Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AhmadFarooq

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 ... 21
islamWiki already has a quite detailed article on the topic: Legal status of bestiality in Islam (in-fact the only counter-argument article).
Also, check out the section Bestiality in Muslim Countries for more information related to the above post.

Additionally, islamWiki does not have an issue with rebuttals, its just that objectively written counter-arguments without targeting any individual or group are recommended as it keeps the discussion scholarly and discourages the argument degrading to petty personal disputes.

In my humble opinion, you have provided with quite confusing answers. Your first quoted text was absolute in its conclusion that blasphemy merits the capital punishment, then your next reply took a more lenient approach and then your third reply appeared to refute, or at-least weaken, the evidence used to support the first reply.

A previous discussion regarding the matter was made on this forum here:

« on: August 01, 2017, 12:23:06 PM »
According to this: "...can edit most pages and upload files by going to theme in the blue bar at the top of the editor and then click edit html/css in the bottom right."

And yet most Muslim jurists over the centuries have, in their rulings, opted for discretionary punishments instead of the capital punishment for such crimes. (Legal status of bestiality in Islam#The Punishment)

The trinity category is most acceptable one beyond them, so maybe it's the one that really follows the bible.
I'm sure non-trinitarian Christians would like to fervently disagree on the matter.

And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers. Quran (Al Imran:85)
... Unless Allah chooses to forgive the "losers" (from what I understand).

From what I understand, no prescribed punishment does not mean there is no punishment, it only means that a specific punishment has not been defined.

In contrast to crimes such as fornication, adultery, thievery, murder etc. whose punishments or recompenses have been prescribed, bestiality's punishment (according to this narration) has not been defined in the Qur'an or Hadeeth. As far as I know, similar is the case of alcohol consumption for Muslims. In such circumstances, the judge defines Taziri (discretionary) punishments for the crimes according to his best understanding.

I think the original question had less to do with the punishment for Bestiality and more related to the fact of how can there be completely contradictory narrations, while all of them are still considered as "Authentic" or "Sahih"?

That doesn't make any sense. Just because that verse was revealed during the revelation of Islam Doesn't mean that it won't apply now. That's a flawed logic.

I literally have no idea how you came to such a conclusion. How does mentioning the context of the revelation of a verse, or the question that a verse is possibly answering, naturally conclude that the verse is no longer applicable?

When some individual or some exegesist mentions that alcohol was prohibited in the context that it caused social evils in the society or that Jihad was allowed in the context of defending against the Quraish, do you also accuse them of making no "sense" and using "flawed logic"? Or is this honour limited to myself alone?

Christians believe in trinity

With the risk of being accused of splitting hairs, what about the Unitarian Christians? Or as some Muslims argue there were many Christians who rejected the Trinity idea even up-to late first millennium CE. These Christians are argued to had been assimilated into the new Muslim populations of those times. See Dr. Jerald Dirks lectures.

Secondly the Quran told us that whoever follows any other religion than Islam will not be accepted.

I'm not a scholar so I may be making a mistake, but where does the Qur'an say exactly that? From my humble understanding, the verse is talking about the religion Islam being the only acceptable one, there is no mention of the people following other religions.

Additionally, what about the Jews? After all, the Qur'an clearly says that Allah can forgive all sins except associating partners with Him. Or did this verse also got abrogated?

Evidence please, I highly doubt that there's any scholar who believes that those verses are only talking about the infidels during the prophet ( ﷺ )'s time.

Go through this, and then tell me which Kafir you know to have received the correct form or interpretation of Islam, had no remaining unanswered questions but still rejected Islam out of malice or arrogance.

The interpretation believed by scholars who believe in the possibility of non-Muslims getting into heaven is that when the Qur'an talks about Islam as the only acceptable religion, it is in the context of a question that arose during the revelation of Islam.

Along with Muslims, Christians also believe that they follow the path to salvation, the path inspired by divine Scripture; regardless of what condition that scripture might be in, they believe that they were following God's book. Similarly, Jews were thinking the same. At some places in Muslim Scripture, Jews are even encouraged to follow their Jewish laws.

The question arose that among these different interpretations of the same original divine commandments, which path would be the correct path? Amongst these varying paths it was commanded by Allah that only the path shown by Islam is the correct path. As far as this verse is concerned, it does not mention any punishment for people who follow the other alleged paths to salvation.

Regarding the Qur'an verses which mention non-Muslims "will burn in hell forever", these scholars argue that those verses are concerning only those Kuffar who directly rejected Prophet Muhammad. They argue that the only people going to Hell we can be sure of, are the ones who directly rejected the Prophets during their lifetimes. Because when a Prophet lives within a people, they have the opportunity to get answers for each and every question they might have. When all legitimate questions that a person has, get answered and still he does not believe in Allah, then he is deliberately and maliciously rejecting the truth. For this sin, the punishment is Hell (whether it is forever or temporary is a different issue).

