OPEN FORUM

Do you have something on your mind?  Do you need answers to lingering questions?  Or do you just need a place to engage with other people?  The new “Forum” page will serve as a place for visitors to make comments, start new discussions not related to any of the blog posts, make suggestions or just hang out.  If you want to participate, please abide by the following rules:   

  1. Respect the sacred.  No offensive comments about God, His prophets or His religion.
  2. No spam. All automated messages and advertisements will be deleted.
  3. Respect other users. No abusing of fellow forum members. While comments will not be moderated, continued abusive behavior will result in the deletion of comments or the commenter being banned from the blog.
  4. No threats or harassment of other users will be tolerated. Any instance of threatening or harassing behavior will result in being banned.
  5. No profanity or pornography is allowed. Posts containing such material will be deleted.
  6. Do not post copyrighted material.

4,398 thoughts on “OPEN FORUM

  1. ANAS HUSSEIN

    I want to ask very important question.
    Which is the correct way of reciting this particular word? This is from Ar-Rahman verse 74

    لَمْ يَطْمِثْهُنَّ إِنسٌۭ قَبْلَهُمْ وَلَا جَآنٌّۭ ٧٤

    LAM YATMISHUNNA INSUUN KABLAHUM WALAA JAAAN OR

    LAM YATMISHUNNA INSUUN KABLAHUM WALAA JAAANU
    because there is ”double pesh” above noon in last word.

    I have same question for ”DOUBLE ZABAR”.

    Like

    1. mr.heathcliff

      Excursus: Does Thomas Have the Final Word? (20:28)
      The third and final passage in which the word θεός demands our attention is 20:28. In the penultimate chapter Jesus has risen from the grave and has paid his most trusted disciples a visit:

      Now Thomas … was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them … Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

      John 20:24–29 NIV
      Thus the sceptical disciple overcame his doubts and now believed that his master had indeed returned from the dead. We have seen that within the prologue, 1:1 forms an envelope structure with 1:18. It is generally assumed that 1:1c (“and the Word was theos”) and Thomas’ expression in 20:28 (“My Lord and my God”, Ὁ κύριός µου καὶ ὁ θεός µου) are likewise connected to bracket the entire Gospel. In his commentary, Charles K. Barrett states:75

      The return to the opening proposition of the gospel is intended, and there can be no doubt that John intended this confession of faith to form the climax of the gospel …; it is his final Christological pronouncement.

      In like manner, Keener calls Thomas’ words “the Gospel’s climactic christological confession.”76 There is consensus that Thomas’ words confirm that “the Word was God”, but the immediate context raises two difficulties.

      (a) It is evident that the whole scene forms the climax of the interaction between Jesus and his disciples. All remaining eleven disciples have now seen and acknowledged that their master has risen. However, contrary to what Barrett states, there is cause for doubt that this is John’s final pronouncement of faith in the Christ – it isn’t. The final thing John has to say about how Jesus must be understood immediately follows the scene with Thomas, when the narrator expresses the faith he wishes his readers to have:

      Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

      John 20:30–31 ESV
      In this mission statement John sums up the entire Gospel’s purpose.77 The acknowledgment of Jesus as Christ and Son of God and the resulting everlasting life come together as major themes. Thomas’ expression appears to be far from the narrator’s mind, as Jesus as θεός is not one of those themes. In mentioning the prerequisite for everlasting life, the author does not return to the opening statement in 1:1, but focuses on the message that has been mentioned several times before: God wants people to believe he sent his Son so that they may live forever.78 In his concluding statement, John makes clear that in order to “have life”, his readers need to know Jesus for who he is (rather than for what he is): the Christ and the Son of God. If John had really meant Thomas to set the example and to pronounce that this Christ is now by every reader to be recognized as “my God”, it is hard to explain why this is not reflected in what is evidently John’s own final christological pronouncement.79 As an explanation of why Thomas’ choice of words is not adopted here, Brown suggests:80 “Probably because the title ‘God’ for Jesus was relatively recent, John preferred in his statement of purpose to use the more traditional ‘Son of God’; but his approval of the ‘Lord and God’ profession shows how he understood ‘Son of God.’” This does not make sense: not the author’s but the audience’s understanding is what matters here. Their prospect of eternal life depends on a proper knowledge of who Jesus is. If John in stating his intentions saw no reason to instill upon his readers that Jesus was in fact their God, some caution as to the importance of Thomas’ exclamation is to be recommended.

      (b) In addition to John’s uncorroborating mission statement immediately following the Thomas episode, the verses that precede it also need consideration. As we have seen, Thomas addresses the risen Christ as “my God” (ὁ θεός µου). Earlier within the chapter, Jesus himself had used the same phrase and applied it to the Father (20:17):

      ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα µου καὶ πατέρα ὑµῶν καὶ θεόν µου καὶ θεὸν ὑµῶν.

      I am going to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.

