviously so). My answer is that God does want us to live free; He also wants to see if we are more committed to doing His will (as He has a much better idea than us of how to be saved) than to doing other things.
I have never heard of her before. However, I just find it curious that you imply that you think she is very brave for dressing half-nude. I do not know what is courageous about this?
That is not half-nude. And a woman has the right to dress however she likes as long as she's not nude, without men judging her or telling her she's doing the wrong thing.
I don't find her brave but find her actions admirable that she's not going to bow down to a bunch of muslim clerics telling her what to do.
Honestly, I found the movie to be boring. But I had no real objections to it, other than that. Having said that, I watched it a very long time ago, so I don't really remember that well.
I took a gander at the thread, and it seems that Mott is trying very hard to criticize Islam, once again. It is an established fact that Saladin (ra) was one of the world's most noble heroes. Mott's distortion of history is unacceptable and runs contrary to every book/article on the Crusades that I have read. I think Mott is trying to slander one of the heroes of Islam, because it is a fact that Saladin (ra) is one of the few people who is revered by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
All music is Haram (forbidden). Alcohol is forbidden because it leads to other sins, but it--in and of itself--is also a sin. Music is the same way. It often leads to other sins, but even if it did not, it is still forbidden. The path to sin is in and of itself a sin in Islam, regardless of how far along that path you go.
My I ask exactly how you benefited from giving up music? This is not trolling, I just wonder how other people felt spiritually when they give up some material thing such as music.
I believe that it made me pure spiritually. It is a feeling that is difficult to describe. A state of felicity of your soul. Like alcohol, music is an intoxicant which does spiritual damage to the pious. At least this is the Muslim belief.
Unfortunately, many Muslims have violated the Prophetic Commandments, but this does not change the fact that music is not allowed in Islam. And remember, the Prophet (s) himself warned that one day there would be Muslims who would allow music even though it is forbidden.
the advocates that music is haraam for Muslims is that of the Salafi, Wahabi, and Deobandi traditions of Islam, as well as a large number of those of Barelwi persuasion. No offense intended, but perhaps it might be better to explain that it is a belief of a particular tradition, instead of that of Islam as a whole? It's the same type of thing why it wouldn't be a could idea for a evangelical Christain to say that such-and-such controversial belief is something that Christians have, when it is a belief of that particular sect.
Music has been forbidden by all the fundamentalist and traditionalist branches of Islam. It is only allowed by certain contemporary "scholars" who are known for being "progressive Muslims" and "liberal Muslims" but are in fact defeatists and apologetics.
There are four major schools of thought in Sunnism, and all four state that music is forbidden. This includes the Hanafi, Shafii, Hanbali, and Maliki schools of thought. The traditionalists are those who follow one of these four schools of thought and include the Deobandis and Barelwis as you stated.
As for the fundamentalists (many of who like myself do not follow a school of thought), these are the Salafis and they also prohibit music.
What you have left is only a handful of contemporary scholars who are generally disregarded by the orthodoxy. I can think of only one credible scholar who takes a differing opinion on the matter, but he is criticized by the rest of the scholars for his variant position on this matter.
I am not a Muslim but my religion does prohibit things that are relatively harmless (as well as things which are harmful but not obviously so). My answer is that God does want us to live free; He also wants to see if we are more committed to doing His will (as He has a much better idea than us of how to be saved) than to doing other things.
I believe that it made me pure spiritually. It is a feeling that is difficult to describe. A state of felicity of your soul. Like alcohol, music is an intoxicant which does spiritual damage to the pious. At least this is the Muslim belief.
First of all, let me state that I am beginning to realize that, while Islamophobia and the lack of the understanding of the civilization is a huge part of the problem, that's not completely what it is. It's a matter of fundamental differences within society; Western civilization believing in universal human rights as a fundamental truth, preceding any particular belief system; and, with that, not being able to comprehend a system where this is not a given. Obviously, someone who was less tolerant would have an absolutely positively huge problem with the idea that music should be forbidden in any society, for example. It is much like the differences between scientists and fundamentalist christians - completely different fundamental premises. If this is as such, than mere education isn't going to work.
