Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf Mangera – Q&A Collective Dhikr Inside a Masjid Allowed

Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf Mangera
Share Page

AI: Summary ©

The speaker discusses the issue of collective liquor and the potential for bias in the media. They also mention the difficulty of creating a general message about music, citing examples such as a song by a singer and a machine operator. The speaker suggests that the machine operator is not a problem, but rather a distraction that can cause people to feel tired and disconnect from music.

AI: Summary ©

00:00:00 --> 00:00:03
			What does the Sharia say about
collective liquor and hence when
		
00:00:03 --> 00:00:05
			the shots take place and she's
single makes the audience do
		
00:00:05 --> 00:00:07
			thicker together, which is part of
the machine. What's the hokum
		
00:00:07 --> 00:00:09
			regarding that? I'm surprised this
is even a question.
		
00:00:10 --> 00:00:15
			Like, where is this question even
coming from? questions come from
		
00:00:15 --> 00:00:20
			certain preconceived notions,
ideas, certain biases. So,
		
00:00:21 --> 00:00:23
			why should collective vicar be a
problem when the promise of
		
00:00:23 --> 00:00:28
			awesome never forbade it? Is there
a hadith that's telling you that's
		
00:00:28 --> 00:00:31
			making you question this idea?
Questions? Remember, they always
		
00:00:31 --> 00:00:34
			come from certain biases, reason
why you question something, it
		
00:00:34 --> 00:00:37
			looks like somebody's telling you
this is haram, but you're seeing
		
00:00:37 --> 00:00:40
			it happen in your local masjid,
maybe your, your local, wherever.
		
00:00:40 --> 00:00:42
			So now you're getting confused.
This is my reading of your mind. I
		
00:00:42 --> 00:00:46
			could be completely wrong, though.
But this is what I smell in here.
		
00:00:46 --> 00:00:47
			i This is what I perceive.
		
00:00:49 --> 00:00:52
			There's nothing wrong with
collective vicar. There's nothing
		
00:00:52 --> 00:00:55
			wrong with it. There's no hermit
in that there's no haram in that.
		
00:00:56 --> 00:01:01
			However, there are a few laws and
regulations, you should generally
		
00:01:01 --> 00:01:03
			they say avoid it in a masjid
		
00:01:04 --> 00:01:06
			during times and other people are
there because it will be
		
00:01:06 --> 00:01:10
			disturbing others because doing a
collective vicar, especially if
		
00:01:10 --> 00:01:12
			it's loud, then it's going to be
more trouble. It could be
		
00:01:12 --> 00:01:15
			troublesome to others who want to
focus on their prayer their
		
00:01:15 --> 00:01:19
			reading. So I sometimes have an
issue when it's done aloud in a
		
00:01:19 --> 00:01:25
			public masjid. And other people go
in a side room and do it. Because
		
00:01:25 --> 00:01:28
			this is not part of the general
daily five prayers that people do.
		
00:01:29 --> 00:01:34
			Right? Yes, if it's a handcar
masjid, where it's known that this
		
00:01:34 --> 00:01:36
			is what takes place here, then
that is the rule of that place.
		
00:01:36 --> 00:01:39
			That's understandable. But if it's
a general masjid, and you start
		
00:01:39 --> 00:01:43
			imposing a Hunka in there for
everybody, that B can become
		
00:01:43 --> 00:01:46
			really confusing for a lot of
people and problematic, right? So
		
00:01:46 --> 00:01:49
			do it in a side room. So these are
the things there's nothing wrong
		
00:01:49 --> 00:01:52
			per se, it's just the way
sometimes people do it. And maybe
		
00:01:52 --> 00:01:55
			obligated and something like that.
So in an A sheet, for example, if
		
00:01:55 --> 00:01:58
			he makes you do thicker, I think
that's better than him just
		
00:01:58 --> 00:02:01
			reading stuff. Sometimes at least
he gets you to do something and
		
00:02:01 --> 00:02:04
			gets part otherwise, a lot of
people don't even understand the
		
00:02:04 --> 00:02:07
			sheets, right? For example, the
new sheet that you guys just did
		
00:02:07 --> 00:02:11
			upstairs. How many of you even
understood what what what the poor
		
00:02:11 --> 00:02:16
			munchie had said? The singer said,
right? How do you know? If it
		
00:02:16 --> 00:02:19
			sounded nice? You say wonderful
machine. You don't even know the
		
00:02:19 --> 00:02:21
			lyrics? You don't even know the
words. I know this because that's
		
00:02:21 --> 00:02:24
			how I used to listen to machines
before. The nicer ones that kind
		
00:02:24 --> 00:02:26
			of heavy sounding ones. They were
the nicer ones. I didn't know what
		
00:02:26 --> 00:02:29
			they meant in Arabic. Right? I
didn't know what they meant.
		
00:02:31 --> 00:02:33
			So what's the point of no, she's
just a nice background sound.
		
00:02:35 --> 00:02:40
			Instead of music, is that just
your weaning of music idea? So
		
00:02:40 --> 00:02:43
			there's a lot of problem there's a
lot of problem involved in all of
		
00:02:43 --> 00:02:46
			this stuff. Is it just
entertainment?
		
00:02:47 --> 00:02:52
			So if he if this machine guy doing
a good Nasheed is getting people
		
00:02:52 --> 00:02:55
			to do some dhikr of Allah say,
Okay, everybody, c'est la ilaha
		
00:02:55 --> 00:02:59
			illallah or what is Imola sol,
sol, Li wa salam, or, you know, a
		
00:02:59 --> 00:03:02
			particular refrain? Right, which
is the repetitive words, I don't
		
00:03:02 --> 00:03:05
			see a problem with that. As long
as you don't make it like a
		
00:03:05 --> 00:03:07
			concert and you start bringing the
music in and everything like that.
		
00:03:07 --> 00:03:10
			I've seen that happen in some
massages. And that's completely
		
00:03:10 --> 00:03:14
			wrong. As long as it doesn't go,
if it's a fixed program for these
		
00:03:14 --> 00:03:15
			things, where people will
understand that at this time, it's
		
00:03:15 --> 00:03:18
			not a solid time. It's out of
solid time, generally is not a
		
00:03:18 --> 00:03:21
			time when people come in to do the
car. I don't see an issue with it
		
00:03:21 --> 00:03:23
			in general like that. And if you
mean something more particular to
		
00:03:23 --> 00:03:26
			that that I've missed, please let
me know because, you know, I'm
		
00:03:26 --> 00:03:30
			responding to you based on what I
read and perceive from what you've
		
00:03:30 --> 00:03:31
			written.