[Perseveranze]

(Original post by amerzeb)
then the shia give the example about the previous prophets who gave inheritence to their children for example dawood (pbuh) gave his kingdom to sulaiman (pbuh) shouldnt this be taken into consideration?

Read this -

Let us now discuss the verse:

“And Sulaimaan inherited from Dawud.”

The Hadith pertaining to inheritance in relation to the Ambiyaa has already been discussed. The Hadith explicitly and emphatically negates inheritance for the Ambiyaa. Authoritative Shiah accounts accept this fact as has already been shown. Clearly, therefore, this Aayat pertains to something else. It does not have a literal meaning. It refers to the inheritance of Ilm and Nubuwwat as the Hadith states, not to the inheritance of tangible wealth and property.

The Shi`i authority, Kulaini narrates that Abu Abdullah narrated:

“Verily, Sulaimaan inherited from Daawud, and Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) inherited from Sulaimaan.”

This Shi`i exposition of the relevant Aayat makes it abundantly clear that the meaning is inheritance of Nubuwwat, which Sulaimaan (alayhi salaam) inherited from Daawud (alayhi salaam).

Hadhrat Daawud (alayhis salaam) had 19 sons. However, the Qur`aan describes only Hadhrat Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam) as the heir of Daawud (alayhis salaam). If the Aayat literally referred to inheritance of gold, silver and tangible assets, it would not have been restricted to Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam) since all sons inherit equally. Thus, intelligence confirms that the Aayat does not refer to inheritance of tangible assets. The inheritance of Nubuwwat was restricted to Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam).

Furthermore, it is common knowledge that every son inherits in his father’s estate. If the meaning of the Aayat was tangible assets, the statement would have been superfluous because the son being an heir is a known fact. But, it is unimaginable that the Qur`aan-the Word of Allah - contains superfluous statements. This further confirms that inheritance in the context of the Aayat does not refer to tangible assets or an estate of gold, silver, etc.

The Aayat pertaining to Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam) lauds the inheritance he had gained. If this inheritance referred to gold and silver, what is its peculiarity and speciality? Why would the Qur`aan laud an inheritance in which every person on earth participates-which is common to all men and women? This further reinforces the claim that the inheritance in the context of the Aayat is the inheritance of Nubuwwat.

Elsewhere, the Qur`aan Majeed states:

“Then We made those whom We chose from Our servants to inherit the Kitaab...”

This Aayat explicitly indicates the meaning of inheritance in relation to the chosen servants of Allah Ta`ala. Thus, “inheritance” used in the Qur`aan does not always mean the inheritance of tangible wealth.

Regarding the verse:

“ He will inherit from me and inherit from the children of Ya`qub”,

the meaning is self-evident. Hadhrat Zakariyya (alayhis salaam) was supplicating for a son who would be the Nabi after him.

If the meaning was inheritance of tangible wealth, it will follow that the tangible assets of the “Aal of Ya`qub” were still intact and un-distributed. But, this is absurd since there was a span of 2,000 years between Ya`qub (alayhis salaam) and Zakariyya (alayhis salaam). From this lop-sided logic of the Shiahs the conclusion is that Yahyaa (alayhis salaam) - Hadhrat Zakariyya’s (alayhis salaam) son - was the heir to the tangible wealth and assets of the entire Bani Israeel. The stupidity of this argument fallaciously raised on the basis of the Qur`aanic Aayat is extreme.

Every person of even slight intelligence will readily understand that Nabi Zakariyya (alayhis salaam) in his old-age had supplicated for a son to succeed him as the next Nabi. He did not ask for a son for the purpose of passing on the inheritance of physical wealth - gold and silver. Such supplication is not in conformity with the lofty office of Nubuwwat.

Should someone aver that the Wives (Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat) inherited from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the rooms which were their respective homes, We shall respond that this argument is baseless. The rooms/homes were not acquired by the Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat by way of inheritance. They were the owners of their respective homes during the lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Some Shiahs argue that if the law of inheritance did not apply to Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) estate, then why were the sword, etc. of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) given to Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu)? Indeed, the reasoning of Shiahs is surprising. Far from proving inheritance, the contrary is confirmed. If the law of inheritance was applicable, then in terms of the Shariah, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) would not be Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) heir. His heirs would have been Hadhrat Faatimah, the Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat and the paternal uncle, Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiallahu anhum).

