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 - H.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
Assalamu alaykum,

Bukhari 3247: The Prophet said, "Verily! 70,000 or 700,000 of my followers will enter Paradise altogether; so that the first and the last amongst them will enter at the same time, and their faces will be glittering like the bright full moon."

Does this mean only 70000 or 700000 people will be dmitred to paradise? We have 1.8 billion muslims today and will keep having them for many years and we had billons and millions before us, but only 700000 will enter jannah, or is this a wrong interpretation of the hadith.

Jazakallah khair

Let me first extract the translation that  have provided from Adullah Yusuf Ali for verse 4:11; and 4:12. I quote;

“(Koran 4:11)
Allah directs you as regards your children's (Inheritance): to the male a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two ormore, Their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her, share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers the mother has a sixth...

(Koran 4:12)
In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, If ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment.”

Now your claim is that, according to the above verses, if a man dies and leaves three daughters, two parents and his wife, three daughters together will receive 2/3 of the share, the parents will receive 1/3 of the share and the wife will receive 1/8 of the share.

If you read the Qur’an in Arabic you will see that at the beginning of 4.11 Allah uses the plural word in Arabic ‘awlaad’ for “…your children’s (inheritance)…” but then Allah uses the singular word in ‘walad’ for “…if the deceased left a child...” Therefore, the above translation, ‘if the deceased left children’, is incorrect as the Qur’an uses the word walad and not awlaad, and walad is the Arabic word for a child, or one child, where as awlaad is the word for more than one child or children. Pickthall and many other Quran translators have given a proper translation.

Now let us look at 4.11 a little closer. We are told that two or more daughters (if and only if the man dies with no sons) will receive 2/3’s of the man’s inheritance. We are also told that the parents will receive a sixth (1/6) of the man’s inheritance if the deceased left a child (not children) (to each, thus we take 1/6 + 1/6 = 2/6 or 1/3). In the example that you provided, there are more than one child. Therefore, the Quran does not fix here the share of the parents as 1/3 in this particular instance. The share of the wife will be 1/8 as per verse 4:12.

Now let us test this out. Let’s use the scenario stated by you. A man dies and leaves behind three daughters, his parents, and a wife. Because we are not told what his parents will get if he haschildren,we must then substitute a variable in place of his parents, and we get the following simple equation: 2/3 (for daughters from verse 4:11) + 1/8 (for wife from verse 4.12) + X (for parents) = 1 (using 1 as 100% the man’s wealth) Let’s solve this.
2/3 + 1/8 = 19/24
19/24 + X = 1
X = 1 – 19/24

X = 5/24
And this works as 2/3 + 1/8 + 5/24 is indeed equal to 1.

I hope that you now understood how to distribute wealth in the given scenario provided by you. Now let us look at the second claim.

You also claim that there is a further discrepancy in this matter in the case of a man who leaves a mother, a wife, and two sisters. You are arguing that if the allotted shares are added up the total exceeds the total estate, i.e, 1/3 (mother) + 2/3 (sisters) + 1/4 (wife) = 5/4 = 1.25 will be more than the available property.

You are again mistaken. To arrive at the said allotted shares, here you refers to the shares allotted in Surah 4, verse 176 of the Qur’an. You have conveniently quoted only part of the verse (“...If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but not child) Please take the Quran and check what is there in the dotted portion. I will quote for you the entire verse.
“Allah directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If a woman dies and leaves no child, her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance. If there are brothers and sisters, the male takes twice the share of the female.

In the above verse, the case described is that of a man who is called in Arabic "kalalah" which is correctly translated by Yusuf Ali as one who leaves "no descendants or ascendants." This ayah refers to a man who leaves neither parent nor child. At the time of his death his mother already lays in her own grave and as such can lay no claim to a share of inheritance. Then how can you come with an example of a man leaving behind a mother, two sisters and wife and then evolve your fantasies based on this verse?