      Given the fact that the risen Jesus himself refers to the Father as his God as well as his disciples’ God, it would be incongruous if the disciple Thomas would now be the one to suddenly shift the object of worship from the Father to the Son, or to somehow merge the two. As Thompson puts it,81 “it is highly unlikely that John intends the reader to understand that at some point the Father and the Son are simply ‘collapsed’ into one.” Nor are we to think that Thomas is mistaken: Jesus says nothing to correct his friend, nor does the narrator comment on a lack of judgement on the part of his character, as he does elsewhere.82

      In understanding 20:28 we should, perhaps, concentrate not so much on the word θεός but rather on the person who says it and the specifics of his previous interactions with Jesus. In the latest instance before chapter 20, we hear of Thomas during the last night the disciples have the opportunity to listen to their master before his trial and death. Jesus speaks at great length during their last supper together (starting in chapter 13). Among the topics of these final lessons are Jesus’ relationship with the Father. In chapter 14 he says (14:1 ESV): “Believe in God; believe also in me.” These words clearly imply that in order to believe in God, it is required to believe in the one who is distinct yet fully in unison with the Father. Jesus subsequently announces he will go to the Father, and that his disciples will eventually follow him. In response,

      Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

      John 14:5–7 ESV
      There is no further mention of Thomas, but in the subsequent verse the narrator mentions another disciple’s misunderstanding, which makes him a second case to depict a puzzlement that is probably general.83 As elsewhere, Jesus’ friends need time to process all they learn, and much of it is only perceived after Jesus’ resurrection.84 This brings us back to chapter 20. Since it is to none other than Thomas that Jesus had said: “No one comes to the Father except through me” (14:6), it may very well be that these words come back to Thomas at the moment he sees his master resurrected. As Koester states:85

      During the last supper, Jesus tells Thomas that he is the way by which people come to know and to see God the Father (14:6–7); but only … when the risen Jesus shows Thomas the marks of crucifixion, are the words of John 14 realized in Thomas’s confession, “My Lord and my God.” … The significance of Jesus’ saying about the way emerges after his death and resurrection.

      Saying “My Lord and my God” to the Son would in concordance with 14:6 amount to addressing the Father through the Son.86 Thus, Thomas was honoring the Father by honoring the Son as the sole person who makes the Father both known and accessible (cf. 1:18; 5:23). Rather than being the first to address Jesus as God, Thomas may here be remembered as the first disciple who put Jesus’ role as sole mediator – as the unique interface between man and God – to good use. Thomas already believed, as did Jesus, that the Father was his God. He now finally showed faith also in Jesus (14:1) by recognizing him as the necessary and only intermediary.87

      This tentative explanation88 is not meant to resolve the difficulties of John 20:28, but serves to illustrate that the interpretation of the Gospel of John is a dynamic process in which final answers are hard to find. If it weren’t for 20:17 and 20:30–31, Thomas’ address in 20:28 would indeed suggest that Jesus is to be identified as God. In its given context, however, no such clear-cut conclusion is justified. Whether 20:28 is relevant to the understanding of 1:1 and 1:18 is little more than undecided.

      Like

  2. Vaqas Rehman

    A brother defends the Taymiyyan/Athari/Salafi position on God’s names and attributes, for ex the hands of God, in response to a Ismaili kafir.

    I personally thought it was well handeled but wondered what everyone else thought as there may be issues with the response that I didn’t see.

    Disclaimer tho, a bit of a read with a lot of logical terms and the like.

    Like

    1. “…without distorting the apparent meanings (Tahreef), without negating of Him what He affirmed of Himself (Ta’teel)…”

      Is he referring to Asharis and Maturidis?

      Like

      1. Vaqas Rehman

        @Dad

        I don’t know the brother well enough if he intended them in that sentence specifically, but he does refer to them later on.

        Like

      2. Im not an expert on this but I have a few questions on this, If Allah is unlike His creation then on which basis can we judge that Asharis are “distorting” and “negating”? We don’t know and we can’t comprehend how the Hands and Eyes of Allah are then why shouldn’t I assume the Ashari pov as plausible interpretation?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Vaqas Rehman

        @Dad

        Can’t reply to the other comment so I’ll reply here instead.

        I’m not an expert on this either and am very much a layman but in general the critique of the Ashari/Maturidis stems from the idea that their interpretation of metaphor is

        1 Considered a bit of a stretch with the amount of the verses/texts on the topic which for the most part only provide the plain reading without said metaphor interpretation to clarify. To illistrate this think of those who try to say human evolution is truth & try to read that into the Quran & hadith. It may work in some places but at a certain point one has to acknowledge theres too much to reinterpret as metaphor without the guideline of interpretation breaking down.

        2 Unnecessary given the alternative provided understanding that attempts to interpret said texts without liking God to creation.

        3 Inconsistent in how they would apply this to other examples provied by the brother of paradise, the soul, and othr attributes of God.

        Tho again to be clear I’m meerly a layman who currently favors the athari postion. So said qeustions may be better asked to the brothers here or otherwise. You can maybe ask the brother in qeustion either on his facebook post or from twiter.