The assets of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) after his demise were in the category of Waqf. The Khalifah was entitled to distribute such assets according to his discretion. In the opinion of the first Khalifah, these items would serve a better purpose in the possession of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), hence ownership of the sword, etc. was given to him.

Similarly, some of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) assets were given to Zubair Bin Awwaam (radhiallahu anhu), the paternal cousin of Rasulullah (salaam alayhi wasallam). Even Muhammad Bin Muslimah Ansaari (radhiallahu anhu) received some of the assets. This further proves that the distribution of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) assets was not by way of inheritance. None of the recipients were heirs in terms of the Shariah’s law of inheritance.

Source

[amerzeb]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Read this -

Let us now discuss the verse:

“And Sulaimaan inherited from Dawud.”

The Hadith pertaining to inheritance in relation to the Ambiyaa has already been discussed. The Hadith explicitly and emphatically negates inheritance for the Ambiyaa. Authoritative Shiah accounts accept this fact as has already been shown. Clearly, therefore, this Aayat pertains to something else. It does not have a literal meaning. It refers to the inheritance of Ilm and Nubuwwat as the Hadith states, not to the inheritance of tangible wealth and property.

The Shi`i authority, Kulaini narrates that Abu Abdullah narrated:

“Verily, Sulaimaan inherited from Daawud, and Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) inherited from Sulaimaan.”

This Shi`i exposition of the relevant Aayat makes it abundantly clear that the meaning is inheritance of Nubuwwat, which Sulaimaan (alayhi salaam) inherited from Daawud (alayhi salaam).

Hadhrat Daawud (alayhis salaam) had 19 sons. However, the Qur`aan describes only Hadhrat Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam) as the heir of Daawud (alayhis salaam). If the Aayat literally referred to inheritance of gold, silver and tangible assets, it would not have been restricted to Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam) since all sons inherit equally. Thus, intelligence confirms that the Aayat does not refer to inheritance of tangible assets. The inheritance of Nubuwwat was restricted to Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam).

Furthermore, it is common knowledge that every son inherits in his father’s estate. If the meaning of the Aayat was tangible assets, the statement would have been superfluous because the son being an heir is a known fact. But, it is unimaginable that the Qur`aan-the Word of Allah - contains superfluous statements. This further confirms that inheritance in the context of the Aayat does not refer to tangible assets or an estate of gold, silver, etc.

The Aayat pertaining to Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam) lauds the inheritance he had gained. If this inheritance referred to gold and silver, what is its peculiarity and speciality? Why would the Qur`aan laud an inheritance in which every person on earth participates-which is common to all men and women? This further reinforces the claim that the inheritance in the context of the Aayat is the inheritance of Nubuwwat.

Elsewhere, the Qur`aan Majeed states:

“Then We made those whom We chose from Our servants to inherit the Kitaab...”

This Aayat explicitly indicates the meaning of inheritance in relation to the chosen servants of Allah Ta`ala. Thus, “inheritance” used in the Qur`aan does not always mean the inheritance of tangible wealth.

Regarding the verse:

“ He will inherit from me and inherit from the children of Ya`qub”,

the meaning is self-evident. Hadhrat Zakariyya (alayhis salaam) was supplicating for a son who would be the Nabi after him.

If the meaning was inheritance of tangible wealth, it will follow that the tangible assets of the “Aal of Ya`qub” were still intact and un-distributed. But, this is absurd since there was a span of 2,000 years between Ya`qub (alayhis salaam) and Zakariyya (alayhis salaam). From this lop-sided logic of the Shiahs the conclusion is that Yahyaa (alayhis salaam) - Hadhrat Zakariyya’s (alayhis salaam) son - was the heir to the tangible wealth and assets of the entire Bani Israeel. The stupidity of this argument fallaciously raised on the basis of the Qur`aanic Aayat is extreme.

