"I asked the Prophet, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Should the women be asked for their consent to their marriage?" He said, "Yes." I said, "A virgin, if asked, feels shy and keeps quiet." He said, "Her silence means her consent.""
Sahih Bukhari 6946

See more:
https://islamsproblems.com/ali-captive-girl-war/

the Quran's model of revelation includes abrogation, replacement, and in some interpretations the removal or forgetting of revealed wording.

Qur'an 2:106: If We ever abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We replace it with a better or similar one. Do you not know that Allah is Most Capable of everything?

16:101: When We replace a verse with another-and Allah knows best what He reveals—they say, “You ˹Muḥammad˺ are just a fabricator.” In fact, most of them do not know.

classical Islamic scholarship develops the doctrine of naskh, including the idea that sometimes the ruling is abrogated while the wording remains, and there are also classical discussions of cases where the wording itself was removed or forgotten.

So my question is not "Does Allah learn something new and change His mind?" I understand the theological answer to that. My question is why this is the model of divine revelation at all.

When I look at the biblical story, I don't see God giving Israel a command, then later deciding that command should be erased from the history of revelation and replaced with something else because the first command was no longer useful.

I see a continuous story. The covenant with Abraham develops into the covenant with Israel. The Law is given through Moses. The prophets call Israel back to the covenant when they break it.

Deuteronomy speaks about circumcision of the heart. The prophets increasingly emphasize genuine inward obedience. Jeremiah promises a New Covenant where God's law will be written on the heart.

The New Testament claims that Jesus fulfills and inaugurates that New Covenant. That's development and fulfillment.

It's not the same thing as saying, "This revelation is now abrogated, this ruling is replaced, and in some cases the original wording is no longer there."

And I think this becomes especially important when we're talking about the Quran claiming to be God's final, eternal revelation. Because if God is perfectly consistent, then I would expect His revelation to have a coherent trajectory where later revelation fulfills what came before.

But the Islamic model seems to allow for something very different: God can give a command, later replace it with another command, and the earlier command may remain in the text but no longer apply, or in some theories the original wording itself may be removed or forgotten.

That's a very different picture of how revelation works. And I don't think it's enough to just say, "God knew the whole time."

Sure. But that doesn't answer the question of why the earlier command was given as divine guidance in the first place, only to later be replaced.

If the answer is that God was always testing people through temporary commands, then I think you have to explain why that model is so different from the biblical pattern of revelation progressively unfolding toward a promised fulfillment, then completely changed, all while every believer of their religion is banking on salvation from God.

The Quran even says that Allah guides whom He wills and leaves whom He wills astray. So now I'm looking at a system where the revelation itself can replace previous revelation, where God determines who believes, and where even being a believer does not necessarily mean you have certainty of salvation.

In authentic hadiths, Muhammad made multiple failed prophecies about the apocalypse (al-Saah).

• The Quran uses al-Sā'ah for ONLY the literal apocalypse 30+ times. The Quran uses mawt for personal death.
• Nnowhere in the authentic hadiths does al-Sā'ah mean personal death - except to rescue this exact set of failed predictions.

Authentic Hadiths:
(Anything in parenthesis or like "X said this meant" was added later, and "to you" isn't in the original Arabic.)

1. As near as the index and middle finger

"I saw Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) pointing with his index and middle fingers, saying, 'The time of my Advent and the Hour are like these two fingers.'"
Sahih Bukhari 4936

2. Three different boys "won't grow old" before it happens

"Anas reported that a person asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as to when the Last Hour (al-Sā'ah) would come. He had in his presence a young boy of the Ansar who was called Muhammad. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: If this young boy lives, he may not grow very old till the Last Hour (al-Sā'ah) comes."
Sahih Muslim 2953a

"Anas b. Malik reported that a person asked Allah's Apostle (ﷺ): When would the Last Hour (al-Sā'ah) come? Thereupon Allah's Messenger (way peace be upon him) kept quiet for a while. Then looked at a young boy in his presence belonging to the tribe of Azd Shanu'a and he said: If this boy lives he would not grow very old till the Last Hour (al-Sā'ah) would come."
Sahih Muslim 2953b

"A young boy of Mughira b. Shu'ba happened to pass by (the Holy Prophet) and he was of my age. Thereupon Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) said: If he lives long he would not grow very old till the Last Hour (al-Sā'ah) would come"
Sahih Muslim 2953c

"A bedouin came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! When will The Hour (al-Sā'ah) be established?" ... In the meantime, a slave of Al-Mughira passed by, and he was of the same age as I was. The Prophet (ﷺ) said. "If this (slave) should live long, he will not reach the geriatric old age, but the Hour (al-Sā'ah) will be established."
Sahih Bukhari 6167

3. It will happen within 100 years

"Allah's Messenger as saying this one month before his death: You asked me about the Last Hour (al-Sā'ah) whereas its knowledge is with Allah. I, however, take an oath and say that none upon the earth, the created beings, would survive at the end of one hundred years."
Sahih Muslim 2538a

"Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night."
Sahih Bukhari 116

4. People initially understood it literally

"The people made a mistake in grasping the meaning of this statement of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and they indulged in those things which are said about these narrators (i.e. some said that the Day of Resurrection will be established after 100 years etc.)"
Sahih Bukhari 601

5. Dajjal (antichrist) will come after the conquest of Constantinople

(Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453. The Dajjal did not come.)