        Like

      4. “It may work in some places but at a certain point one has to acknowledge theres too much to reinterpret as metaphor without the guideline of interpretation breaking down.”

        Agreed but I don’t think it’s comparable, we may apply the logic to creation but not the Creator as He is totally unlike us and incomprehensible, so imo if We don’t and can’t ever know and understand how are the Hands and Eyes of Allah then there’s absolutely no basis to say that Asharis are distorting and changing things because we’re speaking about something which is beyond our understanding and comprehension, all we can do is offer plausible interpretations which doesn’t necessarily contradicts the attritbutes of Allah

        Liked by 1 person

      5. stewjo004

        @ Shaad

        I believe the argument on Ashari “distortion” would be that you are arbitrarily saying an attribute of Allah is metaphorical despite no proof for it. Why cannot I extend this to othe ratings then. Allah being “angry” may not mean His wrath is upon them then etc. It creates a door that I don’t think people want to open.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Vaqas Rehman

    I humbly request dua’s for my father. His health as well as his maintaining of his ability to work & receive payment for said work.

    I would also ask dua’s for myself. That I become a more capable man to earn more & provide better for my parents.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. mr.heathcliff

    “Dad”,

    when salafies say that Allah has a real hand , do they mean He has a real shape/size modality or do they mean a shape/size unlike any other shape size?

    if it isn’t a shape/size , then what does it mean “has a hand” ?

    do the salafies see knowledge and power of God in shape/size reality or do they say it is an attribute without shape/size /form?

    Like

    1. stewjo004

      The Hand is literally called “hand” but it’s not this 🤚It is the name of whatever the things is. Since it’s not described no one knows anything about it

      Liked by 1 person

      1. stewjo004

        @ Mr.Heathcliff

        I would say no as there is no evidence to describe it in such a manner. It could be an actual thing that Allah has honored like masajid being called “Allah’s Houses” so because we don’t know it’s easier to say it exists and Allah hu alim about it.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. This is exactly why the scholars said we shouldn’t try to interpret it. We simply affirm what Allah has said. If He says He has a hand, then He has a hand. We don’t say it’s like anything in creation nor do we try to determine how or what it is.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. alexanderabood

    Assalamu’ alaikum,
    Guys, I read yesterday a comment of Ibn Kathir with regards to Quran 5:33 where he says that corruption in land means disbelief, but I don’t want to have same interpretation as ISIS have, because I’m not a psychopath like ISIS. And I found a Hadith which I don’t know it’s historical background of it which says “I’ve been made victorious through terror”

    And I want to start life all over again, because I’ve done many stupid and embarrassing mistakes which now I regret. This is the supplication which I want to recite:
    “Oh Allah, reverse the time until the moment I was born, and once You reversed the time please protect me from approaching kufr, and please Make me to not go to Christian Potato’s channel so that I will not be featured on his video, because I want to have private life.
    My questions are:
    1. What’s the explanation and commentary of this Hadith which says “I’ve been made victorious though terror”?
    2. Why Ibn Kathir said that regarding Quran 5:33?
    3. Is it permissible to ask Allah for this kind of favor? Because, Allah reversed the time for Yusha and for Imam Ali.

    Like

    1. “Because, Allah reversed the time for Yusha and for Imam Ali.”

      Huh when?

      Also there’s no need for you to feel embarassed about what you said on quora, you had good intentions

      Like

    2. stewjo004

      @Alexander

      1. The hadith is in Bukhari:

      Narrated Abu Huraira:

      Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

      For context of this hadith, this was said after Tabuk I believe when the Romans didn’t show up to fight. Regarding being “victorious with terror” the proper meaning is intimidation. How can we tell this is correct, is through another hadith in Bukhari:

      Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah:

      The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me. -1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey…”

      So they would already be timid to fight the Muslims through our reputation and they would either not show up or we more or less dominated the fight.

      2. Regarding Ibn Kathir he is discussing the 3 ayat and says:

      “Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.”

      His meaning is regarding the pagans who were bandits that were raping and pillaging.

      3. Go for it but it might be better for you to ask Allah to make it the means in which you go to Jannah and to protect your honor.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. alexanderabood

        Thanks ahi for the explanation. But among my reasons is that I have committed multiple times disbelief throughout my life, and I wish to repeat my life again but this time I want to be protected from committing kufr all the way until I die, because now I have the feeling that for me to have my supplications answered, I have to wait other years in order to have my supplication answered, and I do not know how much of my lifespan remains until my last day. I wonder if I’m the o oh person who does this. I want when Allah reversed the time, To grant me the ability to memorize the way to offer the Prayers so I’ll not need to make up the lost prayers.