Music has been forbidden by all the fundamentalist and traditionalist branches of Islam. It is only allowed by certain contemporary "scholars" who are known for being "progressive Muslims" and "liberal Muslims" but are in fact defeatists and apologetics.
But is it really orthodoxy? Once again, looking in the article, it seems that there is a longstanding tradition of Islamic music. Arabic music that dates back to the pre-Islamic period, music in Al-Andulus, the Seljuk Turks heavily influencing it, the Caliphs employing musicians over the ages... Ultimately it doesn't really seem to be a problem of simply "many" muslims, but the vast majority of muslims over the ages.
If it is a long-standing tradition within a civilization, regardless of what the current interpretation of the religion is, is it really heterodoxy? It has nothing to do with what is the One Truth Faith (tm) or not, but a simple fact of the matter is that this implies that this is a recent interpretation, not something that is traditional. That doesn't make it ultimately any more right or wrong of course, but still.
We could also argue over whether or not Divine Command Theory (Which, obviously, Islam plays far more emphasis on such than Christianity) is an acceptable metaethical theory, but 1) I'm not a philosophy student, though I probably could argue against it anyway 2) It's off-topic from this thread 3) The last thing I want to do to you is discourage you or make you dislike me as a result of the conversation, because despite your differing opinions, I respect you for having your beliefs and find you brave enough to post in this forum which could be extremely stressing for you.
Eid Al-Adha:(called "Sacrifice Holiday" in Turkey) Sacrifice farm animals in the name of God, and share the meat with the poor, in commemoration of Abraham almost sacrificing his son to God, to be stopped and ordered to sacrifice a ram instead. The pilgrimage to Mecca is also done at this time.
Eid Al-Fitr:(called "Ramadan Holiday" in Turkey) Feast signifying and celebrating the end of fasting.
Both last multiple days, during which offices and schools are closed, and traffic accidents are at their highest as everybody drives to vacation spots, or to visit families, or to visit graveyards.
Here are our Holy Nights:
Lailat al Miraj:Anniversary of Prophet Muhammad's journey from Mecca to Jerusalem in a single night on a winged creature called Buraq. From Jerusalem he ascended into heaven, where he met the earlier prophets, and eventually God. Lailat al Qadr:The Night of Power, marks the night in which the Qur'an was first revealed to the Prophet Muhammad by Allah. Lailat ul Bara'h:The Night of Forgiveness is the time when Muslims ask God to forgive their past sins. Milad un Nabi: marks the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad. Lailat al Regaib ?:(I am not sure what the exact name in Arabic is, that's why there is a "?") The beginning of Three Moons, night of Muhammad's conception.
As these are nights, they don't interfere with work and school days. They are celebrated by reading Quran, prayer, contemplation, religious discussion, and unavoidably the rescreening of Anthony Quinn's movie "The Message".
We, like the early church and also like some Christian fundamentalists throughout the ages, believe that Christmas is a pagan holiday and has nothing at all to do with Prophet Jesus (as). In fact, we believe that the holiday is disrespectful to Prophet Jesus (as). However, we are urged to be kind towards others, and only respectfully disagree with the holiday, which no doubt many Christians hold to be a holy and blessed day.
Why do so many people of Arab descent here work at gas stations? I used to think it was some sort of exaggerated stereotype, but when I lived in Detroit I never saw a black or white gas station owner.
Yes, I think the reaction of those Muslims was ironic. And yes, they were foolish. I was 100% against the reaction of some Muslims during the Danish cartoon thing and the Pope thing as well.
However, you have to understand that Muslims are very, very, very angry nowadays. And they have a very *good* reason to be angry. The situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and other places have made the Muslim masses very upset, and so of course they are hyper-sensitive to things now. Had the situation been different--and had the West not been at war with Islam--then I am sure that the Muslims would *not* have reacted like that.