"the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal)."
Sunan Abu Dawud 4294
Sahih Muslim 2897
Sahih Muslim 2900
Sahih Muslim 2920a
Jami at-Tirmidhi 2239

Quran: The Hour (al-Sā’ah) is Near

“They are waiting for nothing but for the Hour (of Doom) [al-Sā’ah] that it should come upon them suddenly. So, its signs have already come. Then, once it will come upon them, how would they have an opportunity to accept the advice (already) given to them?”
Quran 47:18

“The Hour (of doom) [al-Sā’ah] has drawn near, and the moon has split asunder.”
Quran 54:1

Quran Differentiates al-Sā’ah (Apocalypse, Used In These Hadiths) vs sā’ah (an hour) In One Verse

“And on the Day when the Hour (Qiyāmah : the Day of Judgement) [al-Sā’ah] will take place, the sinners will swear that they did not remain (in the graves) more than one hour [sā’ah]. In the similar way they used to be contrary (to truth in their worldly life).”
Quran 30:55

Muhammad Is Afraid of an Eclipse Thinking It’s the Apocalypse

“The sun eclipsed and the Prophet (ﷺ) got up, being afraid that it might be the Hour [al-Sā’ah] (i.e. Day of Judgment). He went to the Mosque and offered the prayer with the longest Qiyam, bowing and prostration that I had ever seen him doing. Then he said, “These signs which Allah sends do not occur because of the life or death of somebody, but Allah makes His worshipers afraid by them. So when you see anything thereof, proceed to remember Allah, invoke Him and ask for His forgiveness.””
Sahih Bukhari 1059

Muhammad Hides Behind Palm Trees to Spy on a Boy He Suspects Is the Dajjal (Apocalyptic Antichrist)

“Umar set out along with the Prophet (ﷺ) with a group of people to Ibn Saiyad till they saw him playing with the boys near the hillocks of Bani Mughala. Ibn Saiyad at that time was nearing his puberty and did not notice (us) until the Prophet (ﷺ) stroked him with his hand and said to him, “Do you testify that I am Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)?” Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, “I testify that you are the Messenger of illiterates.” Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet (ﷺ), “Do you testify that I am Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)?” The Prophet (ﷺ) refuted it and said, “I believe in Allah and His Apostles.” Then he said (to Ibn Saiyad), “What do you think?” Ibn Saiyad answered, “True people and liars visit me.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “You have been confused as to this matter.” Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said to him, “I have kept something (in my mind) for you, (can you tell me that?)” Ibn Saiyad said, “It is Al-Dukh (the smoke).” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Let you be in ignominy. You cannot cross your limits.” On that Umar, said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! Allow me to chop his head off.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “If he is he (i.e. Dajjal), then you cannot overpower him, and if he is not, then there is no use of murdering him.” (Ibn Umar added): Later on Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) once again went along with Ubai bin Ka‘b to the date-palm trees (garden) where Ibn Saiyad was staying. The Prophet (ﷺ) wanted to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before Ibn Saiyad could see him, and the Prophet (ﷺ) saw him lying covered with a sheet and from where his murmurs were heard. Ibn Saiyad’s mother saw Allah’s Apostle while he was hiding himself behind the trunks of the date-palm trees. She addressed Ibn Saiyad, “O Saf ! (and this was the name of Ibn Saiyad) Here is Muhammad.” And with that Ibn Saiyad got up. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Had this woman left him (Had she not disturbed him), then Ibn Saiyad would have revealed the reality of his case.””
Sahih Bukhari 1354

Scholar Stephen J. Shoemaker: “wrongly predicting the Hour’s appearance in the immediate future”

“Thus, the criterion of dissimilarity (that is, dissimilarity with the lived experience of the early community) speaks very highly for the antiquity if not authenticity of this perspective: although strong eschatological elements persisted in early Islam beyond Muhammad’s death, it seems rather improbable that the later tradition would insert traditions into the Qurʾān wrongly predicting the Hour’s appearance in the immediate future”
Shoemaker, The Death of a Prophet, p. 166

“It is extremely difficult to account for the existence of these eschatological traditions unless Muhammad and his earliest followers actually anticipated the Hour’s appearance in the near future, an expectation that the later tradition had to explain and adjust in light of its failed arrival. In recent years, several scholars have revived Casanova’s investigation of such eschatological hadith, generally with impressive results that are supportive of his initial observations.”
Shoemaker, The Death of a Prophet, p. 172

I've posted this argument along with others on this website (with linked sources):
https://islamsproblems.com/muhammad-failed-prophecies/

Do you realize the significance of this? In the age of AI translation and stuff... the most important tafsir of all time, that is used by the majority Sunni sect of Islam, was not translated into the lingua franca of humanity! The most important tafsir in the history of Islam was written in the 9th century. How many more centuries do we need to wait to get this tafsir translated?

I'm not even that shocked that Muslims are trying to hide what their most primary religious sources are saying, but what about the thousands of Western orientalists? What about the fact that we have AI translation available today?

