Answering Christianity Research Center

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.

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."

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).

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"?

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.

Isn't the first narration in the islamqa.info 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, search.islamwiki.org also has your websites included in it too.

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 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.