Every person of even slight intelligence will readily understand that Nabi Zakariyya (alayhis salaam) in his old-age had supplicated for a son to succeed him as the next Nabi. He did not ask for a son for the purpose of passing on the inheritance of physical wealth - gold and silver. Such supplication is not in conformity with the lofty office of Nubuwwat.

Should someone aver that the Wives (Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat) inherited from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the rooms which were their respective homes, We shall respond that this argument is baseless. The rooms/homes were not acquired by the Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat by way of inheritance. They were the owners of their respective homes during the lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Some Shiahs argue that if the law of inheritance did not apply to Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) estate, then why were the sword, etc. of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) given to Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu)? Indeed, the reasoning of Shiahs is surprising. Far from proving inheritance, the contrary is confirmed. If the law of inheritance was applicable, then in terms of the Shariah, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) would not be Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) heir. His heirs would have been Hadhrat Faatimah, the Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat and the paternal uncle, Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiallahu anhum).

The assets of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) after his demise were in the category of Waqf. The Khalifah was entitled to distribute such assets according to his discretion. In the opinion of the first Khalifah, these items would serve a better purpose in the possession of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), hence ownership of the sword, etc. was given to him.

Similarly, some of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) assets were given to Zubair Bin Awwaam (radhiallahu anhu), the paternal cousin of Rasulullah (salaam alayhi wasallam). Even Muhammad Bin Muslimah Ansaari (radhiallahu anhu) received some of the assets. This further proves that the distribution of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) assets was not by way of inheritance. None of the recipients were heirs in terms of the Shariah’s law of inheritance.

Source

jazakallah

[IgglePiggle.]

Is it a shirk to listen to the following song:



It's something I've noticed in the comments section. :/

[amerzeb]

(Original post by IgglePiggle.)
Is it a shirk to listen to the following song:



It's something I've noticed in the comments section. :/

Arent they say you are god? if so then you know the answer.

[IgglePiggle.]

(Original post by amerzeb)
Arent they say you are god? if so then you know the answer.

I understand it's shirk on the singer's part because he is saying ''you are God'', but what about listening to it? It's a nice song, it's a shame Rahet had to include that line in it, it's strange for him to do so considering he is Muslim.

What about if I put it on mute when that line comes on?

[amerzeb]

(Original post by IgglePiggle.)
I understand it's shirk on the singer's part because he is saying ''you are God'', but what about listening to it? It's a nice song, it's a shame Rahet had to include that line in it, it's strange for him to do so considering he is Muslim.

What about if I put it on mute when that line comes on?

Well i thought that listening to music is haraam anyway, why not listen to say quran its even better.

[IgglePiggle.]

(Original post by amerzeb)
Well i thought that listening to music is haraam anyway, why not listen to say quran its even better.

Well I read the Quran. That's like me saying, why are you on TSR, go an make better use of your time and pray or read Quran.

[getoom]

(Original post by IgglePiggle.)
Well I read the Quran. That's like me saying, why are you on TSR, go an make better use of your time and pray or read Quran.

a quick internet search found this:

Music is Haraam

From the Qur'aan:

Allaah says, what means: "Do you marvel at this statement, and laugh and do not weep, while you amuse yourselves [proudly] in vanities ? Rather, prostrate before Allaah and worship Him [alone]." [Surah An-Najm (The Star) Verse 59 to 62 ]

According to Ibn Abbaas may Allaah be pleased with him, the word 'saamidoon' in this verse refers to the mushrikeen's habit of singing and playing music noisily whenever they heard the Qur'aan being recited, in order to drown out the reciters voice so that others wouldn't hear it.

Also, Allaah says (regarding Satan) what means: "'And excite any of them whom you can with your voice. Assault them with your cavalry and infantry, be a partner with them in their wealth and children, and make them promises.' But Satan promises them nothing except deceit." [Surah Al-Isra (The Journey by Night) Verse 64]

Some of the taabi'een such as ad-Dahhaak and Mujaahid interpreted Satan's exciting mankind with his voice to mean through the use of music, song and amusement. Ad-Dahhaak said it was the sound of wind instruments. However according to Ibn Abbaas may Allaah be pleased with him, the voice mentioned in the verse refers to every form of invitation which calls to the disobedience of Allaah the Exalted, which seems to be the most correct interpretation.