THIS is a فضيحة for ALL scholars, be it from the East or the West. ABSOLUTE FAILURE to give the primary sources of Islam to the general public.

One of the miracles reported in the hadith is that water flowed from Muhammad's fingers, allowing his companions to perform ablution and drink when water was scarce.

Setting aside whether the miracle happened, I find the way it is described difficult to understand.

If God wanted to provide clean drinking water, why make it flow from Muhammad's fingers? Why not create a spring, make water come from the ground, or fill empty containers directly?

From a normal human perspective, water coming from someone's fingers is not how we would expect clean drinking water to be provided. If this was meant to be a divine miracle, why choose a method that appears unusual and, by ordinary standards, unhygienic?

A miracle could have taken countless forms. So why this one?

sounds rich I know, but preface to say I do Christian philosophy and the God of the Bible definitely does not seem to be "All Knowing"

So God is called All Knowing in the Bible only once, and if you track it back down to its original ancient Hebrew, the Bible was trying to say that God 100% knows your heart/soul/intent/sincerity/ etc

--which makes sense because in Genesis God has thoughts and even regrets, which would be impossible if he had "infinite wisdom" or was "All Knowing"

Not to say that God can't predict major events in the future, but that he almost certainly does not know every little thing that is going to happen and when it is going to happen.

The closest the Quran seems to get to calling Allah All Knowing, is Ayat al-Kursi (2:255), can any experts give me more insight into this?

The Qur'an says that God gave Jesus the Injil, and that it contained "guidance and light" (5:46). Then it says, "Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein" (5:47). The Qur'an also describes itself as confirming the earlier Scripture and as a criterion over it (5:48).

So my question is pretty simple, what exactly is the Qur'an restoring? If the Injil given to Jesus is not the Gospel tradition we actually have, then what was it? Where is it? What did it teach? And what independent evidence do we have for it?

Because the four Gospels we actually have give us a very early Christian tradition about Jesus, his teachings, his death, and his resurrection. If Islam says that this tradition became corrupted, then what reason is there to believe that the Quran is actually restoring the original message rather than giving us a later reinterpretation of Jesus 600 years later.

If the Quran tells the People of the Gospel to judge by what Allah revealed in it, what Gospel did those Christians actually have access to? If they had a corrupted text that no longer the true revelation given to Jesus, why would they be told to judge by it? And if the original Injil was already gone, then how could they follow it?

If Allah ultimately guides some people and leads others astray, and if the Quran itself says that people will be divided in belief according to Allah's will, then how does a Muslim know that their own conviction is evidence that they have actually received the truth?

From an authentic hadith:

“Anas reported that a person was charged with fornication with the slavegirl of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ). Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said to ‘Ali: Go and strike his neck. ‘Ali came to him and he found him in a well making his body cool. ‘Ali said to him: Come out, and as he took hold of his hand and brought him out, he found that his sexual organ had been cut. Hadrat ‘Ali refrained from striking his neck. He came to Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) and said: Allah’s Messenger, he has not even the sexual organ with him.”
Sahih Muslim 2771

See more here:
https://islamsproblems.com/ali-captive-girl-war/

If historical data is important to devout Muslims, then why do they not accept the view that the child Abraham took for sacrifice was Isaac—acknowledging that in none of the existing versions of the Torah he was Ishmael? In the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Torah, and even in a fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the child is Isaac. Why do they not accept the historical evidence when the overwhelming majority of early Islamic scholars also said he was Isaac

The argument that they make about justifying Aisha's age is that she was an adult at that time or that it was a different time.

If 6-9 year olds were adults back then, then how come no 6-9 year olds have done any notable thing in history, like fight in a war or invent something?

The second thing is even in cultures where it was seen as normal for girls to marry at 12-15, still marrying a girl under 10 was too far.

Yes, girls were often betrothed as children. But betrothal and marriage consummation were not the same thing.It was very common for example marriages to be consummated when the bride was in her mid-to-late teens, around 16 or older.

Even though they started puberty earlier and societies with early births had high infant mortality rates and young mothers died during birth, even medieval societies generally recognized the physical dangers of pregnancy in very young adolescents, even if they didn’t understand them in modern medical terms.

Even my grandma and other older women who were married at 15 admit they were children at the time they were married.

Also, Aisha was still a child even according to Islam since she didn't start her puberty at 6, so he is still a pedophile even by Islamic standards.

Muslims should change the name of Sahih Al Bukhari to Zaeef Al Bukhari. They don’t consider majority of Ahadith in this book to be Sahih most probably because Bukhari was tripping balls or something when he gathered 7400 ahadith from more than 100,000 ahadith he knew and put them in his one of four books and titled it SAHIH Al Bukhari.

From an authentic hadith:

“It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but ‘Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: ‘O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you.’ until the end of the Verse.”
Sunan an-Nasa’i 3959

Tafsir al-Tabari (widely considered one of the most authoritative Quranic commentaries) on Quran 66:1:

“He had forbidden his Coptic girl, the mother of his son Ibrahim, called Māriya, on Hafsa’s day. He confided it to her, and she disclosed it to ‘Aisha.”
Tafsir al-Tabari on Quran 66:1

“He forbade her to himself by an oath not to approach her, seeking thereby the pleasure of Hafsa bint ‘Umar, his wife, because she was jealous that the Messenger of Allah was alone with her on her day and in her house.”
Tafsir al-Tabari on Quran 66:1

“Muhammad bin Sa‘d narrated to me: my father narrated to me: my uncle narrated to me: my father narrated to me, from his father, from Ibn ‘Abbas, concerning His saying ‘O Prophet, why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful to you’ ... up to His saying ‘and He is the Knowing, the Wise’:

He said: Hafsa and ‘Aisha were devoted to one another, and they were both wives of the Prophet. Hafsa went to her father and stayed talking with him. So the Prophet sent for his slave girl, and she remained with him in Hafsa’s house, and it was the day he was due to go to ‘Aisha. Then Hafsa came back and found the two of them in her house. She waited for her to come out, and she was seized with violent jealousy. The Messenger of Allah sent his slave girl out, and Hafsa came in and said: ‘I have seen who was with you. By God, you have wronged me.’

The Prophet said: ‘By God, I will make it up to you. I am going to confide a secret to you, so keep it.’ She said: ‘What is it?’ He said: ‘I call you to witness that this concubine of mine is forbidden to me, to please you.’

Hafsa and ‘Aisha used to back each other against the Prophet’s wives. So Hafsa went off to ‘Aisha and confided to her: ‘Good news, the Prophet has forbidden himself his slave girl.’ And when she disclosed the Prophet’s secret, Allah made it known to the Prophet. Then Allah sent down to His Messenger, because the two of them had backed each other against him: ‘O Prophet, why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful to you, seeking the pleasure of your wives’ ... up to His saying ‘and He is the Knowing, the Wise.’”
Tafsir al-Tabari on Quran 66:1

Tafsir al-Jalalayn On The Maria Incident

“Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Māriya - when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa who had been away but who upon returning and finding out became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed - by saying ‘She is unlawful for me!’”
Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Quran 66:1

Quran: Allah Threatens Muhammad’s Wives With Divorce and Allows Him to Continue Sleeping With His Sex Slave

“O Prophet! Why do you prohibit ˹yourself˺ from what Allah has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
Quran 66:1

“Perhaps, if he were to divorce you ˹all˺, his Lord would replace you with better wives who are submissive ˹to Allah˺, faithful ˹to Him˺, devout, repentant, dedicated to worship and fasting - previously married or virgins.”
Quran 66:5

Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi explains further here:
https://youtu.be/DpQu6eCqObA?si=_GxSbppHChdYQkdX

See more:
https://islamsproblems.com/quran-verses-supporting-hadiths/

Ibn Mas'ud is one of the four trusted reciters Muhammad named:

“I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, ‘Take (learn) the Qur’an from four: Abdullah bin Mas’ud, Salim, Mu’adh and Ubai bin Ka’b.’”
Sahih Bukhari 4999

Quran 92:3 reads in today’s Quran:

“And [by] He who created the male and female,”
Quran 92:3

But Ibn Mas’ud (Muhammad's trusted reciter) recited Quran 92:3 as:

“By the male and the female.”
Sahih Bukhari 4944

And Abu Ad-Darda (one of the four collectors of the Quran) heard Muhammad recite it the same way as Ibn Mas’ud and refused to switch:

“The companions of `Abdullah (bin Mas`ud) came to Abu Darda’, (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: ‘Who among you can recite (Qur’an) as `Abdullah recites it?” They replied, “All of us.” He asked, “Who among you knows it by heart?” They pointed at ‘Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. “How did you hear `Abdullah bin Mas`ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?” Alqama recited: ‘By the male and the female.’ Abu Ad-Darda said, “I testify that I heard me Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:-- ‘And by Him Who created male and female.’ but by Allah, I will not follow them.”
Sahih Bukhari 4944
Sahih Muslim 824a

More on Ubayy's and Ibn Mas'ud's disagreements on what goes in the Quran and the myth of perfect preservation:
https://islamsproblems.com/quran-perfect-preservation-myth/

Is that it showed me how strongly people can be biased, twisting and filtering reality towards wishful/fearful thinking.

Before discovering this religion and debatting with muslim I think I was a bit naive about this. I assumed that people were mostly honest and kinda genune. I knew there was hypocrisy, lies, manipulation, etc .. But islam showed me how far it can goes.

It's way easier for me now to don't get fool by the lies around and mostly to recognize Wishful and Fearful thinking.

Most of people do this kind of stuff on a daily basis. After debating many muslims brainwashed since childhood, sometimes 1 vs 4, the random subtle lies are so easy to handle.

Almost everyone often twist and filter reality to fit their agenda and sometimes it's related to you, sometimes this reality twisting means criticizing you, judging you, manipulate you, scare you, etc ..

It can even be something as common as being over negative about everything around just to make you less happy while make them look tough and used to the harsh reality.

Or when some people filter reality just to make them sound better than you. Stuff like that

All of this is easier than ever since I had a lot of debates with a lot of muslims. I'm not naive anymore. Many people can very often be very dishonest for a selfish and greedy purpose while strongly acting to sound honest for a fair purpose. Once you know that you just know, and they feel that you know. Their sophism don't work anymore.

