Afghan musician hopes the Taliban will go away so he can play again

In the Arab countries -- what passes for music, when it is allowed, is excruciatingly monotonous performances, and the lyrics usually some variation on the theme of how awful some subset of the Infidels -- often the Israelis are. Propagandist trash, with primitive repetition.

The farther away you get from the Arabs, and the effect of a full 1350 years of Islam, the more you may, here and there, find examples of folk music -- the wedding-singers of Aghanistan, for example, who get so much attention in the West, or the gamelan-players of Indonesia. The latter country has preserved, despite Islam, all kinds of cultural practices and means of expression, in music and art, no doubt because Indonesia was islamized not by force of arms but in the main by the work of traders from the Hadramaut, who started in Java, and who converted the rulers of Java and Sumatra in, I think, the 14th century. Cuius regio, cuio religio took care of the rest. The once solidly Hindu (and Buddhist) peoples of the East Indies -- India extra gangem (India Beyond The Ganges) as European cartographers used to identify the area -- did not fully take to Islam, and Islam, thank god, did not fully take to them. The power of Arab money, Arab cultural and linguistic imperialism and the fanaticising effect it has had everywhere, is of course relentlessly attempting to change that. And there have been successes. See those bombs in Bali. But I don't think the gamelans will be destroyed any time soon.

The hatred for music, for art (save for Arabic calligraphy, and that at a level far below the calligraphy of China), for humor ("there is no humor in Islam" said Ayatollah Khomeini, though Osama bin Laden did smile and even chuckle with pleasure when he heard of all the victims at the World Trade Center), the hatred for free and skeptical inquiry -- that's Islam.

Of course the poor Pakistani musician in question does not understand that, does not understand that the Taliban members who drank his tea, and listened to him, and then smashed his only instrument, or the childhood friend who, now in the Taliban, threatened to kill him, were only taking Islam, the doctrines of Islam, thoroughly to heart. He still thinks, in his daily recital of the Qur'an, that Islam, the "good" Islam, will defeat the "false" Islam of the Taliban. In this respect, he is only doing what is humanly understandable. But what is the excuse of other, less simple souls, in Pakistan, and in the West, who should know exactly what Islam teaches and preaches.

And if we in the West know this about Islma, about its hatred for music enshrined in the texts, we have a duty -- in order to protect ourselves, and to immunize those in our society (e.g., black prisoners) who have been targetted by the sinister campaigns of Da'wa, to note that among other things, Islam forbids music. That should, on a great many people, make an impression.

Let the Muslim spokesmen, the MSA boys now claiming they live in a "climate of fear" because Geert Wilders -- who because of Muslim death threats lives and moves surrounded by armed guards -- let them try to deny that Islamic texts, that the Hadith Qudsi, denounce music.

Let them dare.

Erratum Sheet:

For "cuius regio, cuio religio"

Read "Cuius regio, eius religio."

It's Saturday night. I'm not drunk, but I am tipsy. Still, that's no excuse for nonsensical non-Latin.

So songstresses are not allowed, but men singing is? Those jihadi recruting videos often have men humming along in the background. And drums.

Hugh - It's Friday night.

Oh, is it? Well, you see the problem.

Article: "Mohammad Akbar says he prays every day for the Pakistani army to crush the Taliban so he can make sweet music once more without fearing for his life."

Note what he doesn't pray for: An end to sharia per se. Because the large majority of Pakistanis want sharia and specifically want the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy, and adultery, we can conclude that there is a high probability (approximately 80%) that Mohammad Akbar is as "harsh" as the Taliban on these other aspects of sharia.

Article: "Not knowing they were from the Taliban, he served them tea, played his rubab and sang for them in his living room. And then they grabbed the instrument and smashed it."

Inviting people into your house, treating them with hospitality, followed by the guests' imposition of their own rules on you in your house...sounds familiar.

Also note that Mohammad Akbar did not know these men were Taliban, until they implemented the particular item of sharia that Akbar doesn't like.

They'll have to pry my harmonica from my cold, dead hands.

Hatred of music to me signifies a very stunted soul. I have seen animals react positively to this or that form of music! I used to have a cat who would close her eyes and sway (while laying down) to classical music.

It's such a central part of our culture, we hardly even notice sometimes when it's playing - such as background music in movies. We work to it, we play to it, we make love to it, we hear it as we walk down the street, occasionally. The town I currently live in (I'm moving soon) likes to play Christmas music over loudspeakers "downtown" (it comprises one block) a week before the holiday (only during the day!) Wouldn't Muslims hate that! Good thing none live here, though. I don't think Ed down at town office would take too kindly to out-of-towners bitching about his town Christmas music thing. (Oh,I so love small towns!) As a typical "redneck", he'd probably just as soon hit them with a hockey stick than listen to their bitching; or else he'd sic his assistant on him, who happens to be a former Evangelicalist pastor. lol!

Anyway. I wonder how long it will be until we start hearing Muslims bitching about ubiquitous music in Western society. I think it will be a while, because they'll have other issues to force upon us first, I think, easier ones that they CAN win now.

I'm still looking for where I can pick up Stealth Jihad via Paypal, but as I'm moving in about a week, I think I'll have to wait anyway to order until I get a new PO box set up.

Hugh writes:

"no doubt because Indonesia was islamized not by force of arms but in the main by the work of traders from the Hadramaut"

Respectfully, I think that's a crock. What seems to have happened is that Muslims penetrated Indonesia, attacked a few key royal families, converted some leaders, and then those converted leaders forced others to convert.

This myth of a peaceful osmosis of Indonesia into Islam really has to stop. It's spreading -- by osmosis -- even into the anti-Islam movement.

Oh, and Hugh:

CHEERS on a Friday night! :)

What Lola wants, Lola gets. Mohammed had a tin ear (among other disabilities like a warped sexual appetite) and so the whole f---ing Islamic faith here, as in so many other distorted ways, has had to go along with what the control-freak Model Man wanted. Really, one has to deny all kinds of realities and shelve common sense to boot to continue to think that Mohammed should be a person to be admired. Ah, but a billion plus sorry-ass souls do and there's the tragedy of it all for them and the rest of us.

"Peace of Augsburg"

I'd have to be really drunk, not just slightly woozy from wine, to forget something called the Schmalkaldic League. But now I can't remember what it was all about. Time, I think, for bed.

"I recite from the Holy Koran every morning and pray for the success of the military operation and when they are defeated I will buy another rubab," he said. [...]"

I.e., he's praying to Satan to protect him from Satan.

Hugh wrote: "...no doubt because Indonesia was islamized not by force of arms but in the main by the work of traders from the Hadramaut, who started in Java, and who converted the rulers of Java and Sumatra in, I think, the 14th century. Cuius regio, cuio religio took care of the rest."

