Talk:Islamic music

Citation

User:Zora, your recent edit removed the citations from the article, contra Wikipedia:Cite sources. Please re-add the citations, revert the text, or provide sources for your assertions. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 03:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice work integrating my edits. I now accept the loss of citation as it would be too difficult to keep among the uncited information all mixed up, because it is preserved on the pages of those genres. Hyacinth 05:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Myself, I don't see the point of citing stuff that is so well-known that any source would have it. That's an academic self-defense tic that isn't necessary in an encyclopedia. Stuff that is recherche or controversial should be cited. If I've missed any of that, I'll fix it. Just let me know what you think needs work. Zora 09:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Links don't work

A bunch of the links I added, by copying the addresses from one browser to another, have stopped working. I don't understand quite WHY. Are there enough people clicking on them that they've gone over their allotment?

I resume link hunting. Zora 06:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Music vs. Poetic forms

Hamd, Naat, Noha, Marsiya, Taziya, Qaseedha, etc. are not Musical forms, but poetic forms. For example, done right and in conformance with tradition, a Qawwali session will start with a Hamd (in praise of Allah), then a Naat (basically, if I get it right, a Qaseedha in honor of The Prophet-and that capitalization is standard English usage; or was till American English became the global standard), then something in praise of Hazrat Ali (I think that's a Noha), then about Hussain, and work its way down the chain of Sufis. Then one can get into romantic stuff. I have seen an uncle get pissed and want to walk out when Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan jumped from a Hamd straight to romantic stuff.

Maybe we should separate the poetic forms from the musical forms--either in one article or in separate articles. Poetry in Islam, anyone?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:00, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Aha! That's EXACTLY the kind of information we need in the article. I'll try putting it in, but would sure appreciate help. Zora 23:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so how do you want to break it up? Two parts of one article--in which case it might need re-naming--or two articles?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:23, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer two articles as there is a wealth of information on both topics. Perhaps confusion such as this could be prevented through the use of sources. Hyacinth 02:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two articles sounds better to me as well. Note that the subjects are closely linked, so it is entirely appropriate to link liberally and maybe even duplicate some info (I'll leave it to others to decide exactly how). Tuf-Kat 02:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I set up a link in the article, to lyrics. Go at it, guys. Zora 03:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Respectful nameing

Although I am not a muslim, I am aware that many Muslims find naming of its key figures disrespectful without apropriate salutations, commonly "Peace be upon him". Would it be apropriate to edit the shortened form (pbuh) after the mentions of Mohamed(pbuh) and Allah(pbuh) in the article? A muslim friend once told me some muslims find it quite disrespectful, and disrespect is certainly not the intent of this article. Duckmonster 3:56pm 5feb2006 +8GMT

I don't really think it's disrespectful not to do that; it's only respectful to include that. However, Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view, which means omitting (pbuh). By the way, it should be Allah (swt) not Allah (pbuh) for Subhanahu wa ta'ala. joturner 05:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough. However, I would argue basic polite cultural courtesy is not POV. Keep in mind I am not muslim, so I am not coming from that POV. However, if the consensus is it is unnecesary, then fine. Duckmonster 14:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If you check the edit pages of some of the main Wikipedia Islam articles, you will find there are a virtual army of editors, many Muslim themselves, who make a point of going through and removing any of the phrases of blessing other editors have inserted after names -- some people feel very, very strongly that it reflects a bias. For many or most Muslims (myself included) it is simply not a big deal if the preference is to leave it off -- at the very least it is not something meant to be incumbent upon non-Muslims. --66.109.253.61 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Chat Groups

The yahoo group that was listed under External Links contains a wealth of information, including photographs, lyrics, translations, song lists. In that respect, it's really no different from a web site? In view of that, can we leave it in?

Much of the "lyrics, translations, song lists" info is unique and not available elsewhere on the net. --Sarabseth 12:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not music or singining at all

Adhan, Salat and Tajweed are all not musical or singing at all. I'd be interested in knowing how they are considered music. Adhan is "call to prayer", you do not sing it, you call it. You don't need any tune or rythem at all. calling salat singing is redculus, just because they say it all together does not make it music.