        Like

  6. Rfatima

    Question:In the Mahabharata ,most people married more than once. Then why is there a Hindu law now which prevents Hindus from marrying more than once?
    Answer:Hindu cannon comes in two forms Shruti and Smriti. Shruti is divine revelation while Smritis are human constructs.
    Human laws or Dharmashashtras are part of Smriti. There are many dharmashastras including the one by Manu, Vishnu, Narada etc. Smritis are context dependent and becomes obsolete after a ‘yuga’ has passed. The current constitution can also be considered a dharmashastra for the current yuga written by enlightened men of our age.
    So, the legality of polygamy/polyandry in Hinduism is decided by the current dharmasastra which happens to be Indian constitution, which we all know forbids a man or women to have multiple partners.
    I want to know about this: ”Smritis are context dependent and becomes obsolete after a ‘yuga’ has passed. The current constitution can also be considered a dharmashastra for the current yuga written by enlightened men of our age.”

    Like

    1. The whole point here is that laws change depending on the yuga and majority opinion so what is the basis of that claim? For me it’s a big deal coz I don’t see any evidence from scriptures and secondly you literally have gods and their avatars who are the epitome and basis of hindu morality engaging in those things, the smritis (written in our yuga btw) the answerer is talking about derive their legislations mostly from the puranas which the atharved classify as shruti (11.7.24) so it’s not simply a “human construct”

      Like

  7. alexanderabood

    Assalamu alaikum,

    Guys, I came across a scary website which tells the characteristics of genuine munafiqs. And I found some signs that tells whether you’re a munafiqs or no is that he will seek hurry to finish his prayer, not being content with what Allah decrees for you and always complaining. And I found out that these signs applies to me, but I used to finish my prayer fast long ago because I thought I would finish the prayer after the prayer has ended, and I did I usually was a wiener whenever a tribulation befalls on me.and say “if I have done this, it would not happen that” and I just discovered that belief of Qadr is part of Islamic belief system, but didn’t know this until recently,.
    So my questions are:
    1. Is this kufr for just because I didn’t believed in Qadr? Because, I was not taught about this prior to my reversion.
    2. Does the fact that I used to complain about each tribulation befalls on mea munafiq?
    Here’s from where I got this: https://theheartopener.wordpress.com/lets-ponder/characteristics-of-the-genuine-munafiqs/

    Like

    1. Vaqas Rehman

      @Dad

      Dislike him and the cult following he has from muslims with their attempts to extrapolate Islamic teaching from him/any redpill thoughts just like I dislike when the same is done with feminism/liberalism. Any percieved good is already in Islam without any of the bad any without the need for massive reinterpretation to reconcile the parts that clearly don’t fit. Islam is enough.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. As someone who grew up with hindus, I like to call redpill “the white man’s hinduism”, India has always been a patriarchal male dominant society but one ought to ask

        Liked by 1 person

      2. ….one ought to ask why why the hindutva is predominantly an incel movement…Andrew Tate however fake or real his persona is, accurately reflects your average conservative hindu man, a mysoginistic pervert, are women supposed to like this type of person? They be the judge…is this how a man is supposed to be? They be the judge… All i know is I already saw the consequence of this kind of ideology and lifestyle in india, millions of indian Tates spend their whole day ranting about “love jihad” for a reason

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Huzaifa

    How should a Muslim respond to this claim ‘ why women can’t have 4 husbands or why can’t a woman have more than 1 husband?

    1 more thing: A Muslim can question authenticity of stories of Greek gods or Monkey gods or speaking animals and birds in some religions but those people can’t question authenticity of Quran when it says an ant spoke when army of Solomon was coming.

    Like

    1. “why women can’t have 4 husbands or why can’t a woman have more than 1 husband?”

      Coz God says so.

      If you wanna dwelve into logic then be it Muslim or Non-Muslim ergo in a normative sense it is not in female nature to *marry* a cuck nor is it in male nature to share the woman of his life…God engendered men and women for different functions in society, the role of men is to lead and dominate, would you expect a cuck to have both the mental and physical capacity to do that when he doesn’t even mind sharing the woman of his life? He clearly lacks the possessiveness, the jealousy, the ghayrah, the dignity, the strength, the competitive zeal to fulfill his role as a man, this is the impeccable recipe for a community’s downfall.

      “A Muslim can question authenticity of stories of Greek gods or Monkey gods or speaking animals and birds in some religions but those people can’t question authenticity of Quran when it says an ant spoke when army of Solomon was coming”

      Alright let’s go with the flow, compared to the ants speaking in the Quran which only Sulaiman A.S was aware of, many of the stuff in archaic pagan myths are supposed to be mass attested with archeological and paleontological evidences yet we find nothing, I wanna see evidences of millions of monkeys attacking Sri Lanka for example or archeological evidence that the sanjeevi mountain that consensus accedes is the one in Tamil Nadu was once lifted and placed there…or maybe evidences of the kurushetra and divine nukes…or evidences of ancient thriving civilizations with buildings of gold…

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Iamthebest

        @Dad I expected more from you. You are right but I think your didn’t answered properly.
        A simple answer would have been ”our source(Quran) is correct and your source is wrong”

        I said this because people can ask about evidences of Noah’s arc or Night Journey or something else mentioned in Quran.