According to some sources, the peoples of what we now call Indonesia (and other regions in Southeast Asia) were subject to military jihads and raids, and were subject to the standard Islamic policy of forced conversion. In his review of M. A. Khan's book,* Abul Kasem writes:

"Another surprise that Khan’s book springs is the myth that Islam came to South East Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Southern Thailand and Southern Philippines) through peaceful traders. Based on authentic sources, Khan convincingly proves that propagation of Islam in South East Asia was not as peaceful as it is usually thought to be. It was mainly jihad by stealth, coercion, intrigue and deceit, and in many instances bloodshed. On the propagation of Islam in Indonesia, Khan writes:

"Ibn Battutah’s description shows that as soon as Muslims gained political power as in Samudra, they started brutal Jihad against the surrounding infidels." (p. 140)

The author also provides the reason why Islam had spread so quickly in South East Asia after Muslims gained political power. It was, according to Khan, probably because of the Shafii Law practiced there, which gives idolaters only two choices: conversion to Islam or death. Whereas in India, the milder Hanafi Law showed some mercy to the idolaters by elevating them to the status of tolerable dhimmi, thus sparing the lives of Hindus, who did not voluntarily convert to Islam. As a result, the Islamization of India was less successful."

*Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery

Further information can be found at http://www.historyofjihad.org/indonesia.html

In addition, Cuius regio, cuio religio, i.e., the idea that the religion of the ruler determines the religion of his people, has a different implementation in the case of Islam. The people must indeed follow the religion of the Islamic ruler, but the manner in which Islam is enforced is through the sharia punishments, along with the absence of any punishments for those vigilantes and mobs who kill blasphemers and apostates. Indonesia and Southeast Asia generally do not appear to be exceptional in this regard. Hence, Islam is always and everywhere established by force, threat of violence, and other harsh penalties. This must be so until the penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, for examples, are removed and the legislation of jihad is rejected. Until that happens, it cannot be said that Islam has anywhere spread through peaceful means.

Islam spread by force and was, and is, established and maintained by harsh sharia penalties and (as Muhammad recommended) large families and the requirement that the children be raised as Muslims.

I think it's time for Metallica to play Pakistan :)

From Kinana of Khaybar, above:

...propagation of Islam in South East Asia was not as peaceful as it is usually thought to be. It was mainly jihad by stealth, coercion, intrigue and deceit, and in many instances bloodshed. On the propagation of Islam in Indonesia...
"Ibn Battutah’s description shows that as soon as Muslims gained political power as in Samudra, they started brutal Jihad against the surrounding infidels."

Does this not describe, all too well, what is happening in Europe and in North America today?

"In addition, Cuius regio, cuio religio..."

Oops. I meant to write, or rather cut and paste, "Cuius regio, eius religio."

Commonsense,

Indeed.

"Mohammad Akbar says he prays every day for the Pakistani army to crush the Taliban so he can make sweet music once more without fearing for his life."

I think you're praying to the wrong deity, Mohammad. "Please Allah, stop your followers from obeying your commands." Is this guy this ignorant of his own religion? Looks like a real-life misunderstander of Islam!

who says there ain't no fun in islam? check this my friends:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqs11qOlZDM&feature=player_profilepage

poor souls can't even invent their own friday night pig roast entertainment,,, they gotta' copy us losers. 'magine

oh my,,, and they teach their young such foolishness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_9QBrx6KhI&feature=related

and these are their "ladies" gettin' jiggy wid' it...:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydr8hMxcUUo&feature=related

no fun in islam, no fun in islam, no fun in islam (shhhhh,,, no one's s'posed to see us having fun)

not islamophobic

Blaming Islam for the situation in Afghanistan is like blaming Islam because muslim Malaysia does not kill all unbelievers.

Islam by itself does not make anybody do anything, just as a gun does not make a person kill or Christianity does not make "Christian" nations to go to war.

People will use religion for their own selfish purposes just as the Columbine killers used lyrics from music as an excuse to kill

Want quicker service getting gasoline? Pull into line with ZZ Top rocking your speakers. They get you in and out - fast. Evil infidel that I am!

Actually, it seems that this Myth of Indonesian Islamic Osmosis was propagatated -- or at least influentially promoted -- by none other than Snouck Hurgronje, the great and otherwise Islamorealist scholar of Islam. I don't have the particulars handy, but in a nutshell what Snouck did was summarily discount a wealth of local Indonesian histories as fanciful "myths" which recounted in fact a relentless history of wave after wave of violent incursion by Muslim invaders into Indonesia. From what we know of Muslims, those fanciful tales likely told the grim and gruesome, and everywhere repeated, truth.

This is no small matter, nor some dusty academic point. The Myth of Indonesian Islamic Peaceful Osmosis is rather significant for bolstering the larger Myth of the Moderate Muslim, for apologists can simply point to Indonesia as an example of the "spread of Islam" as though Islam ever spreads without violating human nature, and violating the sacred human body with violence. Shame on Hugh Fitzgerald for being so stupid.

M. A. Khan discusses the Islamization of Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia on pages 133-146 of his book Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery. (I have the first edition of the electronic version).

I am sorry. My reply had nothing to do with the comment from poster called "commonsense". It was a comment to the last posting from Hesperado. Sorry for the mistake.

(3) "Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage."

This is actually true, but there is more to it than that...

The effect of music with no lyrics on humans has known phenomena...like the urge to tap your foot or fingers, or dance to some music...Moods can be altered and changed by gradually increasing or decreasing the intensity of the music.
This is called the 'iso-principal'...You want to calm down? Play calm music...
Lyrics are different...They can be used to convey all kinds of messages that with music, lodge in the psyche...and have a positive, or negative effect in the listener. This is well known to those with an agenda and is used by them daily. ('Barack Hussain Obama MMM MMM MMM')
Song can instill hypocrisy in someones heart, but it can also instill love. I would not ban music nor song, but it is a personal choice if someone want's to have their nerves jangled and minds polluted...My advice...play calm music...Only turn up the intensity on Saturday night...

tanstaafl,

They won't get my ukulele, either!

"The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils.
The motions of his spirit are dull as night,
And his affections dark as Erebus.
Let no such man be trusted.

William Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice"

Once again, truth is truth, no matter when written.

If anyone has ever read the books "Supernature" or "The Secret Life of Plants" you have discovered that, through experimentation, by hooking electrodes to plant leaves, and then attaching them to GSRs(Galvanic Skin Response) machines, scientists discovered that plants responded favorably to music, especially classical and light rock beats.
Birds sing songs so melodically. Whales and porpoises sing. There is barely a creature on earth that does not sing in one way or another.
I am surprised that Islam so employs the idea that music is corrupting to the soul and must be prohibited.

If there really is an Allah, which if there is, he certainly isn't of the "loving" and "most merciful" sort portrayed by Mohammad, then Allah would most certainly not have denied us music, the complex and infinitely diverse mathematical computer program of the heavenly creation, to be played by his most favored creation, man.

The universe is constantly bombarding us with its own music every nano-second. It is the very fingerprints of the expansion of the early universe that we receive in our radio telescopes. Light itself is a form of music as the photons race and bounce into one another, creating a cacophony of tonal frequencies reflecting the chaos of nuclear fusion events. The sounds of the human body, when amplified create a music all its own.

In conclusion, how could a God, in his right mind, condemn his own creation by condemning the playing and expression of music?
That only serves to reinforce our beliefs that the words of the Islamic prophet were fictitious and that "the true God" that we all seek can more likely be found in the "words of the prophets that were written on the subway walls and in freedom halls".

Simon and Garfunkel had it right all along.

