This is the third page for question and answers. The first one and the second one have become very crowded and gone down in the list of articles and so a new page is dedicated for it.
This blog witnesses a number of questions asked in the comments section that do not pertain to the article above. For issues that require a detailed response, an article is penned down; however, there are a number of issues that can be settled by a quick and short response. This page is dedicated to such questions.
If you have an article request or a clarification for an issue not found on the site, then please drop it here.
Qur'anic misconceptions addressed 
Pingback: Questions and Answers (1) | Qur'anic misconceptions addressed
السلام عليكم
there’s a authentic Hadith about evil eye that really troubles me whenever I think about it.
it’s regarding the treatment of evil eye. The prophet said you have to take the bath water of the person who gave the eye and make the person affected by the eye shower with the bath water.
There’s a Hadith where a companion was instantly cured using this method.
this sounds really superstitious, in addition if such treatment worked why couldn’t we see it working today and documenting it ? It would be really easy to prove the existence of evil eye (and by extension, Islam) to kafirs if people can be instantly cured by someone’s bath water.
وَعَلَيْكُمُ السَّلَامُ وَرَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ
I have not forgotten you. This is something that took me quite some time to somewhat understand but is something I am still not fully well-versed in. What I do know may or may not help so I’ll wait to understand a few questions I have as well – basically I was discussing this with a friend about two to three weeks ago and there’s a question I’d like to have clarified from a Shaykh; it should not take too much time and إن شاء الله within a week, I’ll be back with updates.
I will not reply here but will publish an article on this soon (إن شاء الله).
That’s great to hear, I will be waiting for the article. Jazakm Allah khair.
Evolution claims that morality evolved over time. Yet Islam says the soul distinguishes between right and wrong , can be inclined to evil
[And by the soul and ˹the One˺ Who fashioned it, then with ˹the knowledge of˺ right and wrong inspired it! Successful indeed is the one who purifies their soul.] [Qur’an 91- 7:10]
Is there a contradiction here? [ie, evolution does not align with the Islamic description of the soul] or can we say that morality can be influenced physically by the nervous system and metaphysically by the soul?
Evolution (as a scientific theory) only tries to explain how behaviors that help survival spread biologically. When it talks about morality evolving, it really means cooperation, empathy, fairness, protecting offspring, and punishing cheaters among others.
These traits can help a group survive better, so they get passed on but evolution does not explain why something is truly right or wrong, why we ought to be moral, why guilt exists, or why we feel accountable. It explains behavior, not moral truth. That’s a huge difference.
“And by the soul and the One who fashioned it, and inspired it with its wickedness and its righteousness…”
(Q.91:7-8).
This means that Allah (ﷻ) placed in the nafs (self) awareness of good, awareness of evil, and capacity to choose. So Islam is explaining why humans experience moral responsibility; not how muscles fire or neurons activate.
These two claims are not contradictory because they answer different questions. There is no contradiction in saying that morality is experienced through the brain but grounded in the soul just like vision uses the eyes but meaning is understood by the mind.
Evolution claims that consciousness and intellect emerged naturally while Islam says that they come from the soul (ruh). These do not complete in the same category because science studies mechanism while Islam explains source and purpose. Here’s an example. If I say: “This sound came from vibrating air” and also: “This sound came from a speaker”. Both are true at different levels.
They ask you about the soul. Say: the soul is from the command of my Lord (Q.17:85).
Evolution alone cannot explain morality because if it is only evolved survival instinct, then genocide could be moral if useful, rape could be moral if advantageous, or lying is moral if beneficial. Humans know intuitively (from the fitrah) that these are wrong even if useful and this only makes sense if morality is not invented by biology and is recognized by something higher (fitrah + revelation) which is exactly Qur’an 91.
Morality can be influenced physically (brain, hormones, environment)
and judged metaphysically (by the soul). Just like hunger is physical, greed is spiritual, choice is moral, and accountability is divine.
What about the human like creatures that probably existed before Adam ? Do they have a “evolved morality” ?
In nature some animals are said to have “empathy” or “primitive morality”. in addition it’s likely that the “human-like” creatures that existed before Adam and evolved naturally had some sort of morality/conscience and culture.
So is it fine to say that concepts like morality, conscience has can evolve naturally, but in bani Adam, our morality is derived from natural component + the soul ?
Yes, it is reasonable to say that pre-Adam human-like creatures and some animals could have had evolved social behaviors that resemble empathy or primitive morality, meaning instincts for cooperation, bonding, or avoiding harm because such traits help survival. However, in Islam, true moral responsibility (taklif), conscience in the full sense, and awareness of sin and righteousness are tied to the soul (ruh/nafs) that Allah (ﷻ) uniquely bestowed upon Bani Adam. So those earlier creatures may have had behavioral morality shaped by biology and environment, but not the metaphysical moral awareness that makes a being accountable before God. Therefore, it is coherent to say that concepts like empathy, fairness, and social restraint can evolve naturally at a biological level, while in humans descended from Adam, morality comes from a dual source: a natural cognitive-emotional capacity (brain, instincts, culture) plus the divinely given soul that recognizes good and evil and bears responsibility. This avoids contradiction: evolution can explain patterns of behavior, while Islam explains the origin of moral accountability and spiritual conscience.