The example of this is Ariel Sharon's visit to the holy mosque, to which the Palestinians responded to with the Second Intifada. It was a lot of built up anger, and Sharon's visit was just what lit the fuse. The actual inciting event may not be that big of a deal, but it's just a lot of built up anger.
But yes, violence is unacceptable and so are violent threats. This is not befitting a Muslim who is advocated to be soft, courteous, and just. Allah says in the Quran:
"Do not let the hatred of a people towards you move you to commit injustice. Be just: that is next to piety, and fear God." (Quran, 5:8)
In one instance, the disbelievers had taken certain actions that were angering many Muslims, to which Allah revealed:
"...let not the hatred of some people (towards you)...lead you to transgression and hostility on your part. Help each other in righteousness and piety, but do not help one another in sin and rancour: fear God" (Quran, 5:2)
I am not going to pursue the issue any more in this thread, as it simply gets everyone emotional and leads to endless back-and-forth.
It's a bit long of a thread to read, so I only read the first post by Mott1. It's just a bunch of irrelevant points. I don't mean to be disrespectful towards him, but I just didn't find any relevance of most of the points in his opening post.
I was thinking that maybe all of his post was leading somewhere, but I reached the end of his first post and was left hanging. Was his argument continued in another post?
In fact, I agree with his first post, which merely establishes that Jihad of the sword is important in Islam. This is established and agreed upon. However, I find no argument in that post that refutes that there is *another* type of Jihad which is the Greater Jihad and which is Jihad Al-Nufs (struggle over one's ego).
The existence of Jihad Al-Nufs is confirmed by both Quran and Hadith. In the Quran, we have these two verses for example:
"And whosoever STRIVES (JAAHADA), STRIVES (YUJAAHIDU) only for himself" (Quran, 29:6).
"As for those who STRIVE (JAHADU) in Us (the cause of Allah), We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo! Allah is with the good doers." (Quran, 29:69)
These verses were revealed to the Prophet (s) when he was still in Mecca, and this was *before* the Jihad of the sword was in existence. In fact, permission to fight Jihad was *not* given until the Prophet (s) was expelled to Medinah. Therefore, these verses can *only* refer to Jihad Al-Nafs.
Shaikh GF Haddad also lists many other Quranic verses about Jihad Al-Nafs and says: "The above are among the many Meccan verses and Suras enjoining jihad al-nafs. One that denies that there was/is such a Divine command commits kufr (disbelief). Such a command cannot mean military jihad, as there was no permission - much less an order - for such a jihad until the Madinan period."
I place great emphasis on this: the Shaikh has said that the one who denies the Jihad Al-Nufs is considered an apostate.
The Shaikh goes on to say:
"Thus those that claim there is no jihad al-nafs in Islam have imperiled their Islam and might make their shahada, salat, zakat, sawm, hajj, AND jihad worthless. Allah is our refuge from this."
Here is the Shaikh's fatwa on this matter:
Spoiler:
Question:
I was listening to some girls talk the other day, and they were saying that there was no evidence for jihad al nafs, that all the evidence for it was fabricated, or so weak as to be worthless, and so jihad can only mean fighting physically. I am very confused by this. If you could explain this to me and show me the evidences, I would really appreciate it.
Answer:
Wa `alaykum as-Salam:
Allah Most High said:
{And whosoever STRIVES (JAAHADA), STRIVES (YUJAAHIDU) only for himself} (29:6). {As for those who STRIVE (JAHADU) in Us (the cause of Allah), We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo! Allah is with the good doers.} (29:69) This is a Meccan Sura and the two verses refer to Jihad al-Nafs. There was no military jihad then.
Without jihad of the nafs, fighting leads to Hellfire.
Allah Most High said:
{WA NAFSIN WA MAA SAWAAHA, FA-ALHAMAHA FUJURAHA WA TAQWAHA. QAD AFLAHA MAN ZAKAAHA WA QAD KHAABA MAN DAS-SAAHA}
"By the nafs and the proportion and order given to it, and its inspiration as to its wrong and its right; Truly he succeeds who purifies it, and he fails that corrupts it" (91:7-10). This is also a Meccan Sura.