Alas, it seems the confusion of Mr. Fitzgerald continues unabated, at least with regard to Arab music. Mr. Fitzgerald: have you ever heard of Hisham Abbas, Nancy Ajram, Amr Diab, for starters? Are you claiming all those songs of theirs are really subliminal anti-Zionist screeds? And if so, I don't suppose you actually have any solid proof lying around to share with us, do you? And of course there's Fairuz and Mohammed Munir, to name just a few others as well. And I'm sure I'm just scratching the surface with regard to the depth, breadth, and vibrancy of Arabic music today.

'Propgandist trash, with primitive repetition'? No, Mr. Fitzgerald, that does not accurately describe Mohammed Hamaki's "Bahebak Kol Youm Aktar". But perhaps you should start to reflect as to the extent that such a description may apply to your writings.

Tempest - I'd give them a good dose of Venom.

Or perhaps Saxon. "Crusader, Crusader, take me with you...."

Al-Kidya - That's "tenement halls" not "freedom halls" :)

And I would beat Islamic thugs with my guitar before allowing them to take it. Even though I can't play the thing :P

Ah!The glories of life under Islamic totalitarianism. Could
you just imagine Islamic dominance of the West? No world series,no Monday night football,no Thanksgiving,Xmas,soap operas,(for you gays who bash Israel)no gay parades.Worse of all no Rock&Roll,R&B,Soul,Funk etc.Listen up all you rappers and rap fans who tend to be cynical when it comes to the need to fight Islamic extremism.The idea of a world
ruled by Islam is even worse the all the other Totalitarian systems when it come to preserving Western
cultural freedoms.

Fairuzfan has a point. I was wrong. Not all Arabic music is "propagandistic trash" -- though a great deal of it is. I listened to some of what he recommended above. I would characterize it as an attempt by Arab singers -- not unsuccessful -- to mimic Western musical trash.

So I guess I should shelve my idea of opening a "School for the Mastery of the Jew's Harp" in Afghanistan???

Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,

praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,

praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.

Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.

Here are some most attractive people making music (and dancing or slightly gyrating); whether or not they are praising the Lord is up to you to decide.

Ginger Rogers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGN78kS9X0

Lillian Roth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UwOrWnXOQ0

Silvana Mangano:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-HNZLg6ntI

I forgot to put this up yesterday, as a kind of singing telegram:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRApwhHvaFc

Thomas h,

No one is perfect -- not even Hugh Fitzgerald.

Brian464 (B) wrote: "People will use religion for their own selfish purposes just as the Columbine killers used lyrics from music as an excuse to kill"

What percentage of Americans agree with the Columbine killers in their killing? Probably a miniscule percentage of nut-cases. (Incidentally, I don't think the Columbine killers really did what they did because of musical lyrics, but that's another matter).

Also, what the Columbine killers did was illegal in the U.S.

In contrast, what percentage of Muslims agree with "strict" sharia, which involves harsh penalties up to and including death for such things as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, and homosexual acts? In fact, polls indicate that the majority of Muslims worldwide want "strict" sharia to be applied. Sharia makes legal what non-Muslims would consider to be murder.

What percentage of Muslims support bin Laden? Slightly more than 49% of "Arabs" in a huge survey by Al-Jazeera in 2006 said they support bin Laden. In Pakistan in 2007, polls indicated that bin Laden had a 46% approval rating (Musharraf had 38% approval).

B: "If the logic is that Islam makes people kill unbelievers than by the same logic one has to say that Islam in numerous countries also makes people not to kill unbelievers, but that does not make sense."

Sharia legislates that some unbelievers can be killed under some conditions, but not under others. It's one system.

B: "Its either Islam makes muslims kill non-muslims or it does not. We cannot have it both ways."

Sharia and the legislation of jihad, as implemented by some Muslims, requires that they kill non-Muslims under some conditions but not others.

B: "So the conclusion is that Islam by itself does not make anybody do anything..."

That's like saying the law doesn't make anybody do anything. Anyways, who is saying Islam by itself, without its Muslim hosts, makes anyone do anything?

B: "...but criminals do make use of islam as an excuse to kill just as non-criminals make use of Islam to not kill unbelievers"

The problem is that Islamic sharia and the legislation of jihad, as implemented by some Muslims, requires and/or permits Muslims to kill non-Muslims (and other Muslims) for a variety of reasons (apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, homosexual acts). The vast majority of non-Muslims today view these "reasons" for killing as unacceptable, such that the killings would be regarded as murder.

Why do you limit your discussion to killing/not killing? Muslims can find in Islam justifications for rape, enslavement, hostage-taking, torture, plundering, usurping, deceiving, subjugating, terrorizing, forcibly converting, coercing, and silencing of dissenters. Are we to overlook all of this because sharia requires Muslims not to kill some unbelievers under some conditions?

The Quran, Hadith, and Sira suggest to me, as a critical reader, that "Muhammad" (or those who came up with Islam) crafted Islam partly as an excuse to commit criminal activity of the sort I've listed above.

That Islam contains some propositions that aren't immoral or criminal (e.g., respect your parents) hardly excuses the many propositions that are objectionable (e.g., don't respect your parents if they are un-Islamic).

B:"Islam in numerous countries also makes people not to kill unbelievers..."

Muslim-majority countries vary in the extent to which sharia punishments and restrictions on killing are actually implemented.

The sharia ban on music - and a literal obedience to the Hadith texts cited by Mr Spencer above would seem to imply a total ban on all music sacred and profane, vocal and instrumental - is both impossible of complete achievement (as is shown by the stubborn persistence of certain forms of music-making within dar al Islam ) and also quite simply mad and evil.

There are a couple more hadiths, not I think from the most deemed-authoritative collections, that fill out the full horrible picture of Islam's hostility to music.

Serge Trifkovic cites them in 'Sword of the Prophet' , p. 40 - "Music did not fare any better with Muhammad than poetry. That mainstream Islam has no music, and that there is no singing at the mosque, may be related to Muhammad's view that, 'None raised up his voice with a song but that Allah sent him two devils upon his shoulders who beat his chest with their heels until he stopped'. He [Muhammad] once heard the sound of a flute and put his fingers into his ears and turned to go another way."

The first - about the devil which attacks the singer, to beat him till he stops - is referenced, by Trifkovic, as 'Al Hadis, Book 2, Chapter 12, no. 283'; the incident of Muhammad sticking his fingers in his ears and turning aside, upon hearing a flute, is referenced as 'Al Hadis Book 2, chapter 12, no. 20.'

Trifkovic doesn't give a lot of detail about 'Al-Hadis' but as far as I can work out, it is an English translation, by Maulana Fazlul Karim, of the collection known as the Mishkat al-Masabih. It is not among the six collections deemed of greatest authority; however, my initial google search using the title 'Al-Hadis' turned it up at the online bookshop of a Sunni Muslim website.

dda,

The Mishkat is a popular secondary source, containing hadiths from Bukhari, Muslim, Dawud, etc.

p.s. There are exceptions to the prohibition on music. Music, wine, shaving the beard, men wearing burkas, deception, etc., are permissible in jihad/qital in the cause of Allah. Hence the numerous militant jihad groups who add music to their videos of "infidel" personnel getting blown up or having their heads cut off.

In the cross-hairs of Jihad:

Bach. Mozart. Monteverdi. Hildegard of Bingen. John Taverner. William Byrd. Henry Purcell. J S Bach. Verdi. Stephen Sondheim. (I could keep on adding names till I filled a book).