Also see:
Different answers found here:

assalamu alaikum,

a guy made this claim against me on the youtueb comment section, how should i respons:

how dio respond to foreign non arabic words being in the quran, like:
 Persian: Ara’ik and Istabraq (al-Kahf 18: 31) meaning couches and brocades respectively, Abariq (al-Waqi’ah 56: 18) meaning ewers, Ghassaqan (al-Naba’ 78: 25) meaning pus, Sijjil (al-Fil 105: 4) meaning baked clay;
Pahlavi: Huoris (ar-Rahman 55: 72), jinn (al-Jinn 72: 1);
Aramaic: Harut and Marut (al-Baqarah 2: 102), Sakina (al-Baqarah 2: 248) meaning God’s presence;
Hebrew: Ma’un (al-Ma’un 107: 7) meaning charity, Ahbar (al-Tawbah 9: 31) meaning Rabbis, Jahannam (an-Nisa’ 4: 115, 121) meaning hell;
Ethiopian: Mishkat (al-Nur 24: 35) meaning niche;
Syraic: Surah (al-Tawbah 9: 124) meaning chapter, Taghut (al-Baqarah 2: 257; al-Nahl 16: 36) meaning idols, Zakat (al-Baqarah 2: 110) meaning alms, Fir’awn (al-Muzzammil 73: 15) meaning Pharaoh;
Coptic: Tabut (al-Baqarah 2: 248) meaning ark.

and grammatical mistakes as he claims:  it could not be considered perfectly eloquent because of its imperfect Arabic grammar, its usage of foreign words, and its spelling errors. It contains many grammatical errors. The following are a few examples of these errors: al-Ma’idah 5: 69 (the Arabic word Alsabeoun should be Alsabieen); al-Baqarah 2: 177 (the Arabic word alsabireen should be alsabiroon); al-Imran 3: 59 (the Arabic word fayakoon should be fakaana); al-Baqarah 2: 17, 80, 124; al-A’raf 7: 56 (the Arabic word qaribun should be qaribtun); al-A’raf 7: 160 (the Arabic word asbatan should be sebtan); Ta Ha 20: 63 (the Arabic phrase Hazani Lasaherani should be Hazaini Lasahirieni); al-Hajj 22: 19 (the Arabic phrase ikhtasamu fi rabbihim should be ikhtasama fi rabbihima); al-Tawbah 9: 62, 69 (the Arabic word kalladhi should be kalladhina); al-Munafiqun 63: 10 (the Arabic word Akon should be Akoon); al-Nisa’ 4: 162 (the Arabic word Almuqimeen should be Almuqimoon); and al-Hujurat 49: 9 (the Arabic word eqtatalu should be eqtatala). Ali Dashti and Mahmud al-Zamakhshari (1075-1144), famous Muslim scholars, noted more than one hundred Quranic aberrations from the normal grammatical rules and structure of the Arabic language (Ali Dashti, Twenty Three Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad, Allen and Unwin, London, 1985, p. 50).

2/177: aaman should be tu’minuu.
2/177: aata should be tu’tuu (2 times).
2/177: aqaama should be tuqimuu.
2/177: sasbriina should be saabiruuna (because its position in the sentence - and plural should be masculine). 5 mistakes in one verse.
3/59: Kun feekunu should be Kun fekaana.
4/162: mukiimiin (feminine plural) should be mukiimuun (masculine plural - see 7/160).
5/69: Saabbi’uuna should be Sabi’iina. (= Sabians).
7/56: qaribun should be qariba.
7/160: asbatan (feminine plural) should be sebtan (masculine - human plurals are male in Arab).
20/63: haazaani should be haazayn.
21/3: ‘asarru should be ‘assarra.
22/19: ‘ikhtasamuu should be ‘ikhtasamaa.
41/11: at’e’een should be at’e’atain.
49/9: ‘eq-tatalu should be ‘eqtatalata.
63/10: ‘akun should be ‘akuuna.
63/20: hadhane (nominative) should be hadhayne (accusative).
91/5: ma should be man.

i know some of them have already been answered like the sabiuun and sabieen, for example here: and and and

but for the rest i didnt have an answer, so could you help me with this? jazakallah khair

« on: July 19, 2017, 12:14:44 PM »
assalamu alaikum

what proofs can we give that the bible of today is corrupted, also what biblical scholars say this?

jazakallah khair.