Tajweed is about pronouncing the letters and thewords properly, how can it be lumped into music?! --Maha Odeh 12:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea; i'm with you on this one. MezzoMezzo 14:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've noticed that each time I edit this page in an attempt to make it more balanced, somebody returns it to exactly the way it was before within the day. For instance, I would write "Muhammad supposedly said music is haraam" only to have it return to something like "Muhammad said", and then have my comments on the debate over the authenticity of a related hadith deleted. To whoever is doing this, please stop. Since music is a controversial subject, both sides of the coin need to be represented so the reader can make his or her own judgement on the material.

I also get the feeling that the person responsible is a Muslim. If that is the case then I strongly advise him/her to be more careful, because this is a subject that frightens many people away from Islam when presented with such spin.

Roy akil (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there has been no scholarly criticism of the authenticity of the hadeeths - and it's not one hadeeth, but multiple ones - regarding the prohibition against music. In addition, this is actually found in most traditional tafseers of the Qur'an as well. Muhammad "supposedly" said is an insertion of POV as the insinuation is baseless. This is about presenting factual information to readers, not people's personal opinions or not "frightening people away from Islam". MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, this is completely false. The scholars have detailed quite clearly that just about ALL of the narrations attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) are weak with the exception of the one in al-Bukhari's Sahih about a sign of the End of Days wherein people will drink alcohol, wear silk, revel in music, etc. With all due respect, you and the others insisting that the illegality of music is established fact, are NOT being neutral. So it should be stated, "Muhammad is REPORTED to have said.." this way both sides are respected and it is left to the individual to research the veracity of those REPORTS themselves.

It's not of much importance whether the Islamic scholar think these hadiths are sahih. Secular science, on which Wikipedia is based, is skeptical about the authenticity of any hadith. There is no proof of their authenticity other than based on faith. This doesn't mean they're all false, but we have no scientific means of determining their authenticity. Therefore it should always be "is reported to have said". Exceptions could be made only in a longer text where several hadiths are mentioned. In this case, the qualification isn't necessary every single time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.130.239 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course the best way is to say: There is a hadith... or something along these lines. That's short and neutral. But either way, even if there's not a single Islamic scholar who disagrees on the authenticity of a given hadith, such a neutral phrasing is always needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.130.239 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

To add to this, certain users are specifically violating NPOV in favor of the permissibility of music, inserting phrases such as 'which generally has no basis' and removing references to the specific positions of schools of thought. I will be reverting these changes. Please come here and discuss them if you have something concrete to dispute. FAISSALOO_(talk) 21:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts

To some extent, I think this article should be merged together with the nasheed article. I don't think the recent insertions are constructive: the sources are generally not reliable and the shift in tone isn't encyclopedic. I'll try in the very near future to include a summary from the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world (p. 492 onwards) which includes a fair entry about this topic. It does mention that instruments, sensuous or non-religious music and the like have generally been considered forbidden/discouraged in Muslim thought (with the exception of a few Sufi groups). It also notes that most Islamic music is in the forms of songs (i.e. wedding songs, lullabies, devotional), poetry, chants (work songs, caravan chants, military) is generally accepted - this also presents as anashid. It appears that the latter group was considered to be "nonmusic" and the more discouraged types were classed as "music" proper. ITAQALLAH 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Itaqallah, Salam Alaykum,

please note that 'nasheed' is only one style of Islamic Music - therefore such a merger as you suggest would mislead fellow WikiReaders to believe that the only existing Islamic Music is nasheed!

Read through the article again and you'll find other important styles of Islamic Music such as qawwali, ghazal, (musical) dhikr, etc. also note others such as ilahiler, qasidah, gnawa, jilala etc. The list goes on and on.

Also the current edit "Permissibility in music" is currently strongly POV, only the viewpoint representing "music is haram" is sufficiently represented here, and earlier comments and their sources have been deleted. In case you were the fellow who reverted, please, either re-revert, balance this out or there will have to be some re-editing done in near future, insha'llah.