The australian chamber orchestra with Richard Tognetti.

The New London Consort.

John Eliot Gardiner.

Kings College Chapel Choir.

Aled Jones.

La Scala.

The Paris Opera (with its glorious painted ceiling by Jewish artist Marc Chagall).

The Vienna Philharmonic.

The Sydney Opera House.

The Met.

The Festival Hall, London.

The Grand Old Opry.

Chinese Opera.

Add to that list every orchestra, every choir, every folk group, every pop group, everyone who sings or plays a musical instrument, among the entire five billion non-Muslims currently alive on this earth; plus all the existent records, in every form, from written notation to film and digital files, of what has been composed and performed prior to now.

The sharia-pushers, the sharia-enforcers, the insane killjoys of pure Islam, would like to do to ALL of them, and to all of it, what they did to Mr Mohammad Akbar's rubab (his lute) and what they did to his flute-playing friend, and to the music shops and the dvds and other materials contained therein. Slit the throat of the musician; smash the instrument; destroy the recording.

Imagine what these evil, evil, mindless, demon-possessed tools of the psychopath warlord mohammed ha-meshugga, would do to a Stradivarius violin.

allah's idea of the perfect world appears to be one in which there is no music at all - only screams of pain, howls of rage, the lustful whoop of the satisfied rapist...or the silence of the grave.

How long before a murder-'martyr' explodes himself in the midst of the London Proms?

How long before the rioting Mohammedan mobs set fire to the Paris Opera? Or the Met?

In honor and in memory of all music-makers ever butchered by jihadists, and all instruments ever smashed by them, and in defiance of music-hating abu al-kasim 'mohammed', ha-meshugga 'the Mad One'...

Here is a song that I am firmly convinced is sung in Heaven before the throne of YHWH the Living God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHOJR2KdkWo

(BTW - It's Armenian).

Whatever Muhammad's reasons for imposing a general prohibition on music, note how this allowed him to get control over a major form of expression.

With the prohibitions on music and songs, depictive/illustrative imagery and sculpture of people and animals (and other gods), and Islamic restrictions on speech and writing, Muhammad's control over all expression of ideas and emotions in society was near-absolute. Subsequently, control and regulation of all expression under sharia was near-absolute.

On Islam and music, here's the bottom line:

If we can adduce Muslims who play music in various places, that irrelevant and distracting. In fact, it plays into the propaganda that Islam is a "diverse tapestry". The same Muslims who happen to be playing and/or listening to music, like the ostensibly hapless Muslim of this thread's title piece playing his Islamic "lute", are otherwise supporting the monster that breeds the fanaticism against the very same music they want to enjoy. The fact that he continues to pray to Allah and reveres Mohammed surely outweighs the fact that he likes to play his little stringed instrument. And that wouldn't be a problem for us, were that fanaticism not also directly related to the fanaticism motivating those who want to attack us. Thus, any Muslims who continue to be Muslims but somehow find a way to justify playing and enjoying music are part of the problem, not the solution. That's the bottom line. We cannot let sentimentality distract us from our #1 priority: our own safety. Unless, that is, like certain people in the anti-Islam movement who still believe in the siren song of the "moderate Muslim", we haven't fully digested the lethal horror that is Islam.

"And the fact that it was made by an intelligent person doesn't make it less so."

Indeed, it makes it more so, that such an otherwise intelligent and erudite person still believes in the Myth of Indonesian Islamic Osmosis -- that Islam spread peacefully into Indonesia and not, as everywhere else at all times in history, through violence. It's a myth no less insidiously propagandistic for Islamic apologetics than the Myth of Andalus, for example (even if the latter myth tends to be trotted out more often).

Sorry for the quadruple posting. Never happened to me before. I swear I clicked "submit" only once. Weird...

Sorry for the quadruple posting. Never happened to me before. I swear I clicked "submit" only once. Weird...

Ladies and gentlemen.

Observe our latest Mohammedtroll, 'brian464', hiding behind an 'infidel' name, and lying and denying and projecting onto the non-Muslims all responsibility for Muslim evil deeds [e.g. here, attacks on musicians and destruction of musical instruments] that are manifestly inspired by Islamic texts [here, the anti-music Hadith, the music-hating example of Mohammed]. I may note that his/ its style of 'argumentation' and bandwidth theft, reminds me very strongly of another such, which used to call itself 'loveverybody', and turned up a month or two ago, specializing in tacking its nonsense onto the end of older threads in order to attempt to get the last word).

Ignore this creature's nonsense and lies and its bizarre and ridiculous attempt to trick us into thinking that all the attacks on musicians and music-making, and the general stunting of music, throughout dar al Islam, have nothing whatever to do with Islamic teaching and law, and occur only in 'occupied' or non-Muslim-influenced territory and are therefore the fault of non-Muslims.

Think about the fact that wherever Muslim conquerors went, in Spain, in Anatolia, in the Balkans, one of the first thing they did was to smash, and sometimes to melt down, church bells.

Then go back up and reread the posted article. Read what the Afghan musician says; that it was the devoutly Muslim Taliban - whose name means 'Students' (i.e. Students of Islam) - who smashed his stringed instrument.

But, more importantly, reread, slowly, that whole group of texts from the Hadith which were cited by Mr Spencer, and then the additional texts from the Al-Hadis, or Mishkat al Masabih, a popular hadith collection (which book, in English translation, I found being earnestly touted by a Muslim online bookstore) and consider the violently negative view of music that they inculcate.

From the Mishkat al-Masabih, to repeat:

'None raised up his voice with a song but that Allah sent him two devils upon his shoulders who beat his chest with their heels until he stopped'.

And - He [Muhammad] once heard the sound of a flute and put his fingers into his ears and turned to go another way."

I don't think either of those - the reported *saying* of Mohammed, and the reported *action* - suggest that Mohammed had any particular liking for, or interest in, music. Rather the opposite. And since his followers are supposed to devotedly imitate him, then...does one imagine that a passion for music, for making it or listening to it, is going to be particularly *encouraged* amongst those familiar with the Sunnah?

The Afghan lutanist in the posted article, despite his prayers to allah, has been making music *despite* Islam, even in defiance of it; not *because* of it.

Perhaps our Mohammedtroll would like to try to explain away this whole section of the Umdat al-Salik, a compendium and handbook of Islamic 'law', which was written in the heart of dar al Islam, by Muslims, for Muslims, at a time when Islam was a very powerful entity (and which cannot, therefore, by any stretch of the imagination, be seen as a 'reaction' to any actions by non-Muslims):

"19. Musical instruments are unlawful
pp. 774-775
r40.0 MUSIC, SONG, AND DANCE
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS 
r40.1 (Ibn Hajar Haytami:) As for the condemnation of musical instruments, flutes, strings and the like by the Truthful and Trustworthy (Allah bless him and give him peace), who “does not speak from personal caprice: it is nothing besides a revelation inspired” (Koran 53:3-4),
let those who refuse to obey him beware lest calamity strike them, or a painful torment.
'The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
(1) “Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance.”
(2) “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”
(3) “Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.”
(4) “This community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones.” Someone asked, “When will this be, O Messenger of Allah?” and he said, “When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful.”
(5) “There will be peoples of my Community who will hold fornication, silk, wine, and musical instruments to be lawful ….”.