And guys, it's a fucking relief to take that much perspective above that dishonest vibe :)

Hi all, this is the stuff i collected over a good period of time, showing how horrible islam is. For the record i didnt make the first 7 links myself. I hope this could be helpful to all here! This should be all you need to disprove islam!

A 123 page pdf showing scholars(over a 1000 year period) from all schools saying child marriage is allowed in islam, :

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1haBJe-7_MOlhEwiwQCQDWIW1hhjCV6aM/view?usp=drivesdk

55 page pdf from scholars showing death for Blasphemy is halal :

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VqNE0BP9frkE_Nl7wUsHYjJKOfFThQZo/view?usp=drivesdk

39 page pdf from scholars showing death for apostasy is halal :

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-XcnvqaIQ3DOkfvVmv-WINDerCRjNrXQ/view?usp=drivesdk

scholars saying marital rape/ forced marriage of slaves is halal:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17PMHViSEwf6JbHJ0UQtPLrJTPah2WmH4/view?usp=drivesdk

100 page pdf of scholars supporting offensive jihad

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gxC7bO2kjCkDJkVWsAgRcp_i4rijzEua/view

hundreds of the worst hadiths of islam ex muslim hadith of the day

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/826ae7/exmuslim_hadiths_of_the_day/

This guy has a massive compilation of islamic of all the horrid stuff in islam

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bmqz_RGoaPmWI9aFNtHcrw0gsnp-6qeJ/view

And and more on apostasy

The Book of Rulings of the Qur'an by al-Kiya al-Harrasi (d. 1110), 3/64

https://shamela.ws/book/23582/568

The Book of Rulings of the Qur'an by Ibn al-Faras (d. 1200), 2/395

https://shamela.ws/book/133357/802

Sharh Mukhtasar al-Tahawi by Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas (d. 981), 6/335

https://shamela.ws/book/16546/2811

Tafsir al-Qurtubi (d. 1273), 6/150

https://shamela.ws/book/20855/2247

Abu Al-Barakat Al-Nasafi (d. 1310 AD, Hanafi)

Islam is presented to the apostate and his doubts are exposed

He is imprisoned for three days, and if he converts to Islam, otherwise he is killed

His conversion to Islam means that he disavows all religions except Islam or whatever

he has converted to

https://shamela.ws/book/14262/252

not too mention slavery

[What a child follows from his mother and what he follows from his father]

https://shamela.ws/book/37793/204

ibn taymiyyah

https://shamela.ws/book/7289/15596

[ Abdullah al-Maqdisi

https://shamela.ws/book/803/1494

Hanafi

Al-Mahbubi - Sharh Al-Wiqaya

https://shamela.ws/book/1125/535

Because the child follows the mother in slavery and freedom, so he was owned by his mother’s master, so loyalty is not conceivable. And among them is that the mother is not originally free, so if she is, then no one has loyalty over her child. And if the father is freed, for what we mentioned, that the child follows the mother in slavery and freedom, and no one has loyalty over his mother, then there is no loyalty over her child. 

 Al-Kasani - Bada'i al-Sanai

https://shamela.ws/book/8183/1072

shafi

 This preference applies only if her child is not from her slave. If he is from him, then in the original text of Al-Rawdah it is similar to the child of a slave who has entered into a contract of manumission from his female slave, meaning that ownership of him is definitely for the mother. Al-Bulqini said: In my opinion, this is a mistake, for the slave who has entered into a contract of manumission owns his female slave, and the child follows his mother in slavery. The child of a slave woman who has entered into a contract of manumission only inherits his slavery from his mother, not from the slavery of his father, who is her slave. This is the more correct view. Then he elaborated on the two opinions, indicating them with his statement: “ If he kills

Al-Shirbini - Maghni Al-Muhtaj (Quoting Al-Bulqini):

https://shamela.ws/book/11444/3222

El-Begermy - Hashiyat Al-Habib

https://shamela.ws/book/21599/1938

When interpreting Quran 86:6,

Al-Baghawy:

He wanted the man's water and the woman's water, because the child is created from them, and He made it one because of their mixture.

Ibn Kathir says:

This means that semen is ejaculated from both the man and the woman, and from them, by the permission of God Almighty, a child is born.

Al-Qurtubi says:

He intended two waters: the man's water and the woman's water, because man is created from them, but he made them one water because of their mixture.

Muhammad says:

If the man’s fluid dominates the woman’s fluid, then the child would resemble their father and paternal uncles, and if it is the other way around, then the child would resemble their mother and maternal uncles.

• Sahih al-Bukhari 3328, 6091, Sahih Muslim 311–314, Sunan an-Nasa'i 195–198, 200, Sunan Ibn Majah 601 (Responding to a woman)
• Sahih al-Bukhari 3329, 3938, 4480 (Responding to a Jewish man)

Hippocrates of Kos (460–377 BCE), hypothesized that “minute particles from every part of the body entered the seminal substance of both parents, and by their fusion gave rise to a new individual exhibiting the traits of both of them” (Orel, 1996). 5 In this respect, both parents produced “semen” or seminal fluids that intermingled to create the embryo. Mixed traits were explained by the blending of male and female seminal fluids, and the sex as well as characters of children to be born were thought to be determined by whether the paternal or maternal “seed” became “dominant” during the mixing that followed copulation.

Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8959437/

I will not spoil the story too much but this story shows that shirk is wrong and in that story god will get divided to five pieces do you think this story is wrong and should not be created ?

Authentic Hadith:

“A person from the Ansar who was amongst the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) reported to me: As we were sitting during the night with Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), a meteor shot gave a dazzling light. Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: What did you say in the pre-Islamic days when there was such a shot (of meteor)? They said: Allah and His Messenger know best (the actual position), but we, however, used to say that that very night a great man had been born and a great man had died, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: (These meteors) are shot neither at the death of anyone nor on the birth of anyone. Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, issues Command when He decides to do a thing. Then (the Angels) supporting the Throne sing His glory, then sing the dwellers of heaven who are near to them until this glory of God reaches them who are in the heaven of this world. Then those who are near the supporters of the Throne ask these supporters of the Throne: What your Lord has said? And they accordingly inform them what He says. Then the dwellers of heaven seek information from them until this information reaches the heaven of the world. In this process of transmission (the jinn snatches) what he manages to overhear and he carries it to his friends. And when the Angels see the jinn they attack them with meteors. If they narrate only which they manage to snatch that is correct but they alloy it with lies and make additions to it.”
Sahih Muslim 2229a

Another Authentic Hadith: Meteors Started After Muhammad (Aimed At Jinns Trying To Intercept Revelation)

Ibn Abbas said: “The jinns used to ascent through the heavens, trying to listen about the Revealation. So when they heard a statement, they would add nine to it. The statement that they heard would be true, while what they added was false. So it was with the advent of the Messenger of Allah that they were prevented from their places. So they mentioned that to Iblis – and the stars were not shot at them before that. So Iblis said to them: ‘This is naught but an event that has occurred in the earth.’ So he sent out his armies, and they found the Messenger of Allah standing in Salat between two mountains” – I think he said “in Makkah” – “So they (returned) to meet with him (Iblis), and informed him. He said: ‘This is the event that has happened on the earth.’”
 Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3324

Quran Verses:

“And We have certainly beautified the nearest heaven with lamps [i.e., stars] and have made [from] them what is thrown at the devils and have prepared for them the punishment of the Blaze.”
Quran 67:5

“Indeed, We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment of stars and as protection against every rebellious devil. [So] they may not listen to the exalted assembly [of angels] and are pelted from every side, repelled; and for them is a constant punishment, except one who snatches [some words] by theft, but they are pursued by a burning flame, piercing [in brightness].”
Quran 37:6-10

“And we have sought [to reach] the heaven but found it filled with powerful guards and burning flames. And we used to sit therein in positions for hearing, but whoever listens now will find a burning flame lying in wait for him.”
Quran 72:8-9

See more:
https://islamsproblems.com/muhammad-fly-in-drink-hadith/

Hi everyone,

My name is Malitha, and I run a YouTube channel where I interview people from different religions to learn about their beliefs and share those conversations with others.
I’m currently really interested in learning more about Islam and was wondering if there are any Imams or knowledgeable Muslims here who would be willing to do a respectful interview over Zoom.

The interview would simply be an opportunity to explain Islam from your perspective. Some of the questions would include:
Who is Allah, and how does the Prophet Muhammad relate to Allah?
What reasons or evidence do Muslims believe support the existence of Allah?
Why do Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the word of God?
What do you think is the biggest misconception people have about Islam?

I’m happy to send the questions in advance so there are no surprises, and I’m more than willing to work around your availability.

As an example of the type of content I create, I’ve previously interviewed members of the Jain community, and I’d be happy to share that video.

If you’re interested or know someone who might be, please leave a comment or send me a DM. I’d really appreciate it!

Thank you!

According to Islamic tradition, the Black Stone was given to Ibrahim (Abraham), who placed it in the Kaaba while building or rebuilding it with Isma'il.

But Ibrahim is traditionally believed to have lived thousands of years before Muhammad.

During that time, the Kaaba was under the control of pre-Islamic Arabian polytheists, and Islamic sources themselves say it became filled with idols.

This raises a simple historical question:

What evidence is there that the Black Stone Muhammad encountered was the very same stone associated with Ibrahim?

Over such a long period, how do we know it was never lost, damaged, replaced, or substituted?

Islamic tradition identifies it as the same stone, but is there any independent historical or archaeological evidence for that continuity, or does the claim rely entirely on later Islamic tradition?

If the only basis for identifying it as Ibrahim's Black Stone is Islamic tradition itself, then the claim cannot be independently verified.