Finally, Allaah says what means: "And of mankind is he who purchases idle talks (i.e. music, singing, etc.) to mislead (men) from the Path of Allaah without knowledge, and takes it (the Path of Allaah, the Verses of the Qur'aan) by way of mockery. For such there will be a humiliating torment (in the Hell-fire)." [Surah Luqman (Prophet Luqman) Verse 6]

Ibn Masood may Allaah be pleased with him said about this verse "I swear by the One other than Whom there is no God that it refers to singing [ghinaa].", and he repeated this three times. Ibn Abbaas may Allaah be pleased with him said it referred to 'singing and the like' while Jaabir may Allaah be pleased with him is reported to view its meaning to signify singing and listening to songs. Many taabi'oon such as Mujaahid, Ikrimah, Mak-hool and Umar ibn Shu'ayb viewed it as a censure of music and song.

From the ahaadeeth of the Messenger peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him :
Contrary to the commonly held belief, there are a number of authentic narrations from the Prophetic Sunnah which clearly point to the indisputable fact that music, instruments, singing to accompaniment, etc. are objects prohibited by the Islaamic Sharia. The exceptions to this general rule are specific , limited types of innocent singing or chanting without any instrumental accompaniment or to the accompaniment of a simple hand drum (daff) on certain occasions designated by the sunnah.

Unfortunately, many Muslims entertain the misconception that all the ahaadeeth relating to music, singing and musical instruments are either weak (da'eef) or forged (mawdoo') - a position that is untenable.

The Narration of al-Bukhaaree:
The Prophet peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him said : "There will be [at some future time] people from my Ummah who will seek to make lawful fornication, the wearing of silk, wine drinking and the use of musical instruments [ma'aazif]. Some people will stay at the side of the mountain and when their shepherd comes in the evening to ask them for his needs, they will say : 'Return to us tomorrow'. Then Allaah will destroy them during the night by causing the mountain to fall upon them, while He changes others into apes and swine. They will remain in such a state until the Day of Resurrection." al-Jowhari, the author of the ancient dictionary 'as-Sihaah', asserts that ma'aazif signifies musical instruments, al-'aazif indicates one who sings, and the 'azf of the wind is its voice..

Az-Zabeedi also says that ma'aazif are instruments of leisure which are drummed upon or played, like the loot ('ood) , the drum (tanboor), the small hand drum (daff) or other such musical objects.

Ibn Hajar in Fathul-Baaree relates that 'azf is also used to describe singing (ghinaa).

This authentic hadeeth clearly establishes the prohibition of music and singing and this in itself is sufficient for the one who really wishes to see the Truth of the affair. However there are other authentic narrations on the subject that we quote below.

The Narration of Ibn Maajah :
The Messenger of Allaah peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him said : "A people of my Ummah will drink wine, calling it by other than its real name. Merriment will be made for them through the playing of musical instruments and the singing of female singers. Allaah will cleave the earth under them and turn others into apes and swine."
This hadeeth has also been narrated by al-Bayhaaqi and ibn Asaakir, and has been authenticated by the renowned scholar of hadeeth Ibn al-Qayyim.

Narrations of Ahmed bin Hanbal :
The Messenger of Allaah peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him said : "Verily Allaah prohibited wine, gambling and al-koobah; and every intoxicant is prohibited." Sufyan said : " I asked the narrator, Ali bin Badheemah, ' What is al-Koobah?' He answered, 'It is the drum'."

The Messenger of Allaah peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him said : "Verily Allaah has prohibited for my Ummah wine, gambling, a drink distilled from corn, the drum and the lute; while He supplemented me with another Prayer, the witr"

The Narration of Haakim and Others :
That the Messenger of Allaah peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him said : "Verily I did not prohibit weeping [per se], but rather I forbade two voices [sowtayn] which are imbecilic [ahmaq] and sinfully shameless [faajir]: one a voice [singing] to the accompaniment of musical amusement [lahw] and Satan's [wind] instruments; the other, a voice [wailing] due to some calamity, accompanied by striking of the face and tearing of garments. But this [weeping off mine] stems from compassion, and whosoever does not show compassion will not receive it."
This hadeeth is graded Hasan, and has been strengthened by other narrations.