        Like

      2. stewjo004

        @ Iambest

        Several problems:

        1. ” DNA will tell us who is the father.”
        Pre DNA testing which is a new phenomena how would this have been done throughout the rest of human history? Also, you now have to go through a bunch of steps that polygyny skips

        2. “In a normal marriage if husband divorces he doesn’t takes care of that child only compensation is given.”

        To begin in Islam, the child goes with the father after 7. Ignoring that, you are still thinking a tradition setup and role. You would be unnecessarily burdening the male in this as she has 3 other supports to take care of her, so why would he pay her? As I said divorce becomes an absolute mess in polyandry.

        3. Most importantly it ignores, the lynch pin concept.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. The mehraj doesn’t fall into what we’re talking about… In case you’re unfamiliar with the background he’s alluding to EF dawah’s methodology of debating hindus (monkey god was a giveaway) and he’s misunderstanding it

        The point isn’t that supernaturalism=false, nobody has a problem with supernaturalism, it’s about evidences for those legends *which* are supposed to be mass attested and archaeologically proven

        I agree we can say the Quran is true and your legends are false ipso facto supernaturalism in the Quran is true but that’s not the point here which is why I didn’t get into it, it’s simply about us asking them for at least some unextraordinary evidences for extraordinary legends for which availability proofs should be a given, for example the Mahabharat speaks of divine weapons burning millions of troops and kilometers of land, where are the traces? That is the scale of things we’re talking about, do they have a rational explanation in regards to the lack of evidences? At least we have various rational theories about why we don’t have the ark nor is it something of the same scale as the stuff you see in pagan myths

        Liked by 1 person

    2. stewjo004

      @ Huzaifa

      To also add on here more reasons

      1. A “lynch pin”

      A lynch pin is the overall reason all these things are connected to begin with. The man is the lynch pin because he is the provider to all these households. Even in nature, animals who do it is because there is a big “hunter” with more resources.

      2. Reason to do polyandry (multiple husbands one woman) are essentially based entirely on sex

      For a polygyny relationship to work, its has to be based on more than just sex. For example, you would have one wife who wants to be a career business woman while another wants to be a housewife who used to be a teacher, they both benefit the overall family structure. The one generates extra income while the other keeps all the children at home to raise them in homeschooling for example. In polyandry, women think they’re going to bag 4 doctors or something. According to the ethnographic atlas only a grand total of 4% of human societies (as opposed to 86% for polygyny) did this and the reasons were essentially there weren’t enough resources to go around. As someone, who has seen polyandry live (one of my tenants does it) what happens is basically a bunch of broke guys get together and chip in to finally be able to get a single woman. And this is ignoring other life things like if she gets pregnant who’s the father, if you say all and I divorce her do I still have to take care of that child or cleanliness like semen staying in the uterus for about 5 days etc.

      3. Women essentially go “to in”
      Here is a documentary (if you look at the interviews she also demeans them alot and clearly has no respect) Another thing is a woman can keep getting a stream of partners (because men will keep saying yes) while in polygyny men are much more limited in finding partners based on needing more resources and thus requires him to “man up” to get more. Just pay attention to her dates vs her husband’s a LOT more fun on her part:

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Iamthebest

        @stewjo004
        You said ‘And this is ignoring other life things like if she gets pregnant who’s the father, if you say all and I divorce her do I still have to take care of that child’

        if she gets pregnant who’s the father? DNA will tell us who is the father.

        if you say all and I divorce her do I still have to take care of that child’
        In a normal marriage if husband divorces he doesn’t takes care of that child only compensation is given.

        Or With DNA testing father will be confirmed and after divorce he will take care of the child or give compensation.

        Like

  9. @Hisham

    “Judama daughter of Wahb, sister of Ukkasha reported: I went to Allah’s Messenger along with some persons and he was saying: I intended to prohibit cohabitation with the suckling women, but I considered the Romans and Persians, and saw that they suckle their children and this thing (cohabitation) does not do any harm to them (to the suckling women).”

    It’s in regards to permissibility of having sex with a partner who’s breastfeeding

    Little clarification, by “harm” the Prophet was probably referring to both the women and the babies as another similar hadith mention babies only

    Like

    1. Hisham

      I saw on one of the websites that the Hadith indicates that Mohamed knew things from Roman’s and Persians. Which indicates that he may have plagarized the embryological information from the Quran.

      Like

      1. Bhaisaab,

        First of all, Romans and Persians did not have enough knowledge to describe the formation of the embryo in detail like that, every scientist attests to the fact that we started to know the development of the embryo in detail fairly recently,

        And even if they did, Romans and Persian books weren’t exactly used in Arabia, as these information were mostly stored in libraries, the Prophet SAW was illiterate and most of the men of the Quraysh were only arabic-speaking largely, that developed trade routes through Roman-Arabs like Bani Ghassan into Byzantine territory, so how could they have known the information stored in Byzantine/Sassanid libraries?