Without purification, the nafs remains a "soul that enjoins evil" (al-nafs al - ammara bil-su') until it surrenders itself in total obedience to the call of animal passions and shaytan.
Allah Most High said:
{Have you seen the one who chooses for his god his own lust?} (25:43). {He followed his own lust. Therefore his likeness is as the likeness of a dog; if you attack him he pants with his tongue out and if you leave him he pants with his tongue out} (7:176). These are both also Meccan Suras.
About the person who controlled the passion of his ego Allah says: {But as for him who feared to stand before his Lord and restrained his soul from lust, Lo! The garden will be his home} (79:40-41). This is also a Meccan Sura.
The above are among the many Meccan verses and Suras enjoining jihad al-nafs. One that denies that there was/is such a Divine command commits kufr. Such a command cannot mean military jihad, as there was no permission - much less an order - for such a jihad until the Madinan period.
Further, the Prophet said, upon him peace:
1. The mujahid is he who makes jihad against his nafs (ego) for the sake of obeying Allah.
- Ibn Hibban (#1624, 2519): Authentic;
- Shu`ayb al-Arna'ut (Commentary on Ibn Hibban): authentic;
- al-Hakim: sahih;
- `Iraqi confirms him;
- it is also in Tirmidhi, Ahmad, and Tabarani;
- Albani included it in the "Sahiha".
2. "`A'isha, Allah be well-pleased with her, asked: 'Messenger of Allah, we see jihad as the best of deeds, so shouldn't we join it?' He replied, 'But the best jihad is a perfect Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah).'" (Sahih Al-Bukhari #2784)
3. On another occasion, a man asked: "Should I join the jihad?" The Prophet asked, upon him peace, "Do you have parents?" The man said yes. The Prophet said: "Then do jihad by serving them!" (Sahih Al-Bukhari #5972)
4. Another man asked: "What kind of jihad is better?" The Prophet replied, upon him peace: "A word of truth spoken in front of an oppressive ruler." (Sunan Al-Nasa'i #4209)
5. The Prophet also said, upon him peace: The strong one is not the one who overcomes people, the strong one is he who overcomes his nafs [ego]. Al-Haythami declared it authentic in Majma` al-Zawa'id.
6. The Prophet, upon him peace, said to Abu Sa`id al-Khudri: "Even if one strikes unbelievers and idolaters with his sword until it breaks, and he is *completely* dyed with their blood, the Rememberers of Allah are above him one degree."
The above authentic hadiths provide additional explicit evidence - especially 1 and 5 - refuting the lie that "all the evidence for jihad al-nafs is fabricated or weak."
Further:
Allah Most High is Tayyibun and accepts only the Tayyib. He declares in the Qur'an that He accepts acts of worship only if they are based on:
- purification of the self (qad aflaha man zakkaha)
- soundness of the heart (illa man ata Allaha bi-qalbin salim)
- an humble spirit (wa-innaha lakabiratun illa `alal khashi`in)
Purification of the Intention is the general heading for these. That is why the Imams (e.g. Bukhari, Shafi`i, Nawawi) always began their books of fiqh with the hadith of intention: "Actions count only according to intention."
An act outwardly considered worship but performed without pure intention is not considered worship, even fighting and dying in defense of Muslims. The Prophet, upon him peace, explicitly said of one such fighter that he was bound for the fire.
In fact, purification of intention is needed for all five pillars of Islam. Such purification is a fard `ayn and is required of all.
Thus those that claim there is no jihad al-nafs in Islam have imperiled their Islam and might make their shahada, salat, zakat, sawm, hajj, AND jihad worthless. Allah is our refuge from this.
I don't know why it's happening, but when I read more and more posts like this, this quote from (Gnaeus Pompeius, Magnus if you really wish to describe him as such) comes to mind:
"Cease quoting the law, we carry weapons!"
Maybe I'm playing Rome Total War a little bit too much
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