The Narration of Abu Bakr ash-Shaafi'ee : Anas bin Maalik may Allaah be pleased with him related from the Prophet peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him that "two cursed sounds are that of the [wind] instrument [mizmaar] played on the occasion of joy and grace, and woeful wailing upon the occurrence of adversity."

These narrations should prove sufficient to show the illegality of music and singing to musical accompaniment to the one "has a heart or gives ear while he is heedful." [Surah Qaf Verse 37].

From the statements of the Companions may Allaah be pleased with them :
The Sahaabah may Allaah be pleased with them were the best people after the Messenger of Allaah peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him, and best understood the deen of Islaam as they understood it directly from the Messenger peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him. The ijmaa' (consensus) of the Sahaabah may Allaah be pleased with them is therefore binding upon the Muslim Ummah, as is the complete consensus of any generation of scholars on a certain religious issue.

The Companions may Allaah be pleased with them unanimously agreed upon the prohibition of music and song but allowed particular exceptions specified by the authentic sunnah.

In the preceding sections we have already quoted some of the Sahaabah such as Ibn Masood and Ibn Abbaas may Allaah be pleased with them. This was also the view of the Four Rightly Guided Khulafaa and the ***ahaa from amongst the Sahaabah may Allaah be pleased with them.

[IgglePiggle.]

(Original post by getoom)
...

Why do they play music in naats and nasheeds. Also, all Islam related channels and radio stations play some sort of music, whether it's instrumental or in the background of a naat or nasheed.

[amerzeb]

(Original post by IgglePiggle.)
Well I read the Quran. That's like me saying, why are you on TSR, go an make better use of your time and pray or read Quran.

alhamdullilah it is good that you read the Quran, but try and stop listening to music, it isnt good for you.
Allah knows best

[getoom]

(Original post by IgglePiggle.)
Why do they play music in naats and nasheeds. Also, all Islam related channels and radio stations play some sort of music, whether it's instrumental or in the background of a naat or nasheed.

sorry i forgot that if some radio stations or tv channels do it it must be the right thing to do

im just postin the opinions of the sahaaba if you want to reject them that is your opinion

but my answer is a simple i dont know

[IgglePiggle.]

(Original post by getoom)
sorry i forgot that if some radio stations or tv channels do it it must be the right thing to do

Yes, it must be ...

Do you have a TV at home?

[IgglePiggle.]

(Original post by AkaJetson)
It's only not good for you if it causes you to do haram things.

Music does? How?

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by IgglePiggle.)
Music does? How?

Accrording to islamic 'scholars' music takes your mind off islam and leads to pointless thinking, therefore it is haram. Therefore only islamic music should be listened to by muslims, song and dance is not permitted unless it has a religious aspect.

[SaintSoldier]

How much time do Muslims spend praying in a day?

[xXxiKillxXx]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
Accrording to islamic 'scholars' music takes your mind off islam and leads to pointless thinking, therefore it is haram. Therefore only islamic music should be listened to by muslims, song and dance is not permitted unless it has a religious aspect.

Song and dance do not have a religious aspect to them.

[Florrick]

(Original post by SaintSoldier)
How much time do Muslims spend praying in a day?

30 mins.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
Song and dance do not have a religious aspect to them.

well maybe a song and dance about mohammed i dont make the rules

But i have been told at muslim weddings, music is permitted, even dancing - one of those concessions given by scholars probably.

but listening to Jay-z on your ipod is forbidden in islam

[SaintSoldier]

(Original post by Florrick)
30 mins.

Do you mean 30 mins in total or just in one prayer session?

[Florrick]

(Original post by SaintSoldier)
Do you mean 30 mins in total or just in one prayer session?

5 x one prayer sessions
i)Early morning before sunrise.
ii)Midday.
iii)Later afternoon.
iv)After sunset
v)Night