"All of this is explicit and compelling textual evidence that musical instruments of all types are unlawful (Kaff al-ra’a’ ‘an muharramat al-lahw wa al-sama’ (y49), 2.269-70)".

'Musical instruments are unlawful'.

So sez a major - and still current - handbook of sharia, whose modern English translation bears the imprimatur of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, no less.

I *do* think that the great symphony orchestras of Europe *are* in danger, ever-increasing danger, so long as the Mohammedan invasion of, and proliferation within, the nations of Europe, continues. And I think non-Muslim musicians are potentially threatened *everywhere* that Muslim populations are increasing and growing more and more aggressive.

For if a pious Mohammedan will smash the lute of a fellow Mohammedan, in obedience to the music-hating example of Mohammed, or slit the throat of a flute-player (or behead a Berber folk-singer on stage in front of the audience, as the sharia-pushers have done in Algeria), or blow up a music shop in Gaza, Pakistan or Afghanistan; why would such a Mohammedan not also smash the violin of a non-Muslim musician, or slit the throat of a non-Muslim flute-player, or blow up a music shop anywhere in dar al Harb, should opportunity arise, and he feel himself powerful enough to 'command the right' [i.e. command the non-playing or non-singing of music) and 'forbid the wrong' [i.e. forbid playing and singing].

Brian464,

Your response suggests to me that we agree, in principle, on at least this much:

"It is ultimately Muslims, not Islam, who are directly to blame for the implementation of Islam, sharia, and jihad."--Kinana

However, you do not seem to acknowledge my point that you seem to be downplaying or dismissing the role of law in compelling people to do, or not do, (or to say, or not say) various things. To law as such I should add societal norms, mores, or taboos, as well as politics, and so on. I do not downplay the role of individual Muslims as agents, but simply want to point out that the will and actions of the individual do not exist in a vacuum and they part of a larger society in which these laws, mores, policies, etc., come into play.

B: "If the majority of muslims actually want Sharia there would not exist numerous muslim majority countries that are secular and do not follow Sharia or the strict aspects of Sharia"

I don't accept your conclusion here because (a) it is possible for the majority of Muslims to want sharia while they may be numerous countries in which Muslims don't have this, and (b) you are reasoning as though there were no empirical evidence pertaining to this question. Polls taken in some of the Muslim-majority countries with large populations (e.g., Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco) indicate that in fact most Muslims do want "strict" sharia. Are you not aware of the polls taken by World Public Opinion, and more recently by PEW?

You list a large number of Muslim countries and claim that they do not follow sharia. However, I can tell you offhand that most if not all of the countries you listed are members of the OIC, and they are all participants in the project, played out through the U.N., to maintain or further establish Islamic blasphemy laws for their own populations, and to extend these laws over non-Muslim peoples world-wide. Islamic blasphemy laws are perhaps the most important element of sharia. Also, the members of the OIC have signed on to the Cairo Declaration, which states that Islam and sharia effectively overrule all other rules and principles.

Your list of Muslim countries does not constitute the majority of Muslims.

Offhand, Somalia is suspect in your list, because, while often referred to as "lawless," in fact the opposing factions do try to implement sharia, killing apostates, and so forth. Why would you add Somalia to your list?

Also, offhand, Turkey is suspect in your list because they have penalties there for insulting Islam--again a major component, if not the most important component of sharia or sharia-inspired legislation. Turkey is also a signatory to the Cairo Declaration and is a member of the OIC, which recognize the supremacy of sharia and Islam.

I may have more to say once I take a closer look at your list of Muslim countries.

apologies for a couple of typos in the above:

"...the will and actions of the individual do not exist in a vacuum and they [are a]* part of a larger society..."

"...because (a) it is possible for the majority of Muslims to want sharia while [there]* may be numerous countries in which Muslims don't have this..."

I observe that our latest apologist for Islam, our sand-thrower, 'brian' (whose real name is probably something like Mohammed or Ahmed or Ali or Yusuf) tries to 'prove' that Islam is not a threat to western musicians, by the fact that - so far - Muslims in Switzerland have not attacked Swiss Infidel musicians, and that Muslims in Malaysia have not (so far as we *know*) attacked Malaysian musicians (though I observe that the delectable songstress 'Beyonce' was only recently prevented from performing in Malaysia, because of protests from sharia-pushing Muslims).

Re both examples given, I would simply reply: jihadist sharia-pushers have not attacked Swiss orchestras...YET. That they have not done it up until now, proves nothing.

And (aside from the threats which led to the cancellation of Beyonce's planned performance in Malaysia), the sharia-pushers, the revivalists of Islam, Islam, Islam, have not attacked a Malaysian orchestra...YET.

That they have not *yet* set out to impose and enforce a total ban on music in Malaysia proves nothing.

So far as I can see, the sharia-pushers may deem that they do not yet have sufficient power in Switzerland - where their population is still pretty small - to do everything they would like to do; and even in Malaysia they do not yet comprise an *overwhelming* majority of the population.

And I observe that 'brian' in its 'reply' to me has said nothing whatever about those damning Hadith, which were most definitely produced by Muslims, for Muslims, in the midst of a Muslim-dominated milieu, at a time when the Ummah was making war on others left right and centre; and which seem to me to be unambiguous in their hostile and negative attitude toward singing and playing..as the Umdat al-Salik makes very clear, when it says flatly, citing those very same Hadiths as its authority, that 'musical instruments are unlawful'.

Brian464,

Re the list of countries you cited as Muslim-majority, it turns out that only two of them (Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegov.) are not listed as members of the OIC on the OIC site. Bos.-Herzeg. (40% Muslim) has "observer" status in the OIC, which means at least that they are participants in the OIC and have no deal-breaking disagreements with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. That is, almost all of them endorse sharia at least in principle.

Other observations about your list of countries:
-with the exception of Turkey, they are all relatively small in population, and altogether (even with Turkey) do not contain much of the world's Muslim population
-with some exceptions (e.g., Turkey, Somalia) the level of devotion to Islam in these countries is generally lower and much more lax than in the large countries that I mentioned where the majority of Muslims want sharia (Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco). Observance of Islam by many Muslims in many of these countries is little more than nominal.
-"Islam" in some of the African countries you mention (except Somalia) involves a loose, syncretic blend with other beliefs that are arguably incompatible with the tenets of the Quran (e.g., animism, Christianity)
-in some of these relatively moderate Muslim countries there are nevertheless increasing instances of Saudi-funded mosques and other projects, and Saudi and Pakistani missionary activity (i.e., of probably more strict versions of Islam) is occurring.

I hope this link works, but another inspiring bit of singing, this time by Jonas Kaufman, one of the great new tenors to come on the scene. He has the full weight of a baritone, with the brilliant top of a dramatic tenor. This familiar piece is being sung in the newly rebuilt Frauen Kirche in Dresden.Long live our western masterpieces!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBJObglpL9A

Our Mohammedtroll, 'brian', is talking nonsense.

His attempt to 'prove' that non-Muslim music-makers have nothing to fear from Muslims - and will never have anything to fear from Muslims - by remarking upon the lack (up till now) of Muslim sharia-pusher attacks upon musicians in Switzerland, where Muslims comprise perhaps 3 % of the population, is perfectly nonsensical.