Regards and let's have an open and honest discussion about this topic,

Musa Emre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.47.68 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Who started this topic? What does the classical heartland of islam mean? Who the hell is the one who excluded Turkey from this list and why? What kind of ignorant is he and how come he thinks himself "more muslim" than Turks? He is unaware of the enormous Turkish contribution to world music. Still today the "brass section" in world orchestras are called "Turkish section" in slang. The military music and military bands in the west is a Turkish influence, So are the Turk marches of Mozart, Hyden and the other classical Composers. The classical Composers composed these because they were influenced by Mehter so much (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mehter). The sufi music is also well developed in Turkey. Shall i say that Jelaladdin Rumi lived most of his life and founded in Turkey? They made extensive use of musical instruments. Especiall "Nay". Please change the entrance accordingly. Classical heartland? Go and buy a book about the Ottomans! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpsinan (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Duff - the single-sided drum? Halal?

`Aa'ishah (radiAllahu `anha) said:

"Allaah's Messenger (pbuh) entered (my house) when I had two little girls singing the songs of Bu`aath and beating on a duff; so he lay down on the bed and turned his face away. Then Abu Bakr came in and scolded me saying, 'The flutes of Shaytaan (the Devil) played in the presence of Allaah's Messenger?' So Allaah's Messenger (pbuh) turned toward him and said, Leave them alone, O Abu Bakr! Every people have a `Eed, and this is our `Eed."

Also the duff was used in occasions such as weddings, therefore the prohibition on instruments could exclude this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.190.106 (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

De-energizing the polemical discussions

I would like to express a desire for this article, and I hope for feedback from other editors. The article itself is on Islamic music; it would seem that, to an extent, it leaned toward being a polemical discussion around just one subtopic (the permissibility of music). The external links section, in my opinion, should only be related to Islamic music - not the narrower subtopic of whether or not it's religiously allowed. The section on permissibility of music is better now; a paragraph on scholars in the past who rejected music, a paragraph on scholars in the past who accepted it, and a paragraph on modern views. Not long paragraphs either, which is a good thing. It is my suggestion that we take the external links regarding whether or not music is religiously permissible in Islam, scavenge what we can for sources which are reliable and verifiable, and just use them as references in the permissibility of music section. This would keep this subtopic where it belongs and free up space in the external links section for links actually about Islamic music without causing the lower part of the article to be cluttered. MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to Islamic music, permissibility is (and has historically been) the big debate. It maybe a sub-topic, but it's clearly an important one. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by polemical discussion or de-energizing. The section did the same thing before that it does now: briefly present both sides of the argument without taking sides. It's better organized now, but there's no meaningful change in the tone.

And when you say "links actually about Islamic music", it's not clear what you have in mind. If you have any good links, you should add them. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Good! Glad to see others are taking an interest, and thank you for reading and replying. To clarify, what I meant by the polemics in specific was the external links section. My view - and it could be right or wrong - is that the external links should just be for links about Islamic music only, as that is the title of the article. I don't know any links because I don't listen to music, but my suggestion is more generally, for whoever knows some. I just think we could reduce "noise" in the article, if you're familiar with editing terms, by taking those links regarding the permissibility of music and trying to move them all into the appropriate subsection. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Subject of article

I am confused about the subject of this article. It's titled Islamic music, which means music that in itself has something to do with Islam or expresses Islam. Then the article starts with a long section about musics in various majority-Muslim countries. Some of the music in those countries has to do with Islam, but a lot of it doesn't. What is the intent of this page? 131.90.0.236 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Music being Haram

Removed four sources that were no longer live links, leaving only one link discussing music being Haram in Islamic culture. Could use more sources. Junaos (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

The word "sung" in the opening sentence has been replaced with "meowed" by a user with only a IPv6 address. This very much appears to be vandalism. JulianL (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021205429/http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE&cid=1119503545728 to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE&cid=1119503545728
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080423113623/http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1786&CATE=142 to http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1786&CATE=142

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Limited to Islamic devotional music

It is better to limit this article to "Islamic devotional music", as opposed to "Music of the Muslim world", as the Muslim world is incredibly diverse and not all of its musical tastes are connected to Islam.VR _talk 11:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Split off prohibition on music to a separate article

Islam and music --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)