« on: July 17, 2017, 11:40:22 PM »
Assalamu alaikum,

A non muslim who i was speaking with said that the verses of hijab cane because of unar showing that muhammad contocted verses to please his companions and such. I will poste his full claim, how should i answer inshaAllah,

Jazakallah khair

His claim:

''Narrated 'Aisha: The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes). - Sahih Bukhari 1:4:148

Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) 'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah's Apostle "Let your wives be veiled" But he did not do so. The wives of the Prophet used to go out to answer the call of nature at night only at Al-Manasi.' Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam'a went out and she was a tall woman. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda!" He ('Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.) So Allah revealed the Verse of veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete body cover excluding the eyes). (See Hadith No. 148, Vol. 1)
Sahih Bukhari 8:74:257
'A'isha reported that the wives of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) used to go out in the cover of night when they went to open fields (in the outskirts of Medina) for easing themselves. 'Umar b Khattab used to say: Allah's Messenger, ask your ladies to observe veil, but Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) did not do that. So there went out Sauda, daughter of Zarn'a, the wife of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), during one of the nights when it was dark. She was a tall statured lady. 'Umar called her saying: Sauda, we recognise you. (He did this with the hope that the verses pertaining to veil would be revealed.) 'A'isha said: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, then revealed the verses pertaining to veil.
Sahih Muslim 26:5397
This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Shihab with the same chain of transmitters.

The sequence of events as laid out in the hadith are as follows.

Umar repeatedly asks Muhammad that Allah should reveal verses for the Qur'an pertaining to the veiling of women.

No such revelation is sent down.

Umar follows Muhammad's wives one night when they go out to relieve themselves (go to the toilet) and calls out to Muhammad's wife Sauda.

Sauda goes home in a state of embarrassment and relates to Muhammad what has happened.

Allah then reveals the hijab verse as Umar had wanted all along.

Of course this brings up some obvious questions:

If Muhammad is just a messenger, relating Allah's word, why did Umar ask Muhammad for the hijab revelation? Why did he not just pray to Allah and ask directly?

No revelation was sent down until Umar spied on Muhammad's own wives. Why did Umar do this? How did he know (or at least suspect) it would be successful? Why does Allah care about toilet privacy so much that he revealed a verse pertaining to all Muslim women that will ever live?

A common apologetic for this is that Allah was waiting for Umar to do this so that the situational revelation could come down. However this is not mentioned anywhere, thus there is no evidence for it. Moreover, Umar confirms that he came up with the idea first and then Allah "agreed with him".

Narrated Umar: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Good and bad persons enter upon you, so I suggest that you order the mothers of the Believers (i.e. your wives) to observe veils." Then Allah revealed the Verses of Al-Hijab. - Sahih Bukhari 6:60:313

Ibn Umar reported Umar as saying: My lord concorded with (my judgments) on three occasions. In case of the Station of Ibrahim, in case of the observance of veil and in case of the prisoners of Badr. - Sahih Muslim 31:5903

How can the Qur'an be the text that was in existence since before the world began, if Allah is taking suggestions for its content from Muhammad's contemporaries?


Umar wanted women to cover up. Muhammad denied his request several times. Umar starts peeping on Muhammad's wife and she goes home embarrassed and tells Muhammad. Shortly after the hijab verse Umar wanted all along is revealed. How convenient!

GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / refuting the moon god claim
« on: July 12, 2017, 12:56:54 PM »
assalamu alaikom,

in this page i will seek to adress this stupid argument of the moongod, but it is good to first see whi this argument is coming from, well it comes from christians, they try to prove from this we are pagan, but lets see who is pagan first. firstly christians believe in dying and rising mangods who died by their own creation, and gods who become babies, and they believe in 3 gods which are somehow 1 even though some of the gods are ignorant mark 13:32, they believe in 3 gods which have a hierachy in them, they believe the holy spirit and son are god even thoughthe father is higher which makes no sense because nobody is higher than god, they believe the son and holy spirit are god even though jesus called the father the only true god. and his god needs rainbows to remember things or else he will forget

genesis 9:13-15, 12And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

regarding the moongod now: this moongod claim is honestly the stupidest thing ever do you know that?

Quran 41:37 actually refutes this whole moongod nonsense: And of His signs are the night and day and the sun and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostate to Allah , who created them, if it should be Him that you worship.

This says that allah created the moon, so think before allah created the moon. Was allah a moongod before he created the moon, very stupid and this verse alone refutes it.

This whole idea of allah as moon god comes from a guy named robert morey who said that we should nuke mecca because it would destroy the kaaba, wow such intelligence

For full refutations of moongod, see:

you guys are like people that still bring up the moon god lie and the satanic verses lie lol, such stupid things which are false, like me saying that yahweh is yah the moon god of egypt: or that jesus is just a copy of horus

the quran never makes the moon something higher than other things, the moon and sun are just signs and never more in the quran, but in your bible:

1 Chronicles 23:31 They must also give thanks and sing praises when sacrifices are offered on each Sabbath, as well as during New Moon Festivals and other religious feasts. There must always be enough Levites on duty at the temple to do everything that needs to be done.

Numbers 10:10 During the celebration of the New Moon Festival and other religious festivals, sound the trumpets while you offer sacrifices. This will be a reminder that I am the LORD your God.

1 Samuel 20:5 David answered: Tomorrow is the New Moon Festival, and I'm supposed to eat dinner with your father. But instead, I'll hide in a field until the evening of the next day.

1 Samuel 20:18 After this Jonathan said: Tomorrow is the New Moon Festival, and people will wonder where you are, because your place will be empty.

The Jews even celebrated the new moon with their "Festivals" as these verses, and many more in the Bible, clearly state!  Does this now mean that the Jews worship the new moon?

but in islam: They ask thee Concerning the New Moons.  Say:   They are but signs To mark fixed periods of time In (the affairs of) men, And for Pilgrimage.  It is no virtue if ye enter the houses from the back:  It is virtue if ye fear Allah.  Enter houses Through the proper doors:  And fear Allah:   That ye may prosper.  (The Noble Quran, 2:189)"

so the moon means more in your religion than in ours,

and you might ask why there is a moon symbol on our mosques, well, firstly i challenge you to find me 1 quranic verse, or 1 hadith which says to put crescent moons on the mosques, there is not 1 and muhammad never put crescent moons on his mosques.

what happened was in the time of the ottoman empite their logo was: the crescent moon. Why? well they follow the lunar calendar, and checked the moon for ramadan, OR they could have taken in from the byzantine coins.

so when they adopted this as their logo on their flags, they saw that christians had crosses on their churches, so the ottomans seeked to distinguish their buildings to show that these are mosques with their logo of crescent moon on it, see:

according to islamqa a site where learned scholars answer questions: "It was said that the reason why the Muslims adopted the crescent was that when they conquered some western countries, the churches there had crosses on top of them, the Muslims replaced the crosses with these crescents, and the practice spread in this way"

and some scholars have even forbid the action of putting moons on the mosques because it is not supposed to be there, has no islamic basis and is just an innovation that happened when muslim countries wanted to distinguish their buildings: and

a fatwa of islamweb says: Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds; and blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions. Muslim architects have been using the sign of crescent in their art only to decorate buildings. When Muslim rulers conquered Christian areas, they observed the sign of the Cross on churches. Thus, they might be pleased with the sign of crescent and from this you may know it using (crescent) is not a religious matter and there is no authenticity for it in Islam. But this may signify the Mosques in non-Muslim countries. An outsider may easily identify it. You should know that picture of the crescent or any other picture does not have any relation with faith and worship. If any body sees it as a religious matter, then, this is considered an innovation in religion, which is a big sin. Allah knows better. Fatwa No : 81248 Fatwa Date : Jumaadaa Al-Aakhir 23, 1420 / 3-10-1999