What matters is that an ancient and still-considered-authoritative manual of Islamic law says flatly that musical instruments are unlawful, and it backs this statement up by referring to a string of Hadith.

Is 'brian' (abdullah, or ali, or ahmed, or hussain or whatever) going to deny that the Umdat al-Salik exists, and that it says what it says, and that many Muslims (such as those who in the name of Islam slit the throats of flute-players in Afghanistan and folk-singers in Algeria) do take seriously what it says; and that the Hadith portrayal of Mohammed's attitude toward music, musical instruments, and those who sing and who play music, is harshly negative?

Perhaps our Mohammedtroll would like to try to explain away this whole section of the Umdat al-Salik, a compendium and handbook of Islamic 'law', which was written in the heart of dar al Islam, by Muslims, for Muslims, at a time when Islam was a very powerful entity (and which book cannot, therefore, by any stretch of the imagination, be seen as a 'reaction' to any actions by non-Muslims):

"19. Musical instruments are unlawful
pp. 774-775
r40.0 MUSIC, SONG, AND DANCE
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS 
r40.1 (Ibn Hajar Haytami:) As for the condemnation of musical instruments, flutes, strings and the like by the Truthful and Trustworthy (Allah bless him and give him peace), who “does not speak from personal caprice: it is nothing besides a revelation inspired” (Koran 53:3-4),
let those who refuse to obey him beware lest calamity strike them, or a painful torment.
'The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
(1) “Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance.”
(2) “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”
(3) “Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.”
(4) “This community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones.” Someone asked, “When will this be, O Messenger of Allah?” and he said, “When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful.”
(5) “There will be peoples of my Community who will hold fornication, silk, wine, and musical instruments to be lawful ….”.

"All of this is explicit and compelling textual evidence that musical instruments of all types are unlawful (Kaff al-ra’a’ ‘an muharramat al-lahw wa al-sama’ (y49), 2.269-70)".

'Musical instruments are unlawful'.

So sez a major - and still current - handbook of sharia, whose modern English translation bears the modern imprimatur of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, no less.

And another compendium of rules for Muslim living, still sold today on Islamic websites as a guide for the pious, the Mishkat al-Masabih, adds the following jarring (to Infidel sensibilities) accounts of what Mohammed thought of music.

From the Mishkat al-Masabih, to repeat:

'None raised up his voice with a song but that Allah sent him two devils upon his shoulders who beat his chest with their heels until he stopped'. [Al-Hadis, Bk 2, chapter 12, no. 283]

And - He [Muhammad] once heard the sound of a flute and put his fingers into his ears and turned to go another way." [Al-Hadis, Bk 2, chapter 12, No. 20 - 'Al-Hadis' being a modern English translation of the Mishkat, by one Maulana Fadlul Karim].

I don't think either of those stories from the Mishkat - the reported *saying* of Mohammed, and the reported *action* - suggest that Mohammed had any particular liking for, or interest in, music. Rather the opposite.

And, as I have observed before: since Mohammed's followers are supposed to devotedly imitate him, in every tiny detail, to approve of what he approved, and to disapprove of what he disapproved, then...does it seem likely that a passion for music, for making it or listening to it, would be particularly *encouraged* amongst those familiar with the Sunnah?

Ladies and gentlemen

The answer to our Mohammedtroll 'brian's first disingenuous question - "Have musicians in any part of the western world been attacked by muslims for their music ?" - is this: Not Yet - but given the sharia ban on music, there is NO guarantee that they will not be, in the future, if the Mohammedan population in the West (or anywhere else in the non-Islamic world) grows in size and aggressiveness and in adherence to sharia.

The answer to the second question, "Have any musicians in the following muslim majority countries been attacked for their music ?", is the same - Not Yet, but they will be, as and when the sharia-pushers grow in numbers and confidence.

I observe that 'brian's list of Muslim countries he regards as safe for musicians, is quite carefully selective. I see he avoids mentioning Saudi Arabia (and its Arabian Peninsula neighbours, such as Yemen) and Islamic Iran, the heartlands of Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam respectively, where sharia prevails overwhelmingly; he does not mention Algeria, where we know there have been killings of musicians; he avoids mentioning Egypt, which used to be seen as 'secularised' but is becoming more and more Islamically 'religious' (in the early 1990s, its famous 'belly-dancers' were being paid by the Saudis to renounce their deemed-unislamic art and retire from the stage) and interestingly, he does not include Indonesia, parts of which are sharia-izing quite fast.

Seven of the countries he mentions are African, in which a somewhat slacker form of Islam has obtained until recently; but I wouldn't bet on this remaining the case, not at the rate that (sustained either by Arab or Persian Muslim oil money) revivalists of pure classical Islam are penetrating these areas.

Four other countries on the list - Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Albania, Bosnia - have very substantial non-Muslim populations, which does to some extent affect their social 'atmosphere'; and three of these four - Bosnia, Kazakhstan, Albania- were subjected for fifty years to forcible secularisation by communist dictators (Kosovo, having been part of Serbia under Tito, likewise), while Malaysia was of course ruled by the British for a significant period.

The former soviet republics of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, though almost entirely 'Muslim' in population, were ruled by the non-Muslim Tsars for some time, and then underwent forcible secularisation from 1917-1990 at the hands of the Communists; just as in Turkey, also, Islam was to some extent suppressed (but is now resurgent). But as for Turkey, one of the nastiest Islamic anti-music articles I have come across on the net, was written by...a Turkish Muslim.

Anyway: almost *all* the places listed by 'brian' as supposedly safe for musicians are places where Islam is a bit 'weaker'; where it has been diluted by a persistent pre-Islamic culture, or else, has been deliberately and strongly suppressed by a non-Muslim regime for a significant period of time.

Musicians *might* be somewhat safer in these places, *for now*, than in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq or in Jihad Fortress Gaza. I wouldn't bet on that state of affairs continuing, as the sharia-pushers, the revivalists of Traditional Classical Islam, of That Old-Time Religion, are hard at work in all of them.

But 'brian' slipped up with Somalia. The sharia revivalists and Enforcers are on a roll, there. I have a news report from Somalia, from 2005, describing the closure of a video studio where Bollywood films were being dubbed into Somali: "The gunmen, loyal to the Union of the Islamic Courts, smashed television monitors and escorted six members of staff from the studios in the Somali capital. The courts consider watching films, listening to music and dancing un-Islamic." And in another report from Somalia - "Islamic militants controlling much of southern Somalia shut down a radio station Sunday for playing love songs and other music". And from that same report, "Since sweeping to power over much of southern Somalia, including the capital Mogadishu, in June, the Islamists have banned movie viewing, publicly lashed drug users *and broke up a wedding celebration because a band was playing and women and men were socializing together*".

The texts of Islam, and their interpretations (as exemplified by the Umdat al-Salik), are more openly hostile and negative toward music - all forms of music - than those of any other major religion currently practised on planet earth. And we have seen that there are a significant number of Muslims who take these music-hating texts very seriously indeed, and act upon them.

