Answering Christianity Research Center

There are people that claim to have seen Jesus in a dream.

Do these people know what Jesus looked like to substantiate that it was Jesus they saw in their dreams?
There is various “true” face of Jesus floating on the Internet. This is not surprising as there is no physical description of Jesus in the Gospels, and as the depicting of Jesus was forbidden:

“During the first three centuries of the Christian Church, however, there was no Christian art, and the Church resisted it with all its might…Only when the Christian Church became the Roman imperial church under Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century were pictures used in the churches;” and “The church historian Eusebius…characterized the use of images of the Apostles Paul and Peter as well as Christ himself as a pagan custom.”1

How do they know it was not the same “voice” that Paul said he heard and which voice could have been that of Satan deceiving Paul into corrupting Jesus’ teachings by having him propagate the pagan Son of God belief;4 much like “Satan” deceiving the Christian Fathers in the fourth century into teaching the “senseless, God-dishonoring doctrine” of Trinity?5

Were these dreams of Jesus only the replay of the dreamers’ conscious thoughts?

Jesus was a Muslim and taught Islam; He was prophet of God sent only for Jews and he taught that eternal life lies in following the Mosaic Law until the coming of the Comforter who will bring “all truth” and “abide forever” and whom all are to follow.

The only person Satan cannot impersonate is the Prophet Mohammad; so if you know what the Prophet looked like –and it is doubtful that any Muslim of today knows this– and you see him in a dream you can be certain it is him–(Bokhari Vol. 8, #217; Vol. 9, #123).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kr5KLipdNg

 By using the word 'Terror' for ru'b, the Islam-hater intends to convey the following definition of terror:

        Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

However, the word ru'b does not have that meaning at all. It refers to fright and anxiety. In fact, we can derive a better understanding of ru'b by examing other ahadith:

        The Prophet (peace be upon him) saod: "I was given victory through Ru`b: the enemy becomes filled with Ru`b even though they are the distance of a month's journey away from me." (Ahmad #20337)

The meaning is thus obvious that when the enemies' attempts to detroy the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) failed, they began to fear him as he grew in strength in Arabia and gained more followers. They feared and hated the religion he brought which preached equality and morality and would remove them from their position of corrupt tyrants who enslaved the poor and the non-arabs. It was fear of the mysterious power which granted Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers such rapid success. This fear was not the fear that resulted from past combat, as many Islam-haters would have us believe, rather it was a type of fear which prevented further combat. As Jalal Abualrub notes:

        Ru`b ', means, ‘Fear': Here is a list of some of the Islamic resources explaining, ‘Ru`b', as, ‘Fear', and, ‘Awe': Fat`h al-Bari bi Shar`h Sahih al-Bukhari ; Tu`hfat al-A`hwadhi bi Shar'h Jami' at-Tirmidhi ; and, Shar`h Sunan an-Nasaii . These books were written by Muslim Scholars explaining Hadeeths contained in, Sahih al-Bukhari , and the Sunan collections of Imams at-Tirmidhi and an-Nasaii, respectively.... ...Al-Waqidi said in his, Maghazi , that Juwairiyah Bint al-Harith said, “ We were at the Muraisii` area when the Messenger of Allah marched forth towards us. I heard my father say, ‘There has come to us a gathering that we cannot resist.' I saw men and horses in such numbers that I cannot describe. After I became Muslim and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, married me I looked at the Muslims and found their numbers to be less than what I had thought. I knew that this was Ru`b that Allah, the Exalted, throws in the hearts of the polytheists.' ” There are many similar examples in which the enemies of Islam, who, just like the Muraisii` people, had gathered armies to attack Madinah and the Prophet, scattered throughout the desert in fear when they heard that the Prophet had gathered an army to resist their treacherous attacks. Many lives were saved through Allah throwing fear in the hearts of the enemies of Muhammad, peace be upon them, because his enemies feared him, fled and did not meet him in battle. Thus, ‘fear', in the Hadeeth...saved Muslims and many of their enemies the hardship of battle and warfare. (Abualrub, The Prophet of Mercy, emphasis added)

hence, the fear that the disbelievers had of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) can justly be compared to the fear a thief or murderer would have of a police officer. In fact, a Police officer would desire that criminals fear the law in order to maintain a safe and secure society.