Assalamu alaikum,

I was reading up about the event of the splitting of the moon, so i read quran 54 beginning which reads as the following: The Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two]. And if they see a miracle, they turn away and say, "Passing magic."

And we know this verse refers to the event of moon splitting at the time of muhammad saws.

 As ibn kathir says: and the moon has been cleft asunder.) It occurred during the time of Allah's Messenger , according to the authentic Mutawatir Hadiths the scholars agree that the moon was cleft asunder during the lifetime of the Prophet, and it was among the clear miracles that Allah gave him. Hadiths mentioning that the Moon was split , Imam Ahmad recorded that Anas bin Malik said, "The people of Makkah asked the Prophet for a miracle and the moon was split into two parts in Makkah. Allah said,The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has been cleft asunder.)'' Muslim also collected this Hadith. Al-Bukhari recorded that Anas bin Malik said, "The people of Makkah asked the Messenger of Allah to produce a miracle, and he showed them the splitting of the moon into two parts, until they saw (the mount of) Hira' between them.'' This Hadith is recorded in the Two Sahihs with various chains of narration.Imam Ahmad recorded that Jubayr bin Mut`im said, "The moon was split into two pieces during the time of Allah's Prophet ; a part of the moon was over one mountain and another part over another mountain. So they said, `Muhammad has taken us by his magic.' They then said, `If he was able to take us by magic, he will not be able to do so with all people.''' Only Imam Ahmad recorded this Hadith with this chain of narration. Al-Bayhaqi used another chain of narration in a similar Hadith he collected in Ad-Dala'il.

Jalalayn says: it broke in two at Mount Abū Qubays and Qu‘ayqa‘ān as a sign for the Prophet s for it had been demanded of him and when it took place he said ‘Bear witness now!’ — as reported by the two Shaykhs al-Bukhārī and Muslim.


I can quote more but i believe these are enough. So my question is: quran 54:1 says " the hour has come close or drawn near and the moon has split" this moon splitting refers to the time of muhammad and it has been 1400 YEARS and the hour hasnt come. So 54:1 says the hour is near, but it hasnt come in 1400 YEARS. Also tanwir al miqbas min ibn abbas says: He says: the coming of the Hour drew nigh by the advent of Muhammad. So it seems to me as if the verse is saying that at the event of the moon split AT THE TIME OF MUHAMMSD 1400 YEARS AGO, the hour was close, is this not a false prophecy because it has been so pong and thenhour has not been established yet?

Jazakallah khair

Assalamu alaikum,

It wasnt till today that i was faced with this argument, so i am looking forward to ur answers inshaAllah. The quran says In the story of Joseph, Joseph interprets the dream of his companion in the prison and says: O my two companions of the prison! As to one of you, he will pour out the wine for his lord to drink: and as for the other, he will be crucified, and the birds will eat from his head. Thus is the case judged concerning which you both did enquire. [Qur'an 12:41]

As for the mention of crucifixion in the time of Moses, when the Pharaoh's magicians believed in the message of Moses, the Pharaoh threatened them by saying:

Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides, and I will cause you all to die on the cross. [Qur'an 7:124]

(Pharaoh) said: Ye put your faith in him before I give you leave. Lo! he doubtless is your chief who taught you magic! But verily ye shall come to know. Verily I will cut off your hands and your feet alternately, and verily I will crucify you every one. [Qur'an 26:49]

(Pharaoh) said: "Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! be sure I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have you crucified on trunks of palm-trees: so shall ye know for certain, which of us can give the more severe and the more lasting punishment!" [Qur'an 20:71]

The argument against these verses is that there was no record of execution in egypt at that time at all.  And i quote: " We have, however, no record that Egyptians used crucifixion as punishment in the time of Moses (1450 BC, conservative date; 1200 BC at the latest) or even Joseph (1880 BC, conservative date). Crucifixion only becomes a punishment much later in history and then first in another culture before it has been taken over by the Egyptians. Such threats by a Pharaoh at these times are historically inaccurate."