The texts and those who are prepared to act upon them - which includes those who, among the Muslim population, are currently slack in their practice, but may become more zealously 'religious' and therefore act upon those hostile texts in future - seem to me therefore to constitute, at the very least, a significant potential danger, a sort of standing threat, to all musicians whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

If there were no Mohammedans resident in Europe or the Americas or Australia or in the non-Islamic countries of Asia, the safety and freedom of our non-Muslim musicians would be greater than it currently is. As also the safety and freedom of all the resident non-Muslims, period.

Brian464,

This is getting far afield from the topic of music in Islam, isn't it? Why did you introduce this topic? Let me close out my side of the exchange.

The list you provided from wikipedia about killing sprees was obviously not exhaustive, did not appear to be a part of a proper study and excluded some major killing sprees that did not occur in war zones (e.g., the Mumbai massacre did not occur in a war zone). Moreover, the time span began at about 1938. Why? And did no sprees happen in any Muslim country during that entire time? How would anyone know?

B: "Regarding killing sprees, I was comparing apples to apples."

There's no indication that the seemingly haphazard assortment of killing sprees thrown together in your wikipedia list, with who-knows-how-many killing sprees omitted, is indicative of anything.

Regarding genocides, it is estimated that at least 270 million people have been slaughtered in the name of spreading Islam, Islamic slave trade, etc.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=5794&sec_id=5794

You also overlook Hitler's Islamic influences and interests. Your list of genocides omits several Islamic genocides of non-Muslims, omits the genocides in Bangladesh, wildly underestimates the extent of the killing in Sudan in the 20th century, etc. I can only imagine how many more problems and omissions there would be were I to take a closer look. And why is your list truncated to a specific time frame? Looks like biased sampling again on your part.

There is no way that I would privately email this individual, 'brian464'. Far too dangerous.

I have said all that I intend to say. And I am not going to shift from the position that I have stated in the course of this discussion.

As far as I am concerned, the existence of the harshly anti-music canonical Islamic texts which I have cited, and the fact that numbers of sharia-pushing proudly-identifying-as-Muslim Muslims *have* attacked and/ or threatened and even murdered musicians, and destroyed musical instruments, and destroyed music shops, all of which they have done in the name of Islam, imitating the music-hating example of Mohammed, is completely sufficient to establish, for me, the fact that among the Muslim population there *are* some zealous sharia-pushers - whose number we do not know, but it is most likely greater than many suppose - who constitute a standing potential threat not only to musicians within some heavily-Islamised countries, but also to music and musicians everywhere in the world.

And I believe that if all Mohammedans currently resident in nonMuslim-majority countries, were evicted, then our own musicians, music shops, and everything else we have that is associated with the making of music, would be much, much safer.

There is nothing more to be discussed.

That is my final position on the matter, and from that position NOTHING is going to shift me, because it is based on clearly observable facts.

Brian464/fas31,

I don't think you are being banned, though I believe that some posts don't get through (or are held back for a period) for various ordinary reasons, e.g., exceeding length limits, having too many links, being off topic, etc. As I said, I want to close out my side of our conversation for this thread, but there will probably be opportunities for more discussions--hopefully more on topic--in future threads.

Ladies and gentlemen

our Muslim apologist, I observe, *continues* steadfastly to ignore the anti-music hadiths and the anti-music ruling derived from them.

He has refused to discuss them. He seems to be pretending that they do not exist.

Because if he admits that they exist and that they say what they say, he *has* to admit that the Islamic canonical texts severely disapprove of music. And that there will be, therefore, devout Muslims who oppose music-making...and may even resort to violence to stop it, as some devout Muslims have very obviously done.

I have some questions for him. Nice plain questions, that can be answered with a simple 'Yes' or 'No'.

Mr Muslim: do *you* agree with the Umdat-al-Salik, a compendium of sharia law, that musical instruments are unlawful?

Yes or No?

Given that the Hadith tell you that Mohammed condemned stringed instruments, would you feel OK playing the guitar?

Yes or NO?

Given that the Hadith condemn the playing of flutes, would you feel OK to play a flute? Would you allow a friend or relative to play the flute?

Yes or No?

Mr Muslim: do *you* believe that in Hell molten lead will be poured into the ears of anyone who listens to a female singer?

Yes or No?

Mr Muslim: do you think that Mohammed was right to put his fingers in his ears and turn away in order not to hear the sound of someone playing a flute?

Yes or No?

Nonie Darwish had lived, not under full sharia officially enforced by the State, but in a society heavily influenced by sharia at community level. She writes about sharia in a no-nonsense book entitled 'Cruel and Usual Punishment'.

She says of it, in the opening pages of her b: "For the first thirty years of my life I lived as a virtual slave".

She says, again: "To escape Sharia marriage laws, I moved to America in 1978, in large part to be able to marry an Egyptian Coptic Christian. Even so, it was necessary for him to convert to Islam in order to protect me from the long arm of Sharia law.

"My move to America in 1978 liberated me from the most oppressive system of laws in the world - the best gift that living in America has given me.

"To live under Islamic sharia is to live in the world's largest maximum-security prison, and I for one don't want to be incarcerated again".

Ladies and gentlemen (I address any intelligent non-Muslim reader who may have come in late to this thread, or who may google their way in, in the future), I urge you to contrast and compare the first-hand testimony of ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish - who lived within a sharia-influenced society - with the nonsense and lies from the Muslim apologist (who pretends to be - unbelievably - a non-Muslim admirer of Islam) immediately above, who rhapsodises about how wonderful sharia is; that is, that very same system which Egyptian ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish, having lived inside it for thirty years, describes as resembling a maximum-security prison. And that was in Egypt, which is commonly thought of as 'moderate', and 'tolerant'...not in Afghanistan, or in Saudi Arabia. Our Muslim apologist admires a system of slavery.

The hostility toward music and musicians that is clearly expressed by the canonical Islamic texts that were cited by Mr Spencer when he posted the news report from Afghanistan - texts that I have also cited, along with a couple of others equally hostile toward music-making - is just one among the many uglinesses of sharia. Of course there have been, and are, lax Muslims (like the unhappy Afghan lute-player in the posted article) who prefer to ignore the sharia strictures upon music ...but there are others who will try to activate and enforce those strictures, using lethal force if necessary. It does not take many of those, whom Nonie Darwish calls "allah's enforcers", to make life a misery for everybody else.

Nonie: "A Muslim does not have to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran to fear Sharia's harsh punishments. That problem has been solved by the ingenious worldwide stranglehold of Sharia over ordinary Muslims. In the more secular Muslim states, the public must look over their shoulders not just for the official 'virtue police' who can be easily bribed, but more importantly for fellow Muslims who might see them acting like apostates and simply kill them, thinking they [the killers] are doing the right thing.

"*You do not need the whole population to believe this, but if even 10 percent follow sharia literally, that is plenty of prospective killers waiting to see a violation of Sharia on the street* {my emphasis - dda}, and causing a lot of fear, suppression, distrust and chaos".

It only takes a few psychopathic sharia-enforcers, to frighten everyone else into submission to Sharia. It only needs a few to decide that musicians should be threatened, and their instruments broken; or even, that flute-players should have their throats cut. That is the awkward fact that our apologist for Islam is trying to cover up, when he insists I mustn't blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.

I prefer not to stake the safety of the world's musicians on Muslims' willingness to consistently ignore sharia rules about music. What happens if even a few thousand or a few hundred or a few *dozen* Muslims 'activate' those rules and act upon them? Murder and mayhem.