Some crtitics also claim that this narration proves that the motivation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was money due to the phrase, "the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and placed in my hand". Of course they omit the phrase before that - "While I was asleep". Jalal Abualrub comments on this deceptive tactic as follows:

        By doing so, it would appear that the Prophet, peace be upon him, was seeking or wishing to acquire other people's wealth for himself. Contrary to this false illusion, this was a vision that the Prophet saw which contained glad tidings for the generations of Muslims to come. This is why in the same Hadeeth, Abu Hurairah added, as al-Bukhari and Muslim reported from him, “ Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). (Abualrub, The Prophet of Mercy)

There are thousands of narrations which confirm that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) lived a simple life in poverty despite the power and strength he acquired as a leader. Here are a few of such narrations:

        Narrated 'Aisha: The family of Muhammad had never eaten their fill of wheat bread for three successive days since they had migrated to Medina till the death of the Prophet. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 461)

Narrated 'Aisha: The family of Muhammad did not eat two meals on one day, but one of the two was of dates. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 462)

Narrated 'Aisha: The bed mattress of the Prophet was made of a leather case stuffed with palm fibres. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 463)

Narrated Qatada: We used to go to Anas bin Malik and see his baker standing (preparing the bread). Anas said, "Eat. I have not known that the Prophet ever saw a thin well-baked loaf of bread till he died, and he never saw a roasted sheep with his eyes." (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 464)

Narrated 'Aisha: A complete month would pass by during which we would not make a fire (for cooking), and our food used to be only dates and water unless we were given a present of some meat. (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 465)

In truth, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never desired anything of the worldly pleasures. His mission was solely to please his Lord and spread the true message across the land, calling people to morality, justice and peace achieved through submission to God.

http://comparativreligion.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/narration-5-i-have-been-made-victorious.html

Hayliyaada is right im not her to misguide people there was do much i never compressed it down and i realise my mistake but you insulting me is no help to be honest your misleading me by rather than focusing in the problem you are bringing in a new pointless thing.
If you have nothing use full why comment i understand how i didn't post the actual points but really im here to learn.
Just forget it now it causes to much of a problem.

Zakir, you didn't bring a single argument. This threads just waste everybody's time.

What makes you weak ?!

Some absurdly argue that homosexual inclinations are inherited through one’s genetics. However ridiculous such a claim may be, even if accepted for the argument’s sake, it still does not justify the criminal act. Many scientists have argued a genetic basis for a disposition to commit crimes such as burglary, theft, and sexual abuse, yet the law rightly condemns and punishes these acts. Some scientists have claimed that it is programmed into men’s genetics to be unfaithful to their partners, yet society does not deem such behaviour morally acceptable.

https://www.islam21c.com/politics/4670-standing-up-against-homosexuality-and-lgbts/
https://www.albalagh.net/general/0101.shtml

Homosexuality is a mental illness. From what I have been able to find: “Up to 1973 the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) did include ego-syntonic (comfortable with orientation) homosexuality as a mental disorder. The reason it was dropped was not a change in scientific or medical thinking, but that homosexual activists besieged and disrupted psychiatric meetings and intensely harrassed and abused psychiatrists. For instance, psychiatrist Nelson Borelli was at the 1972 APA convention, and noted the following in the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL: ‘I was there in San Francisco at the 1972 APA convention when the “Gay and Lesbian” activists forced the APA leadership to promise to drop ‘Homosexuality’ from the diagnostic manual or else there would be no APA Convention. Not only the scandal they were causing, but the activists had gained control of the infrastructure of the convention building. The APA kept the promise.”‘
https://controversialislam.wordpress.com/homosexuality/

Were She-Monkeys Stoned For Adultery?
by Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi

Introduction

An amusing little polemic regarding a hadith that is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari has recently surfaced and is being circulated by some apostates from Islam. Naturally, the Christian missionaries too had decided to jump on the bandwagon of smearing Islam through a misinterpretation of this hadith as well.