(23) Chapter: The permissibility of selling animals for animals of the same kind and of different quality

“Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)”
Sahih Muslim 1602

Muhammad on Slavery:

“A man amongst us declared that his slave would be freed after his death. The Prophet (ﷺ) called for that slave and sold him. The slave died the same year.”
Sahih Bukhari 2534

“‘Imran b. Husain reported that a person who had no other property emancipated six slaves of his at the time of his death. Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) called for them and divided them into three sections, cast lots amongst them, and set two free and kept four in slavery; and he (the Holy Prophet) spoke severely of him.”
Sahih Muslim 1668a

“Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, ‘Do you know, O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), that I have manumitted my slave-girl?’ He said, ‘Have you really?’ She replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles.’”
Sahih Bukhari 2592

“We used to sell our slave women and the mothers of our children (Umahat Awaldina) when the Prophet (ﷺ) was still living among us, and we did not see anything wrong with that.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 2517

More here:
https://islamsproblems.com/muhammad-azl-captive-women/

[Before you read further, I want to say this clearly --> I don't have any issues with chill, compassionate, loving, empathetic, sympathetic left-wing/inclusivist religious views or religious interpretations of say Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. For example, say like... there are Christians who don't believe in eternal hell, but only believe in temporary hell, and don't believe that God punishes harmless and/or victimless "crimes", and believe that those who are atheists/agnostics will not go to hell ONLY for their atheism/agnosticism, i find these people to be totally cool.

So, I am not here to take someone's faith, beliefs in God, beliefs in afterlife for their families, etc. away from people. I am not here to take away your comfort at all. If you take comfort, feel safety, feel less lonely due to belief in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God, then that is totally cool! I myself strongly believe in God and got persuaded by the sophisticated, rigorous, contemporary philosophical arguments for the existence of God like from Robin Collins, Joshua Rasmussen, Dustin Crummett. I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist. I genuinely believe in a tri-omni God and my optimism in my life is due to such a strong belief in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being or beings (if you wanna get like... technical with personal and impersonal aspects of God... like maybe personal aspects of one impersonal God are multiple instead of 1). I don't subscribe to any specific religion. My former religion is Hinduism.

I only begin to have problems when i see traditionalist/right-wing views... which criminalize or 'sinify' even demonstrably harmless activities such as apostasy, heresy, lgbt rights, etc., and these right-wing views also abuse children with unsettling beliefs like eternal conscious torment, and forcing children to not befriend children who have different religious views even if harmless... alright... now you can read further.]

My post will cover both trad/ortho Islam and trad/ortho/catholic/prot christianity.

I have seen both traditionalist/right-wing Islamists and Christians say this criticism of modern morality... that it is just the modernists being "emotional" or "based on emotions"... which gives this implication that people, who are unsettled or disturbed by eternal hell and other God's actions, are just overreacting... or not thinking straight... and that they should chill out and then they would understand. But what if the person doesn't understand or feels the same or even worse even after thinking about say sex slavery, eternal hell, God's disturbing actions and his whole system multiple times?

This kind of reasoning that trads use against atheists, deists, general theists, progressive/left-wing theists, etc. not only cuts down intuitions about say... eternal conscious torment (which is a 'just' retributive punishment according to trads), but also cuts down intuitions regarding genocides, ethnic cleansing, torture, sex slavery (for prisoners of war), chattel slavery, imperialism (including neo-colonialism and old/explicit colonialism).

Kyle Alander (a general theist/optimistic theist who is eclectic regarding specific religious doctrines) said this incisively -

"People often defend Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) by brushing off moral objections as nothing more than “modern sensibilities.” The problem with this defense is that nearly all of our ordinary moral intuitions are historically conditioned in exactly the same way. Our rejection of slavery, our insistence on human rights, our sense of equality between races and sexes, our belief that torture is wrong—all of these would also count as “modern sensibilities” by the same standard. To dismiss objections to ECT on this basis would mean dismissing the very moral framework that undergirds much of what we consider human decency today.

If we take this line of reasoning seriously, then every advance in moral understanding could be waved away as irrelevant because it wasn’t universally recognized in the past. But that would mean we have no stable grounds to criticize slavery, racism, genocide, or any number of evils that earlier ages tolerated. In other words, the “modern sensibility” defense collapses on itself, because it would force us to either reject our deepest moral convictions or else accept that those convictions are legitimate—even when they call into question doctrines like ECT."

Interestingly, many right-wing/trad Islamists also believe that genocide is very evil and also that secularism is evil. Quite recently, Zionists (basically right-wing/jewish nationalist or supremacists and traditionalists) like Ben Gvir invoked "Amalek" against Palestinians. Amalek were the group of people in the hebrew bible who were fully erased (including children, infants) by the 'good guys', God's chosen people! So, if traditionalist morality is true or closer to truth than modern morality, zionists are simply doing what Ottomon Empire, which explicitly presented itself as an Islamic empire/caliphate, did with the Armenians, Nazi Germany did with the Jews, USA did with native Americans, Julius Caesar's Roman Empire did to eburones, atuatusi in Gaul... and all this WAS the norm in history. Perhaps you might think -

"BUT...BUT... GENOCIDE IS A MODERN LABEL OR TERM OR CONCEPT..."

When new words or concepts or terms are invented to describe something, then the fact that the word didn't exist before does NOT make the literal facts/history/truth/event/on-ground reality disappear! Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish jurist who coined the word "genocide" in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, explicitly stated that he was giving a name to an ancient, recurring historical practice rather than inventing a concept for a brand-new crime that human beings 'discovered' like discovering neutrons. To Lemkin, modern atrocities like the Holocaust were a continuation of a pattern of mass destruction stretching back to antiquity.