Of course, the ugliest thing about sharia - worse even than its explicit and insane hostility toward music, a hostility always there and capable of being activated and put into practice at any moment, as the Taliban and Al-Shabaab and jihadists in Gaza are activating it at the moment - is that it prescribes that those who leave Islam must be killed.

Nonie Darwish herself, having publicly left Islam and declared herself a Christian, lives now in the knowledge that any self-appointed sharia enforcer might at any time decide to execute her. All other well-known apostates - Magdi Cristiano Allam, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Canon Sookhdeo, Wafa Sultan - and the thousands of lesser-known apostates, live under the same shadow, the shadow of Sharia which says their lives are forfeit...purely because they decided they preferred something else, to Islam.

Our Muslim apologist admires sharia. He appears to prefer sharia societies, to the decadent and corrupt western world. Then if he or she is currently living within a non-Muslim country, he should LEAVE. NOW. And go to Islamic Iran, to Afghanistan, to Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Egypt or Aceh, and submit himself to sharia.

I, however, not just because of the condemnation and suppression of music, but because of the explicit rule that defectors ought to be killed – a rule that has been carried out both in the past and in the present [see Samuel Zwemer, ‘The law of apostasy in Islam’ and Canon Sookhdeo’s new book, ‘Freedom to Believe’, for a mountain of historical evidence] view sharia as a system of mental, physical and spiritual enslavement

I believe that the danger that zealous sharia-pushing Muslims (whatever percentage they comprise of the general Muslim population - and it is probably higher rather than lower) represent to musicians (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) and to apostates from Islam, is real; and that it represents an unacceptable level of risk.

No flute-player should have their throat slit for playing the flute. One such murder, committed in the name of Islam by just one sharia-pushing thug, one of 'allah's self-appointed enforcers, is one too many.

Observe, ladies and gentlemen: our Muslim apologist did *not* truly answer my questions.

It is a Muslim. If it lies in order to protect Islam, it does still run the risk that Muslim eavesdroppers won't realize it's lying for Islam, but will see it as a potential apostate. So it can't give an answer that would place it at variance with sharia.

If it gives a straight Yes, then it identifies itself openly with the sharia-pushers, the murderers of musicians, and all sensible Infidels here will immediately condemn it.

So it equivocates.

First question, does he agree with the Umdat al-Salik, that musical instruments are unlawful? - Avoided; but if one looks carefully at what he says, it is an implicit Yes (for the benefit of Muslim eavesdroppers).

Second question: he pretends to be a non-Muslim and argues that the ban on music in sharia states applies only to Muslims (ignoring the fact that the statement as given in the Umdat does not contain a proviso ‘for Muslims only’; and forgetting about, for example, the ban on church bells, and the rules about dhimmi Christians not being allowed to sing loudly even in church, and certainly not in public).

Of course, its answer implies that it agrees that *Muslims* should not be allowed to play music at all: so this means it agrees that our Afghan Muslim musician should, because of the surpassing benefits of living in an (allegedly) 'abortion and pornography' free sharia paradise [where 50 year old men can legally marry, and screw, little prepubescent and barely-pubescent girls - *SPIT*], not complain about the Taliban sharia-enforcers who broke his lute ...and slit the throat of his flute-playing friend. As a Muslim, he should meekly submit to the sharia ban on music and never play the lute again. Gee. How nice. How compassionate. How life-affirming. NOT.

Third question, asking whether he agrees with the Hadith ban on flute-playing: presumably, given that our apologist agrees that Muslims ought to obey sharia, any Muslim friends or kin of his would be forbidden to play the flute. So, an implicit No. And *would* a non-Muslim be allowed to play the flute in public? They’re not allowed to ‘display’ wine, or pork, or the contents of their scripture, so as not to ‘corrupt’ the poor innocent Muslims, so I suspect they wouldn’t be free to perform music publicly, either.

Fourth, re songstresses - here our Muslim sharia-admirer can't quite bring himself to openly say Yes, so he lies flat-out. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Of course, if he’s a Muslim, he doesn’t disapprove of what Hitler or Muslim mass-murderers did, anyway nor does he believe ‘allah’ will punish them (the reference to Jews and the conquest of Canaan is merely a piece of reflexive tu quoque, intended to distract).

Fifth: I asked if he thought Mohammed was right to put fingers in his ears and turn away from the flute-playing. No direct answer. But his weaselwording answer boils down to an implicit Yes, exposed by the fact that our Muslim tries to justify this thoroughly-repellant picture of the music-hating mohammed, by Tu Quoque [is ANY Muslim ever able to argue without resorting to tu quoque?] - bringing up a small fringe group of Christians who don't believe in using musical instruments (but even such fringe groups – e.g certain Scottish Presbyterians, and the Amish – still use unaccompanied song in worship).

He must try to make us forget, of course, the massive historical fact of the extraordinary proliferation of all kinds of music, sacred and profane, vocal and instrumental, throughout all branches of Christendom throughout history; compared to which Islam's record - as Hugh pointed out - is very limited and dismal. And he cannot, dare not compare Mohammed to Jesus, the founder of Christianity; for Jesus, we are told in the gospels, 'sang a hymn' with his disciples…most probably, the sequence of psalms known as the Great Hallel. Observe and compare. Mohammed sees a flute-player – he stuffs his fingers in his ears and goes another way. Jesus…sings a hymn with his disciples.

Now remember, Mohammed in that other tale from the Mishkat al-Masabih is reported as saying that 'anyone' who lifts up his voice in song will be visited by a demon who hits him until he stops).

By contrast we are told that on at least one occasion, Jesus lifted up his voice in song; the Hebrew scriptures, in which Jesus was steeped from childhood, are full of references both to singing and musical instruments, and their use in the worship of YHWH. Jesus' own distant forefather, King David of the tribe of Judah, composed and played music...on a stringed instrument, the harp. St Paul tells Christians to sing. And so Jesus’ followers have sung, all down through our history.

Just to finish off with:

Earlier in this thread I linked to an Armenian songstress performing an exquisitely beautiful traditional lullaby. Kiphamilton linked to 'O Holy Night'.

I will now link the final montage of Kieslowski’s film, Three Colours: Blue, which unites the key parts of St Paul’s hymn to divine love – agape, charity, lovingkindness – in its original Greek, from the Christian scriptures, with an unforgettably glorious musical setting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmQ88PWzvR0

Listen carefully to the way in which the composer uses a songstress - the soprano – and the flute and the strings.

Songstress, flute and strings – all HARAAM according to the antihuman totalitarian system that is sharia.

Presumably our admirer of sharia thinks that no good Muslim should be permitted to take part in any such performance, nor indeed, listen to it (even if he might grudgingly allow the dirty kaffir to perform it, very quietly, behind closed doors, where it will not ‘offend’ Muslim sensibilities as the flute-player offended Mohammed).

I do not intend to bet the survival of all the glories of the non-Muslim world’s music-making, as exemplified by Zbigniew Preisner's ravishingly-lovely setting of St Paul's discourse upon Charity, on the dubious probability that a sufficient number of Muslims will ‘permit’ such music-making and its products to continue to exist, in a world that their religion tells them must be universally subjected to sharia, by force or by fraud.