        As for what you’re trying to insinuate with the hadith you mentioned, the hadith clearly mentions that The Prophet SAW only saw them doing it, seeing something is just witnessing, you did a slippery slope fallacy by using that hadith and somehow insinuating that the Prophet SAW therefore must’ve known what is in their Books, libraries and must’ve had all the knowledge of the Romans and Persians.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. “Also what about the infancy gospels. Do you have a website or blog that can explain it?”

    Are you referring to plagiarism allegations or christians disgarding Quranic claims as “apocryphal” ergo inauthentic?

    I’ll simplify it as much as possible, primitive christianity i.e christianity before the gospels and the epistles were penned down relied on oral traditions, clearly the system was a whole mess, apparently there were a few authentic reports flying around alongside tons of fake ones (internal differences between the gospels and external differences of between the canon and apocrypha are evidences of that)

    Later writings be it from the canon or apocrypha relied on those oral traditions via either hearsay or probably by using written records like the hypothetical Q source

    So it’s only natural that some apocryphal writings would have some degree of truth in them.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Isn’t the infancy gospels fabrications”

      i’m gonna need you to think outside the box, the questions you need to ask are

      1) “fabrication” for whom?
      2) Why isn’t the canon considered “fabrication”?

      What has been chosen as canon was done by a particular sect, there were hundreds if not thousands of other writings being circulated around by many other sects which died out with time, we know these writings today as apocrypha

      What you should understand is, both what we consider canon today and apocrypha (infancy gospels included) depended on oral traditions and as I said there were some authentic traditions circulating along fake ones so it’s natural that some apocryphal writings such as the infancy gospels will have some degree of truth

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hisham

        I sent the link brother. I sent this to a brother he replied to me:

        Waraqa was a Christian nomad that learned Hebrew and translated some parts of the gospel to Arabic. However, the prophet didn’t know who waraqa was until revelation hit him and aaraqa died very shortly after. Also, the parts he translated were very small to bring any meaningful thing.

        Like

      2. Hisham

        I think you misunderstood the Hadith. The Hadith says that Waraqa who was a Christian was translating the Bible into Arabic and a Muslim brother responded to me.

        Like

    1. You’re approaching the issue with the wrong assumption in mind

      Let’s assume the greeks got embryology right centuries before Islam and years later God reveals a book in which He mentions things in regards to embryology, aren’t similarities bound to be there?

      It’s kind of a circular situation…if the Quran got it incorrect, people would say it’s false…when things are factual in the Quran, then it’s plagiarism… As if there’s no possibility that God is simply stating something which is true

      Like

      1. stewjo004

        @ Hisham

        As noted by Sauron both things are describing the same event so there’s going to be overlap in description just like if we both describe how rain comes.

        1. Talmud
        First issue of the alleged plagiarism of the Talmud is that the Suwar (Mumenoon (23), Iqra (96) Qiyamah (75) Hajj (22) and Ghafoor (40)) that they’re claiming plagiarized are ALL MAKKI surah (i.e. revealed in Mecca) not Madani (revealed in Medina when Jewish contact was made) (see Ibn Kathir)

        2. Let’s go with it
        I’ll give that the Quran used something they were familiar with….and? That doesn’t invalidate the point made nor is it an error. So what is the argument then?

        Liked by 2 people

      1. foued190

        As Salam aleykoum brothers ,I found this article from someone who argued that the prophecy of the Arab bedouins competing in Tall Buildings is not miraculous and .What do you think of the arguments presented ?:

        View at Medium.com

        Like

      2. stewjo004

        @foued

        Poor argument and I think even he knew deep down he was reaching.

        1. His argument regarding Fath AL Bari and ibn Hajr thinking it occurred already…so what? how does that prove the prophecy false?

        2. His argument on “tall being subjective”, okay….again so what you never seen something tall before? Also, Arabs even the city dwellers weren’t building skyscrapers.

        3. Regarding Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum ,who he touted as his example, all he had to do was trace his tribe and see that they’re Bedouins. From Al Maktoum’s personal website:

        “…originally centered in the Liwa oasis. Traditionally the members of the Al Bu Falah tribe “spent the winter with their camels in the desert, and many of them went pearling during the summer in the boats of other Bani Yas..most families of the Bani Yas had some members living permanently in Abu Dhabi town, so that all the sections mixed there easily at all times. ..They are also renowned for their generosity, hospitality and chivalry, as were their Bedouin forefathers.”

        https://sheikhmohammed.ae/en-us/baniyastribe

        So we can conclude he’s stupid now. More on this in a second

        4. The hadith of the boy is not saying the “Hour would occur” in the Prophet’s (ﷺ) lifetime. He (ﷺ) never predicted the exact time of the Hour when he (ﷺ) as per the Quran and in multiple ahadith (including the one we’re currently debating about) The meaning is that there’s no point in worrying about the Hour or End Times because in 60-80 years max you’ll be in the grave and it will have started for you. So again see point 3 about him being a dumb kaffir.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. stewjo004

      @ Sauron

      There’s a variety of factors to this. A sister who I’m interested in trying to marry is older than me and past 30 (32 or 33, I think). She has great stats and is religious she just didn’t see anyone she liked and was so focused on setting up Islamic programs etc. that she more or less didn’t think about marriage.

      I will also add outside of this I think “young” is subjective. If the 30+ sister is willing to go with an older brother in his 40s or 50s etc. she still has a big market too choose from (and a whole lot more if also willing to do polygyny). The main problem with sisters this age looking to marry is they’re too use to being independent and not being a spouse or in a relationship so they’re quick to leave or be defiant (which could cause tension depending on the older guy’s temperament) and they will probably need some patience during the adjustment period. So I wouldn’t say it’s over or anything.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m sure as you’re aware Quran has 7 modes of recitation, the reason it has 7 modes of recitation is because the Quran was passed down not just by one person, it was passed down by many Sahaba generations forward, and these ten modes of recitation were approved by the Prophet SAW as you can see in the following hadith:

        https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4992

        So hence due to seven modes of recitation there maybe differences in reciting like Ajabta and Ajabtu in the example you provided, but both are valid, go back to the Prophet SAW, and have the same meaning.

        Liked by 2 people

      1. Hisham

        The copying of Al kidr and Dhul quarnian. Is there also any document or blog or video that any may recommend that are refuting Gabriel Reynolds book?

        Like

      2. “Dhul quarnian”

        Whether dhul quarnian is alexander or not is debatale

        As for Khidr I see no primary sources, I need to know whether it is pre-islamic or after, either way apply the same logic I used for oral traditions

        Like

    1. stewjo004

      @ Harry

      Yes, large movements are permissible if their is a valid reason in doing so:

      “The permissible movements are small movements done when there is a reason, or large movements done in cases of necessity. Small movements done for a reason are like what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did when he was praying and he carried Umaamah, the daughter of Zaynab the daughter of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), whose maternal grandfather he was. When he stood up he picked her up, and when he prostrated he put her down. Al-Bukhaari, 5996; Muslim, 543.

      Large movements in cases of necessity include praying whilst fighting. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

      “Guard strictly (five obligatory) As‑Salawaat (the prayers) especially the middle Salaah (i.e. the best prayer ‑ ‘Asr). And stand before Allaah with obedience [and do not speak to others during the Salaah (prayers)].

      239. And if you fear (an enemy), perform Salaah (pray) on foot or riding. And when you are in safety, offer the Salaah (prayer) in the manner He has taught you, which you knew not (before)”

      [al-Baqarah 2:238-239]

      If a person prays whilst walking he is undoubtedly moving a great deal, but in cases of necessity that is permitted and does not invalidate the prayer. ”

      https://islamqa.info/en/answers/12683/moving-whilst-praying

      Liked by 1 person

    1. This article seems very odd and does not really refute the main point or even provide any example from any biological source to really call the Qur’an inaccurate, basically all he has done in this article is say “Hamza’s translation was wrong, therefore the Quran is wrong”, although Hamza’s translation of Alaqah wasnt really wrong if you look at for eg the Dictionary of Al Firuzabadi:

      1.Blood in its normal state or blood which is extremely red or which has hardened or congealed, 2.a piece thereof 3. Every thing that sticks ;4. Clay that sticks to hands;5. Unchanging enmity or love; 6.Zu `alaq is the name of a hill of Banu Asad, where they defeated Rabi`ah ibn Maalik;7. An insect of water that sucks blood;8. That portion of a tree that is within the reach of animals.

      “an insect of water that sucks blood” refers to Leech, the issue seems to be here is that he’s using his confirmation bias to pick from the translations of the word Alaqah by using and cherrypicking translations which support his claim that it only means blood clot.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. Peter Parker

    Any thoughts on this

    Moreover I want to know about how Hinduism became such a diverse religion and why people accepted it despite it promoting caste system

    Like

    1. LOL my favorite topic… idk what he’s saying but I suspect just like the average indian maybe he denies AIT…alright let’s start with this quote I always use for ice breaking

      “The last time a paper titled ‘The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia’ was released online, in March 2018, it created a sensation in India and around the world. Mostly because the paper, co-authored by 92 scientists, many of them doyens of different disciplines, said that between 2000 BCE and 1000 BCE, there were significant migrations from the Central Asian Steppe that most likely brought Indo-European languages into India — just as Steppe migrations into Europe a thousand years earlier, beginning around 3000 BCE, had spread Indo-European languages to that continent as well. In other words, the paper supported the long-held idea of an ‘Arya’ migration into India — or, to put it more accurately, a migration of Indo-European language speaking people who called themselves ‘Arya’…

      “By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and Southeast Asia. After the Indus Valley Civilization’s decline, its people mixed with individuals in the southeast [i.e, southeast of northwestern India where the Indus Valley Civilization flourished: editor] to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia [called Ancestral South Indians or ASI: editor], whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who, starting around 4000 years ago, spread via Central Asia to form the other main ancestral population [or Ancestral North Indians, ANI: editor]. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the distinctive features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.”

      “why people accepted it despite it promoting caste system”

      Did lower classes have a choice lol, upper castes controlled the country from kingship to army

      P.S denialists ought to explain why do Rakhigarhi skeletons lack any sort of Aryan ancestry

      Liked by 1 person

    2. stewjo004

      @ Peter

      1. At first I was confused for a while whether this man was speaking English or not

      2. Waiting for residential Hindu expert Sauron to comment but it seems pretty obvious on the diversity. Marriages and War caused assimilation of various thought and deities which is why the Vedas is so contradictory as it was just Brahmans finding new ways to include assimilated peoples religions or finding matches with their deities like the Greeks/Romans did with various cultures. World history in general can be summed up is a result of “fighting and f**king”

      3. The video hasn’t really refuted AIT its basically a slightly modified version that has a guy going: “Hey their might have been an Indo-European in this part!” While everybody else went: “Nah…” The fact that majority of the upper caste is ANI more or less proves AIT as that’s a strange coincidence. Obviously everyone has a same base in 2022 but the Aryans were not native they were invaders. Many of their idols correspond with Hinduism’s. So if those idols aren’t native they’re the result of Aryan invaders and thus undermines the BJP’s entire premise no matter which way you slice the cake (or pizza to use the video’s metaphor)

      4. I doubt people got to pick their caste lol. It more than likely went: “You’re conquered, commoners enjoy the lower end castes, you good looking noble women (or sometimes just good looking women), you and your family can say welcome to the upper castes.”

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Harry Potter

    Hair of prophet Muhammad(saw)
    Can it be DNA tested so that we can determine DNA of prophet and his ancestors and prove that his DNA came from Abraham(pbuh)

    Like

    1. Why do you spend so much time reading anti-Islamic material and then ask others to “refute” this garbage because you can’t or don’t know how? Why don’t you spend more time learning about Islam?

      What specific part of this article are you confused about?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hisham

        I am not really reading them for enjoyment or to criticize Islam. I was reading Islamic awareness site about this and when I searched for this specific subject. Answering Islam came as the first one. I clicked on it thinking that Islamic awareness refuted it already, but it didn’t.

        Like

      2. stewjo004

        @ Hisham

        Even in the article they agree the story is old and the Ethiopians themselves testify to the story happening to their queen so what’s the problem?

        Liked by 2 people

  13. Any more posts about plagiarism on the horizon?

    1) same answer as before

    2) same answer as vefore

    3) same answer as before

    Or

    4) The dating is a matter of dispute due to late textual evidences (oldest dated 12th century), arguments for being pre-Islamic or pre-Christian are mere conjecture, scholarly opinions aside the text bears similarity with 10th century byzantium texts so going by the general rules of quellenforschung i.e combining textual data with external parallels a stronger case is made for the text to be from around the 9th or 10th century

    Like

  14. mr.heathcliff

    could mark be a hostile witness to miracle workers who had eyewitness testimony behind them which could mean mark was late first century text ?

    “Vespasian could be regarded in the East as a ruler who usurped messianic expectations and legitimated himself through prophets and miracles. It made no difference that he himself was a modest man. As a usurper, he had to rely on loud and vigorous propaganda. The warning against pseudo-messiahs in Mk 13.21–22 could have been formulated against the background of such a ‘propaganda campaign’ for the victorious new emperor, who created peace by subduing the Jews and whose legitimacy was supported by signs and wonders. In that case, the pseudo-messiahs would not have been leaders of the revolt against the Romans, nor would they represent expectations based on memories of those leaders. On the contrary, what was being criticized was the usurpation of religious hopes by the Roman ruler who demolished the uprising”.

    Like

    1. mr.heathcliff

      could mark be a hostile witness to miracle workers who had eyewitness testimony behind them which could mean mark was late first century text ?

      At Alexandria a commoner, whose eyes were well known to have wasted away, on the advice of Serapis (whom this superstitious people worship as their chief god) fell at Vespasian’s feet demanding with sobs a cure for his blindness, and imploring that the emperor would deign to moisten his eyes and eyeballs with the spittle from his mouth. Another man with a maimed hand, also inspired by Serapis, besought Vespasian to imprint his footmark on it. Histories, 4.81

      Like

  15. Alright I have a question, if a Muslim refuses to takfir a let’s say an idol worshipper, does that mean the Muslim is a kaafir? If yes then if someone takfires the idolater but refuses to takfir the muslim who refused to takfir the idolater, is that someone a kafir?

    I’m referring to Hazimi’s takfir al-‘adhir

    Like

    1. stewjo004

      @ Sauron

      It’s…a bit more complicated than that. Reality is Ali’s(ra) saying “A word of truth by which is intended falsehood” I think applies here. The basic premise is correct, so using your example if a Muslim doesn’t believe idol worship is shirk or haram even if they don’t do it is in fact committing kufr and are basically some sort of quasi-henotheist. But, to then have a laymen go around doing this is problematic to say the least.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s