The hadith is recorded as follows:

    Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:

    Narrated ‘Amru bin Maimun: “During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.”

The basic premise of their “charge” is that the Prophet(P) had ordered the stoning of a she-monkey, and that lapidation for zina (fornication) is extended to animals as well.



Back to Basics: The Issue of Isnad and Matn

The full citation of the hadith as recorded by al-Bukhari is as follows:

1

On closer scrutiny of the above-recorded hadith, anyone proficient in the sciences of the Hadith (ulum al-hadith) would immediately see the fallacy of such a claim when the matn (text) and isnad (chain of transmission) of the hadith is studied.

Firstly, the person who uttered the above words was not the Prophet Muhammad(P) himself, but by one of his Companions by name of ‘Amru bin Maimun(R). The following is the chain of transmission for this hadith:

The hadith is categorized as mauquf (lit. “stopped”), meaning that it is a saying traced to that of a Companion(R). Therefore, since it is clear that this hadith is not a saying of the Prophet(P), much less ascribed to him, it cannot be a basis for a ruling in Islam.

Secondly, the key phrase in the above hadith is “During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance”, which the critics had obviously overlooked. While we concede that above hadith is indeed accepted as authentic, we would also argue that according to the principles of criticism of the hadith, the matn of the hadith above would be rejected even if it had been ascribed to the Prophet(P). ‘Abdur Rahman I. Doi has outlined this principle by stating that:

    As far as the Matn is concerned, the following principles of criticism of the Hadith are laid down:

    (1) The Hadith should not be contrary to the text or the teaching of the Qur’an or the accepted basic principles of Islam.
    (2) The Hadith should not be against the dictates of reason or laws of nature and common experience.
    (3) The Hadith should not be contrary to the Traditions which have already been accepted by authorities as reliable and authentic by applying all principles.
    (4) The Hadith which sings the praises and excellence of any tribe, place or persons should be generally rejected
    (5) The Hadith that contains the dates and minute details of the future events should be rejected.
    (6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with the Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such expressions as may not be suitable to him, should be rejected.2

Interestingly, Ibn Hajar in his Fath al-Bari had discussed at length the exegesis of the above hadith. He quotes from Ibn Abd al-Barr as follows:

Ibn Abd al-Barr has denounced this report of ‘Amru Ibn Maimun and said: “It includes attributing adultery to a creature not assigned (with distinction between lawful and unlawful) and implementation of legal punishment on animals. This is denounced before scholars”.3

Then Ibn Hajar responds to the above argument of Ibn Abd al-Barr:

…I answer that the event being similar to that of adultery and stoning does not necessitate that it is really adultery or legal punishment. It is called so because it is similar to it, so it does not necessitate assignment of animals (with distinction between lawful and unlawful).4

In other words, even if we assume for the sake of the argument that the claims of the apostates are true and the above hadith is indeed ascribed to the Prophet(P) , the critics will still not be able to make the charge that the Prophet(P) had ordered the stoning of a she-monkey.

Ibn Qutaiba makes further commentary on the above hadith as follows:


They said: You narrated that some monkeys stoned a she-monkey for fornication. If the monkeys stoned her while she is married, the hadith would be funnier. According to this example, you cannot be sure for perhaps monkeys implement many rulings of the Torah! Or probably they embrace Judaism! So, if the monkeys are Jews, then perhaps the pigs are Christians!

