Why is this article about prohibition of musical instruments when it is about anasheed. That topic is worth being displayed in it's own section or a different article completely.
Sun NY (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree. This article reads more like a discussion of islamic rulings, than an article on islamic culture. How about a section on the modern impact of Anasheeds, or on the first ever nasheed? Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.179.214 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree too. Also problematic is the article seems to strongly push a minority viewpoint as the norm. Al-Azhar[1] and Qaradhawi[2] disagree on the claim that music is haram, so exactly which major mainstream Sunni institution (non-Salafi) supports this? And why then is the minority (Salafi?) view presented as the norm again?
Article also does original research by giving its own interpretation of the "silk, adultery and musical instruments" hadith, an interpretation not accepted by the Sunni establishment (see fatwas above).
Anybody familiar with Muslim cultures realise that obviously most Muslims through history didn't see music as 'haram'. Why also is it that the use of instruments is presented as a 'modern' innovation when they were heavily used even in religious service until the collapse of the traditional Islamic orders in the 20th C.?
Sometimes it feels like Wikipedia lets the fundamentalists impose their revisionist views on every single Islam-related article, it's a real shame.
183.89.33.130 (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Music being Haram the generally accepted view. The vast majority of Islamic scholars deem music in general to be Haram. This is not the Salafis taking over the internet - this is basic Islamic fiqh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.32.142 (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)