How do i respond to these claims

Jazakallah khair

« on: July 10, 2017, 03:15:41 PM »
How do you mean unauthentic? The one in abu dawud is hasan-sahih an the one in nisai is hasan

inshaAllah raqqa next, but we need to prevent these groups from starting again like the taliban or al qaeda after isis goes away

« on: July 10, 2017, 10:56:07 AM »
assalamu alaikum,

we all know the story of moses and khidr, and that khidr killed the boy in quran 18:74, "" Then they both proceeded, till they met a boy, he (Khidr) killed him. Moses said: "Have you killed an innocent person who had killed none? Verily, you have done Nukra a great Munkar (prohibited, evil, dreadful) thing!" (Khidr) said: "Did I not tell you that you can have no patience with me?" "

it is explained why he killed him a few verses later and in tafasir, quran 18:80, ""And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief. So we intended that their Lord should change him for them for one better in righteousness and near to mercy. "

tafsir ibn kathir: " Their love for him might make them follow him in disbelief. Qatadah said, "His parents rejoiced when he was born and grieved for him when he was killed. If he had stayed alive, he would have been the cause of their doom. So let a man be content with the decree of Allah, for the decree of Allah for the believer, if he dislikes it, is better for him than if He were to decree something that he likes for him.'' An authentic Hadith says"

jalalayn: "‘He was incorrigibly disposed to disbelief and had he lived longer this disposition of his would have oppressed them because of their love for him they would have followed him in such a path of disbelief’."

so we see that the boy was killed because he would make both of his parents disbelievers and bring them to the hellfire

i have a question about this though, in ibn kathir it says:
Ibn `Abbas narrated from Ubayy bin Ka`b that the Prophet said:(The boy Al-Khidr killed was destined to be a disbeliever from the day he was created.)

does this not contradict the idea that everyone is born a muslim

No baby is born but upon Fitrah. It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist."
Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426

fitrah in islam is that human beings are born with an innate inclination of tawhid (Oneness)

so muhammad says as is said in ibn kathir that this boy was destined from the day he was born to be a disbeliever, but this hadith says that everyone is born upon fitrah of tawhid, how do we reconcile the two

jazakallahum khairan.

« on: July 10, 2017, 09:15:12 AM »
Assalamu alaikom,

I was having an online diacussion with someone, and he tried to prove that muhammad had bad hygienic rules, and pointed out 2 things. The well with dead dogs ( which i already refuted him on ) and that muhammad saws used to leave urine under his bed. See the following ahadith:

Abu dawud 24, The Prophet (ﷺ) had a wooden vessel under his bed in which he would urinate at night.

Sunan nisai : Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 32, "The Prophet (ﷺ) had a vessel made from a date tree in which he would urinate and place it under the bed."

Now my question is, why would muhammad keep a vessel or
Bottle of urine under his bed? Is this not dirty, smelly/stinky and unhygoienic.
Please answer inshaAllah

Jazakallah khair

« on: July 08, 2017, 11:21:24 AM »

with regard to this, these allegations are often thrown around by christians which have donkey balls and horse emissions in their book, see ezekiel 23:20, and they also have their child marriages in their bible see the following inshaAllah,

the marriage of isaac to a very young rebekah ( a child ): and and and

moses and his men, and and

dinah age married to Shechem at age 7, and

david marriage to a 12 year old, whom he couldnt sleep with because he was too old and things werent working:

mary and joseph:

with regard to aisha, firstly lets see what french philosopher Montesquieu in his book "The Spirit of the Laws" which became later one of the foundations of the US law says in that book:
"Women are marriageable in hot climates at eight, nine, and ten years of age. thus, childhood and marriage almost always go together there. They are old at twenty: thus reason in women is never found with beauty there"

next did aisha hit puberty? yes: Narrated AISHA: (the wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of PUBERTY. Not a day passed but the Prophet visited us, both in the mornings and evenings.” (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 1, Book 8, Hadith 465

she also said it herself, Aisha knew (that she hit puberty) when she became nine years old. (Shaikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Tuhfat AI-Ahwadhi, Kitab: al-Nikah, Bab: Maa Jaa'a fee Ikraah Al Yateemah 'alaa al tazweej, Hadith no. 1027,

these people are throwing rocks but living in a glass house with ttheir child marriages, sex, porn, incest and donkey balls,

with regard to aisha, see montesqieu statement and : Muhammad aisha, ok, firstly you have to know, her being 9 is accepted, but scrutinized and not accepted by some others, some believe she was 13-14, and othets believe she was even around 18 either wayone such site trries to make that argument: but enough of this argument because i do believe she was 9  was this wrong those days?: french philosopher Montesquieu in his book "The Spirit of the Laws" which became later one of the foundations of the US law says in that book:
"Women are marriageable in hot climates at eight, nine, and ten years of age. thus, childhood and marriage almost always go together there. They are old at twenty: thus reason in women is never found with beauty there" and also according to hadith she was smart and knew things others did not, “Abu Musa said: Whenever there was any hadith that was difficult [to understand] for us, the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, and we asked Aisha we always found that she had knowledge about that hadith.” “Musa ibn Talha said: I never saw anyone more eloquent than Aisha.” the first ever time someone complained about their marriage was in 1905, so clearly there were no issues with it, also if this was peculiar why didnt anyone say such a thing at least for 1200 years, why didnt her parents object, why didnt anyone make a comment. As i showed you the age of consent in the past, facts about thier marriage, showing she hit puberty, the first time the objection was made was in 1905 which makes this event not weird in history, she was well able to reason, was eloquent and smart. Also again her age is not for certain see the very first link. to conclude the age for marriage in the quran is if one has reached sound judgement, meaning they can understand, they can reason, some tafseers say tthis speaks of her reaching puberty and also being able to think straight. see: also, no the prophet didnt say, i want your daughter abu bakr, thr lady who recomended it was, khawrah, again see this link:

No muhammad is a normal human being living in that culture. Was it bad those days? No, if Muhammad had lived in england in the 14th century, he couldve done all of this completely legal. So in england 800 years after the prophet this was still normal, there was nothing peculiar about it,this day and age you are right, but those times when you hit puberty you were thought of as being a woman, and from my links i already showed you she hit puberty, was smart, could reason etc.
well what does the quran say, let see: so hit puberty and have sound judgement/ is mentally ready for it. nowadays you see 15 year olds they definitely are not mentally ready for marriage, but lets see about aisha. She was smart, could reason, understood/knew things better than others, hit puberty, that day and age was legal. So if she hits puberty, she is mentally ready, she can reason, is smart, understands things better than others showing she is smart, it was completely legal from then till even in some places in 1880 ( ) nowadays 9 is not fine, why not? Well firstly they dont really reach puberty at that age, they are not ready for it, cannot reason, is not smart etc. aisha was, so whats the problem, also why did he marry her? Was it a marriafe if pedophelia? Well then why did he not marry more children if that was the case? pls tell me. all his wives were not children, except for her and it was completely aceptable to marry children then, so why didnt he do it? list of marriages: Khadija bint khawilad 40 Twice widowed before Sauda Bint Zama 50 Widow Aisha bint Abu Bakr 9 Started living with the prophet at the age of 9. Hafsa Bint Umar bin Khattab 22 Widow Zainab bint Khuzaima 30 Umm-I-Salma bint Abu Umayia 26 Widow Zainab Bint Jahash 38 Widow Juwaeria Bint Harith 20 Widow Umm-I-Habiba bint Abu Sufyan 36 Widow Marya Qibtiya bint shamun 17 Virgin, Egyptian Safia bint Hayi bin Akhtab 17 Widow Raihana bint umru bin hanafa Not available Maimuna bint harith 36 why are all his marriages except for 1 or 2 widows, and why only 1 child if he was this supposed pedophile? Or did he marry her for a different reason? to conclude, that day, aisha hit puberty at 9, was mentaly ready, was smart could reason, understood things that others didnt showing she was smart. it was legal in some places until 1880 why didnt he marry children the whole time, or more than 1 if he was a pedophile as you claim, again this link 9 not acceptable now as they do not hit puberty, they are not mentaly ready for it, cant reason, arent smart etc. also, he wasnt the one that suggested the marriage with her links for supporting proofs: puberty and not suggesting the marriage, she was smart, could reason, knew things better than others, age of consent in 1880, not a pedophile for the reasons mentioned, above and this link: also many people think their marriage was also for political reasons as it would put abu bakr in a highj place even if muhammad died as he was the father of aisha, either way, different point. also finally, it is not a 100% she was that age, as it still contradicts with some historical things, sites that make such a claim are these: but personally i accept the age of 9, also tell me why the first time ever being criticized was 1905, why not earlier if it was so bad, also: another site that argues she wasnt even 9:

jazakallah khair

assalamu alaikom,

we hear many times that muslims are forced to kill christians and jews and also not take them as friends.

with regard to killing them,

muhammad treaty with christians which is in egypt i believe (read the last sentence, it says till the last day):

also the very easiest answer instead of refuting every verse of theirs, is that you can marry christians and jews, quran 5:5, Today the good things are made lawful for you, and the food of the ones to whom the Book was brought is lawful to you, and your food is made lawful to them. And (so) are believing women in wedlock, and in wedlock women of (the ones) to whom the Book was brought even before you when you have brought them their rewards in wedlock, other than in fornication, neither taking them to yourselves as mates (i.e., girl-friends). And whoever disbelieves in belief, (i.e., the religion) then his deed has been frustrated and in the Hereafter he is among the losers.

and, According to all four schools of Sunni law and Shia law, interfaith marriages are condoned only between a Muslim male and a non-Muslim female from the People of the Book (that is, Christians and Jews) and not vice versa.

this verse was not abrogated, so this already refutes the claim of killing them, and for the violent verses they bring up visit these pages: and and

and with regard to not being friends with them,
they often quote these verses, 5:51,5:80, 3:28, 4:144 etc. etc.

firstly the verses can be easily understand with a different translation of awliyaa meaning allie, guardian. So we are not to take the christians as our guardians, but rather muslims. Correct, we should as muslims rather take yemen as a guardian rather than america and israel for example.

these verses have all been explained in the following places: and and

again how can you not befriend them, but you can marry them, this shows that the menatlity and understanding of the quranic verses by these people are wrong

jazakallah khair

GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / the wall of yajuj and majuj
« on: July 04, 2017, 02:12:00 PM »
assalamu alaikum,

i have a question regarding the wall of yajuj and majuj
lets firstly see what the quran says about it:
quran 18:94, MUHSIN KHAN
They said: "O Dhul-Qarnain! Verily! Ya'juj and Ma'juj (Gog and Magog) are doing great mischief in the land. Shall we then pay you a tribute in order that you might erect a barrier between us and them?"

They said: "O Zul-qarnain! the Gog and Magog (People) do great mischief on earth: shall we then render thee tribute in order that thou mightest erect a barrier between us and them?

so a wall or barrier was built between them. now for the question: But what stops those people from climbing the mountanins and going over? also cant they just go around the mountain?

jazakallah khair.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

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