Abu Muhammad [‘Abdullah Ibn Qutaiba, d. 276 A.H.] said: In response to this sneer we state that the narrative of monkeys is neither on authority of Allah’s Messneger (peace be upon him) nor any of his Companions; it is merely something mentioned by ‘Amr Ibn Maimon. Muhammad Ibn Khalid Ibn Khadash told me that Muslim Ibn Qutaiba said on authority of Hashim on authority of Hasin on authority of ‘Amr Ibn Maimon that he said, “A she-monkey had committed fornication during Jahiliyyah, so the monkeys stoned her and I stoned her with them”.

Abu Muhammad said: He could have seen the monkeys stoning a she-monkey, so he imagined that they were stoning her because she committed fornication, this cannot be known except by supposition because monkeys do not express themselves and the one who sees them gathering cannot tell whether they fornicate or not. This is a supposition. Perhaps, the old man knew she had fornicated for some reason we do not know for monkeys are the most fornicating animals. Arabs refer to them as examples of (exaggerated) fornication and say: “fornicating more than a monkey”. Unless fornication is common among them, they would not be used as an example. There is none closer to man in marriage and jealousy than them. The animals get hostile with one another, jump over and punish one another. Some bite, some scratch, some break and some smash. Monkeys stone with their hands whom Allah created as man stones. If they stoned one another for a cause rather than fornication and the old man thought it is fornication, it would not be far. If the old man knew about fornication by some evidence and that stoning was for it, it would not be far either because – as I have informed you – they are the most jealous among animals and the closest to man regarding understanding.5

The points we have made should make it clear that ‘Amru bin Maimun was relating his thinking or perception prior to the advent of Islam – how he had foolishly believed that even monkeys had committed adultery! It happened during a period whereby the pre-Islamic Arabs would indulge in the most detestable acts such as burying their daughters alive and doing the tawaf while they were naked. Thus this means that Islam has elevated the status of mankind by making them more rational and mindful of their actions, a conclusion that the haters and enemies of Islam would certainly not like to admit.

If the above hadith is used to condemn Islam with regards to treatment towards animals, then the Bible has the following to say:

    If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.6

In other words, an animal that has committed its sin of adultery is liable to be punished for a “crime” it is unaware of in the first place, according to the Bible.

Conclusions

It is clear that where the hadith regarding the stoning of a she-monkey for adultery is concerned, it is simply a recollection of a Companion(R) of the Prophet(P) regarding this maltreatment of animals during the pre-Islamic period of jahiliyyah, which is in total contradiction to Islamic principles and norms. Thus, the claim that this hadith is the basis from which the lapidation for married adulterers in Islam came about is nothing more than a damp firecracker hurled by the haters and enemies of Islam. That their view of Islam had been tainted by deep ignorance, hatred, paranoia and xenophobia is no big secret, and this latest polemic is ipso facto a confirmation of their current condition.

And only God knows best.
https://www.bismikaallahuma.org/hadith/exegesis/were-she-monkeys-stoned-for-adultery/


IS is Allowed to take SHOWER with our Wife

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.272 Narrated by Hisham bin Urwa

(on the authority of his father) that Aisha said, "I and Allah's Messenger (saws) used to take a bath from a single water container, from which we took water simultaneously."

 

Islam has allowed the husband and the wife in marriage every possible liberty to enjoy physical relations with each other, except three:

    It is strictly prohibited to have sexual intercourse with ones wife during her period of menstruation.
    It is strictly prohibited to enter the woman through her anus.
    Although there is no specific prohibition mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah, the majority of the scholars in Islam have voiced their opinion against oral sex, whereby one touches the others private organs with their mouth.

Other than the above three restrictions, one may enjoy physical relations with ones wife any place, any time, and any how their hearts desire.

 Whatever written of Truth and benefit is only due to Allahs Assistance and Guidance, and whatever of error is of me alone. Allah Alone Knows Best and He is the Only Source of Strength.

Your brother and well wisher in Islam,
Burhan
http://www.islamhelpline.net/node/4225