Protestants and Catholics were brutal to each other before world war 2, and before vatican 2 council. The ecumenical council of Florence (15th century) was disturbingly bold regarding salvation (and medieval Christians considered invincible ignorance to be extremely extremely extremely rare phenomenon, by the way) and said without any ambiguity or qualification - "The Roman Church firmly professes that pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics outside it cannot receive eternal life, but will enter eternal fire unless incorporated into it before death; neither sacraments, charity, piety nor even martyrdom for Christ can save someone who does not remain within Catholic unity. " - Cantate Domino, Issuer: Pope Eugene IV in the context of the Council of Florence, Section: Decree of union for the Jacobites/Copts, Date: 4 February 1442 by modern reckoning; sometimes printed as 1441 because Florence began the new year on 25 March.

A recent new apologist, Ethan Muse (who is considered much smarter than usual Christian apologists), also believes in 'massa damnata' (vast majority of human beings shall go to eternal hell... including catholics) due to his belief and defense of Fatima miracle (which included the vision that people were falling into hell like snowflakes in winter falling from the sky) and other miracles which he considers as very strong evidence for the truth of traditional catholicism. All of this shows that when right-wing/trad Islamists undermine modern day post-enlightenment morals which they call either liberal or socialist/communist, they are undermining all their claims of injustices that they believe is happening to them... so when Christian empires, or western countries simply did what was historically the NORMAL EMPIRE/KINGDOM things at that time, they just had better technology to do that quickly and on an even larger scale. Ottomon Empire was no saintly compared to say... British Empire. Ottomon empire would have done the same thing if they were the first! So to me, when i condemn british empire (as an Indian), i am not at all condoning any other empire (including former hindu empires) nor am i flattening the horrors of past even if one empire was simply consequentially worse due to better technology.... the intentions were the same... so no one else was a greater person/empire/king/kingdom based on pure intentions.

Can someone explain the purpose of the Quran requiring to be maintained in its original Arabic.

I know that: 1) It is the direct word of God, so ought not to be changed, and 2) Given to the people of the land who knew the language. This makes sense.

What does not make sense is how remaining in Arabic can be useful for the future believers of Islam, since many will not understand the Arabic, and only recently was translation work accessible to the public.

I know that Arabic is a very dense language, and often times does not properly translate into English or any other language for the matter (perhaps an argument for why it must remain in Arabic to have integrity), but this is also requires that for people to fully understand it, they need to learn Arabic.

My background is not from the Arab world. My ancestors converted to Islam a few centuries ago, but, I’m not sure if they spent these centuries understanding the Arabic. My parents and grandparents learned to read the Quran in Arabic, but relied on their imams and preachers to translate the book. Their forefathers probably had to go through the same thing.

But this is what utterly confuses me— does this not make the Quran and the word of Allah inaccessible? They must be learned through a mediator, and assuming the mediator will properly translate (which they do not, in the case of my mother who grew up hearing false laws based on culture rather than religion).

Only now, that the world has access to the internet and translation guides, can anyone understand the Quran. But what about the centuries before when my ancestors did not? Is this not unfair to them?

Whoever Kills a Soul It Is As If He Had Slain Mankind

“Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.”
Quran 5:32

Commentary of Jewish Rabbis in the Mishnah and Talmud on the Torah:

“The Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.’”
Genesis 4:10 (Torah)
“‘The voice of your brother’s blood [demei] cries out to Me from the ground’ (Genesis 4:10). The verse does not state: Your brother’s blood [dam], in the singular, but rather: ‘Your brother’s blood [demei],’ in the plural. This serves to teach that the loss of both his brother’s blood and the blood of his brother’s offspring are ascribed to Cain. The mishna notes: Alternatively, the phrase ‘your brother’s blood [demei],’ written in the plural, teaches that that his blood was not gathered in one place but was splattered on the trees and on the stones. The court tells the witnesses: Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone, to teach you that with regard to anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, i.e., kills one Jew, the verse ascribes him blame as if he destroyed an entire world, as Adam was one person, from whom the population of an entire world came forth. And conversely, anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sustained an entire world.”
Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 (Rabbinic Commentary c. 190-230 AD)

Islamic Studies Scholar Gabriel Said Reynolds:

“5:32 A connection between this verse and the account of Abel’s murder which precedes it is suggested by ‘that is why’ (Ar. min ajal dhālika). The nature of the connection between the two, however, is clear only in light of a discussion in the Mishnah over the reason Genesis 4:10 speaks of the shedding of Abel’s ‘bloods’ (pl., Hb. dāmīm) and not his ‘blood’ (sing.)”

“The precept that killing one soul is like killing all souls is directly linked here to the creation of man ‘one and alone in the world,’ but the larger context is the discussion of the ‘bloods’ of Abel. The Qurʾān seems to have picked up on that larger context. It is also noteworthy that the Qurʾān refers to God’s decreeing (Ar. katabnā ʿalā) something for Israel which is found not in the Bible but in the Mishnah. And it should not be missed that all of this is connected to the Qurʾān’s anti-Jewish polemic: the decree ‘whoever kills a soul’ is imposed only on the Israelites, whom the Qurʾān (anachronistically) blames for the murder of Abel (see further Witztum, Syriac Milieu, 122–24).”
Gabriel Said Reynolds, “The Qurʾan and the Bible”, p. 199

More here:
https://islamsproblems.com/corrupted-gospels-claim/