Additionally, the Qur'an clearly says that Allah can forgive all sins except associating partners with Him. According to this verse, especially the Jews (and maybe all other people except polytheists too) stand a good chance of having all their sins forgiven.

Regarding abrogation, when it comes to subjects such as limited allowance and then prohibition of alcohol and changing of the Qibla for prayers, there is hardly any difference of opinion on the matter. But when it comes to other issues, things become much more tricky and complicated which allows for high difference of opinion, especially when it comes to the alleged abrogation of Qur'an verses by the Hadith.

Why do you want a "refutation" for this?

While a lot of Muslim scholars might believe that only "Muslims" will enter paradise, there are also other Muslim scholars (along-with individuals on this forum) who believe "non-Muslims" can get into paradise too. They might not use the same arguments as provided above, but their conclusions are similar. As Osama Abdullah mentioned the definition of "Muslim" and "non-Muslim" being a matter of difference of opinion for some.

Isn't the first narration in the link saying the same thing?
... “I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.”

Also, by-the-way, also has your websites included in it too.

The first hadith does appear to have reliable sources.

For a possible refutation see

The second hadith apparently narrated by Imam Ahmad and Imam Al-Nasa'i but with a small but very significant and interesting translation difference.

See the second paragraph here:

Additionally, you can use search engines like, or Muslims Search Engine to quickly search for material in relevant Muslim websites.

« on: July 19, 2017, 07:49:59 AM »
From what I have read and heard, the context of this event is that when wives of the Prophet used to got to the fields, some from among the hypocrites with malicious intentions used to move towards them. When these people were to get caught, they used to make the excuse that they thought those women were their women. In this context these particular veil verses were revealed, so that there would be a clear distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim women. This way the hypocrites could no longer make the same excuse and be dealt with punishments if they tried again. Additionally, depending on the interpretation of these verses, the veil verses were revealed as obligatory for the wives of the Prophet (because of their position) while for other Muslim women the face veil isn't obligatory in all circumstances (like when they do not fear for their security).

If this context is historically accurate, it is completely plausible that Umar (ra) wanted the Muslim women to take such measures so that they could be protected and there is absolutely nothing nefarious or embarrassing or misogynistic about such.

As mentioned in the previous reply, there is nothing in the narrations that mentions that Umar (ra) followed the wife of the Prophet. Additionally, as one of the narrations clearly mentions that Umar (ra) "was in a gathering", it would appear that this part is deliberately ignored by the critic possibly with the intention to insert some scandal in the story.

Furthermore, there also doesn't appear to be any indication that Lady Sauda was "embarrassed" by the incident. As mentioned previously, Umar (ra) used to request the Prophet to ask his wives to be veiled and not that Allah should reveal verses regarding the matter.

Regarding the criticism that the Qur'an wasn't pre-written or pre-designed by Allah, and was affected by the life events of the Prophet or that the Qur'an wasn't revealed all-at-once in the beginning so that Prophet Muhammad could add to it or make changes in it as the need arose or as he desired, there are a few ways to answer such criticisms.

The critics argue that Prophet Muhammad used to conveniently receive revelation whenever he was faced with some problem. This can be responded by considering the alternative, i.e. the scenario in which when Prophet Muhammad needed guidance, Allah didn't reveal anything to him. Exactly what kind of a Prophet would that make Prophet Muhammad? Are the critics really saying that they will believe in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad in the scenario that he didn't receive revelation?

The second way this criticism can be responded to is by looking at the series of events. If the entirety of the Qur'an (including the veil verses ) was revealed all at once at the very beginning of Islam then it can be easily seen that the special circumstances for which the veil verses were revealed wouldn't have even existed. This is because Muslim women would have already been clearly distinguishable from the women of the hypocrites and therefore there would have been no obvious need of the revelation and by extension the veil.

I had remembered seeing the website design somewhere and additionally, your name came up on an index of Muslim websites.

« on: July 17, 2017, 04:55:31 AM »
I believe that non-nuanced, absolute statements like these make it incredibly easy to instigate public opinion against Muslims.

For years the Iranian political and religious leadership continued to make statements like "America is evil" and that "they will destroy Israel". Such a scenario allowed Israeli governments and their American supporters to have a quick and easy escape for any and all criticisms of the Israeli state. Whenever some Muslims were to criticise the Israeli government they just started shouting how Muslims want to annihilate the Israelis whether they be civilian or not and how Muslims can never accept Jews in their countries and so on and so forth.

When Western lay persons are told that a Muslim said: "I really want that every Palestinian Muslim should go for martyrdom after killing at least 1000s of israeliees", they are not going to naturally assume that the statement comes under some rules and regulations. They are going to naturally assume that literally all Israelis are the target (including Christians). When such an understanding reaches a westerner, why should he/she ever support the Palestinian cause?

Just a small quantity of nuance and care can make it extremely difficult for the blind supporters of Israel to use these statements against Muslims themselves. I believe being more careful of how Muslims phrase their sentences can create a significant positive change.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 ... 21

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube