Was sagt der orthodoxe Islam über die Musik?
Während meiner Untersuchung war ich verblüfft gewesen, Muslime zu treffen, die total aufgehört hatten, Musik zu hören, weil ihre Religion ihrer Meinung nach die Musik verbat. Andere hörten zwar noch Musik, aber immer weniger, und sie hatten vor, irgendwann endgültig aufzuhören. Ich hätte davor nie gedacht, dass die Musik in einer Religion verboten hätte sein können. Wegen so einer Vorschrift muss der Gläubigen extrem viel für seine Religion opfern. Er muss unmenschlich streng sein. Und das alles... umsonst!
Man kann nicht sagen, dass es über dieses Thema eine Einigung gibt, auch nicht im orthodoxen Islam. Trotzdem halte ich diesen Artikel für nötig, denn: auch wenn die einzelnen Theologen voneinander abweichen, sind die Konsequenzen da: viele Leute verzichten auf die Musik, oder haben es vor, und/oder glauben, eine Sünde zu begehen, wenn sie Musik hören. Manchmal breiten sich diese Folgen bis in die Politik aus (zum Beispiel im Afghanistan, wo die Talibanen die Musik verboten hatten). Und vor allem: dies zeigt noch mal die Absurdität des religiösen Glaubens in die islamischen Quellen, der dazu fëhrt, dass systematisch über den Sex der Engel debattiert wird, bevor man irgendeine alltägliche Tat macht; zum Beispiel im Falle der Musik: statt einfach etwas angenehmes (und ohne Nachteile) zu geniessen, zerbricht man sich den Kopf anhand von zweifelhaften und doofen Quellen, um zu wissen, ob es erlaubt ist oder nicht.
Zuerst ein paar Hadiths zum Thema:
It was reported from Abu Umaamah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah [an error occurred while processing this directive](peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not sell singing slave women, do not buy them and do not teach them. There is nothing good in this trade, and their price is haraam.
The Messenger of Allaah [an error occurred while processing this directive](peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Among my ummah there will certainly be people who permit zinaa, silk, alcohol and musical instruments…” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari ta’leeqan, no. 5590; narrated as mawsool by al-Tabaraani and al-Bayhaqi. See al-Silsilah al-Saheehah by al-Albaani, 91).
(es werden weitere kommen in den nächsten Tagen, in der französischen Version dieses Artikels sind schon viele da, clicken Sie auf die französische Fahne rechts oben)
THE VIEW OF THE TAABI'EEN IMAMS AND SCHOLARS AFTER THEM
(Quelle: http://members.tripod.com/oum_abdulaziz/music2.html#C, Hinweise auf Fussnoten gelassen)
The view held by the companions was generally adhered to by the taabi'een and their followers, the four imams and the great majority of dependable Islamic scholars up to the present time. From among the taabi'een and their followers, there are such authorities as Mujaahid, Ikrimah, An-Nakha'i and Al-Hassan Al-Basri.(*107)
IMAM ABU HANEEFAH:
Imam Abu Haneefah(*108) has perhaps the harshest view of the four famous Imams of jurisprudence. His school of thought is the strictest, for he detested singing and considered it sinful. As for his disciples, they have explicitly confirmed the prohibition of listening to all musical amusements and pastimes, including wind instruments (mazaameer),(*109) all types of tambourines, hand drums (dufoof)(*110) and even the striking of sticks(al-qadeeb). They have asserted that such actions constitute disobedience to Allah and that the performer of such action is sinful, therefore necessitating rejection of his testimony.(*111) They have further stated that it is incumbent upon the Muslim to struggle to avoid listening to such things, even if he were passing by or stationed near them (without any willful intention). Abu Haneefah's closest disciple, Abu Yoosuf, stated that if the sound of musical instruments (ma'aazif) and amusements (malaahi) were heard coming from a house, the house could be entered without permission of its owners.(*112) The justification for this is that the command regarding the prohibition of abominable things (munkaaraat) is mandatory, and cannot be established if such entering rests upon the permission of the residents of the premises.(*113) This is the madhhab (position) of the rest of the Kufic scholars as well, such as Ibraheem An-Nakha'i, Ash-Sha'bi, Hammaad and Ath-Thowri. They do not differ on this issue. The same can be said of the general body of jurisprudence of Al-Basrah.(*114)
It is related by Ibnul-Jowzi that Ishaaq bin 'Eesaa At-Tabba'a asked Imaam Maalik bin Anas,(*115) the leading jurisprudent of Madeenah, about the view of the people of Madeenah regarding singing (ghinaa). He replied, "In fact, that is done by the sinful ones." Abut-teeb At-Tabari said, "As for Maalik bin Anas, he truly did prohibit singing and listening to it." He further related that Maalik said, "If one purchased a slave-girl(*116) and found her to be a professional singer, he could return her to the original owner for reimbursement on the claim of having found fault in the merchandise."(*117) The ruling of prohibition (tahreem) is generally agreed upon by the scholars of Madeenah. The Maaliki jurisprudence and commentator, Al-Qurtubi, reports Ibn Khuwayz Mandaad as saying that Imam Maalik had learned singing and music as a small boy until his mother encouraged him to leave it for a study of the religious sciences. He did, and his view became that such things were prohibited.(*118) Al-Qurtubi confirmed Maalik's view by saying that the only exception to this general ruling was the type of innocent songs such as those sung to placate the camels during travel, or during hard labor or boredom or during times of festivity and joy, such as the 'Eed days and weddings - the latter to the accompaniment of a simple daff (hand drum). Al-Qurtubi then said, "As for that which is done in our day, by way of the [blameworthy] innovations [bidah] of the Sufi mystics in their addition to hearing songs to the accompaniment of melodious instruments such as flutes, string instruments, etc., such is haraam [forbidden].(*119)
In the book, Aadaabul Qadaa, Ash-Shaafi'ee is reported as saying, "Verily, song is loathsome [makrooh]; it resembles the false and vain thing [al-baatil]. The one who partakes of it frequently is an incompetent fool whose testimony is to be rejected."(*121) His closest and most knowledgeable disciples clearly stipulate that his position on this issue is that of prohibition (tahreem) and they rebuke those who attribute its legality to him.(*122) This is confirmed by the later Shafi'ite scholar, Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami. He related that one of Ash-Shaafi'ee's disciples, Al-Haarith Al-Muhaasibi (d.243 H) said, "Song is haraam, just as the carcass [maytah](*123) is." Furthermore, the statement that singing is haraam is found in the treatise, Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer, by the authoritative Shafi'ite scholar, Ar-Raafi'ee (d.623 H.). This is further corroborated by the accomplished Shafiiite jurisprudent, Imam An-Nawawi (d.676 H.) in his Rowdah.(*124) Such is the correct view of the dependable scholars of the Shafi'ite madhhab. However, due to limited knowledge and personal fancy and desire, a few of their latter-day scholars disagree with this view.(*125)
IMAM AHMAD BIN HANBAL:
Imaam Ahmad's(*126) position regarding this issue has been narrated in detail by the Hanbalite jurisprudent and Quranic commentator, Abul-Faraj Ibnul-Jowzi (d.597 H.) in his treatise, Tablees Iblees (Satan's deception). He tells us that ghinaa during Ahmad's era consisted primarily of a rhymed, rythmical chanting (inshaad) of poems(*127) whose purpose was to lead people to a pious, abstentious way of life. However, when such chanters began to vary their simple style to one of a throbbing, affected melody, the narrations regarding Ahmad began to differ. His own son and student, Abdullah, relates that his father said, "Singing(*128) sprouts hypocrisy in the heart; it doesn't please me." The scholar, Ismaa'eel bin Ishaaq Ath-Thaqafi, reports that Ahmad was questioned regarding one's listening to those poems (qasaaid) to which he replied, "I despise it, for it is a bid'ah [innovation]. Don't sit down to listen to its reciters." Abul-Haarith relates that Ahmad said, "At-taghyeer(*129) is an innovation," whereupon it was said, "But it sensitizes and softens the heart." Ahmad rejoined, "It is a bid'ah [blameworthy innovation]." Yaqoob Al-Haashimi narrates that Ahmad said, "At-taghyeer is a recent innovation," and Yaqoob bin Gayyaath reports him as saying that he despised at-taghyeer and prohibited one's listening to it.(*130)
Ibnul-Jowzi then mentioned some narrations related by Abu Bakr Al-Khlallaal and Ahmad's son Saalih, which indicate Ahmad's not being averse to poetry sessions. It is related that Ahmad heard a singer (qawwal) a didn't reproach him, whereupon Saalih said to him, "Oh father, didn't you used to criticize and censure such a thing?" Ahmad replied, "That was because I was told that they were doing reproachable things, so i despised it; as for this, I do not dislike it." Ibnul-Jowzi commented at this point, "Some of the scholars of our [Hanbalite] school mention that Abu Bakr Al-Khallaal (d.311 H.) and his disciple, Abdul-Azeez, permitted singing [ghinaa]. Such a statement refers to the spiritual poems [qasaaid zuhduyyaat] which were prevalent during their time. This is precisely the type of singing which was not disliked by Ahmad [as previously mentioned].(*131) Ahmad bin Hanbal attests to this in the instance where he was asked regarding a deceased person who left behind him a son and a [professional singing] slave-girl.(*132) The son then needed to sell her. Ahmad said that she was not to be sold on the basis of her being a singer. Upon this it was said to him that, [as a singer], she was worth thirty-thousand dirhams, whereas if she were sold only on the basis of her being simply a slave-girl, she would perhaps be worth only twenty dinars. Ahmad reaffirmed that she was allowed to be sold only on the basis of her being simply a slave-girl." Ibnul-Jowzi explained, "The reason Ahmad said this is because the singing slave-girl doesn't sing spiritual poems [qasaaid zuhdiyaat]; rather, she sings throbbing lyrics which incite passion in one's being. This is proof that such singing is haraam, for if it were not so, the incurred loss of the orphans son's wealth would not be permissible.(*133) Furthermore, it is reported by the jurisprudent Al-Mirwazi that Ahmad bin Hanbal said, "The earnings of the effeminate [mukhannath] singer are foul [khabeeth] because he doesn't sing spiritual poems, but rather, he sings erotic poetry [al-ghazal] in a licentious, cooing manner."
Ibnul-Jowzi concluded that it is obvious from what has preceded that the variant narrations relating to Ahmads dislike of (karaahah) or permission for singing depended upon the type of singing that was meant. As for the type of singing which is popular today,(*134) it would be forbidden according to Ahmad's view. If only he could see what the people have added to it by way of innovation.(*135)
Meine Meinung, der Grund, warum die Musik verboten ist:
Ich weiss nicht, wer dieses Verbot eingefürht hat (Mohammed? Kalifen nach Mohammed?) Aber eines scheint mir, klar zu sein: die Schönheit der koranischen Klänge sei der Beweis, dass dieses Buch von Gott kommt, lautet die muslimische Lehre. Viele der ersten Muslime seien nur wegen dieser Klänge zum Islam konvertiert (wie Omar). Was passiert, wenn ein Muslim entdeckt, dass man genau soviel (oder noch mehr) Spaß haben kann, wenn man sich eine Symphonie von Beethoven oder irgendein Stück von Bach oder Mozart anhört? Diese Musikanten sind keine Propheten, und sie wurden keinesfalls von Gott inspiriert. Er wird zweifeln. Daher dieses Musikverbot, damit er glaubt, dass die Auswirkung der koranischen Klänge nur von Gott kommen können.
Artikel für das Verbot der Musik von orthodoxen Muslimen:
Artikel von Islam-QA
Artikel von al-Islaam
Artikel eines nur-Koran Muslimes gegen dieses Verbot