I would like to also add, that evolution claims that intellect, consciousness evolved naturally over time. Yet Islam attributes that to the soul.
Assalamualaikum akhi I need help on something. Progressives and islamophobes alike brought up the fact that the awrah of slave-women are not like that of free women and that they were not covered except what is between the navel and the knees. In other words they were bare chested.
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb. I had this comment of yours from 2019 and this was something I wanted to properly address. I edited your comment to remove the links as a full article has been published on it and the text is shown there.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Abu Rahma, im the same person who asked about the soul. My sincerest apologies but I have a final question semi related to the matter, its about a Hadith:
“What is lawful is evident and what is unlawful is evident, and in between them are the things doubtful which many people do not know. So he who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and honour blameless, and he who indulges in doubtful things…. In the body there is a piece of flesh, and the whole body is sound if it is sound, but the whole body is corrupt if it is corrupt. It is the heart.”
From the sahihen
Regarding the last part of the Hadith, is there a metaphorical interpretation regarding the heart here? The physical heart cannot be responsible for the mind/intellect
وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته
Yes, it is a figure of speech. The Prophetic language uses that and even the Qur’an uses this style but when the Qur’an uses it, it is always made very obvious.
There’s a Qur’an commentary project underway and available for download on the Telegram channel: https://t.me/tadabbur where you may Ctrl+F ‘metaphor’ and find examples.
Assalam Alaikum,
How to respond to the popular atheism claimthat consciousness can be split, even though in Islam we’re supposed to have one soul ?
I ask because there is a popular topic known as split brain. It’s a condition that occurs after undergoing brain surgery for epilepsy (the surgery results in the destruction of the connection of the two sides of the brain). Once separated, each side of the brain would begin to act like two subjects rather than one. One side would desire being a firefighter and the other side would desire being a lawyer. Each side had it preferences. They could test this by restricting such questions/experiments to being communicated to one side at a time. There were reports of people, having undergone this surgery, having fights with their hands because one side wanted one thing and the other wanted another.
What is the proper Islamic response to this ?
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
Split-brain cases show that the brain’s communication system can be divided, not that the soul is split. In Islam, the soul is one, but it expresses itself through the brain as an instrument. When the hemispheres are disconnected, the soul’s intentions and awareness are filtered through two partially isolated neural systems, producing conflicting actions or preferences, just like one person with impaired speech or memory can seem different without having two souls. This is similar to how brain injury can change personality without implying multiple souls. This shows fragmented neural access to one soul, not multiple consciousnesses in a metaphysical sense, so it challenges materialist explanations, not the Islamic view of a single soul.
there is a similar, problematic argument to split brain. It’s head transplant. I will copy paste the issue from a Reddit post I saw
How to respond to the head transplant argument? It has already successfully been done to animals and some physicians argue that it can be done in humans.
The reason it’s an argument is that atheists use it as a proof against the existence of a soul. Since it has been done in animals, and the animals lived after the procedure shortly, does this mean the soul was transferred ?
In Islam it’s popularly theorized that the soul is in the chest which does sort of worsen the problem since the transplanted animal didn’t involve the chest. They use this verse to argue that the soul in the chest cavity or the heart [مَّا جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لِرَجُلٍ مِّن قَلْبَيْنِ فِي جَوْفِهِ ۚ وَمَا جَعَلَ أَزْوَاجَكُمُ اللَّائِي تُظَاهِرُونَ مِنْهُنَّ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ ۚ وَمَا جَعَلَ أَدْعِيَاءَكُمْ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ قَوْلُكُم بِأَفْوَاهِكُمْ ۖ وَاللَّهُ يَقُولُ الْحَقَّ وَهُوَ يَهْدِي السَّبِيلَ (4)] سورة الأحزاب
Some have even said that the verse above proves that the physical heart thinks. Also the other verses about the metaphysical heart and the prophets chest cleansing Hadith is used to argue the soul is in the chest (which is particularly problematic with head transplants)
. Christian’s respond to the issue by saying that the soul can be transferred (although their position is irrelevant to us as Muslims)
What is the Islamic response to this? Deep apologies for this really long question
The soul is not anatomically located in the chest or brain in a measurable way; it is “from the command of my Lord” (Q.17:85), meaning it is beyond physical detection. Verses about the heart refer to the center of moral and spiritual understanding, not a claim that the physical organ generates consciousness. Animal head transplants only show that life functions can briefly continue if circulation and nerves are restored; they do not show a soul being moved or divided. Islam holds that the soul remains with the living body by Allah’s (ﷻ) will, not by surgical mechanics, and such experiments speak about biological continuity, not metaphysical reality. Therefore, head transplants no more disprove the soul than brain surgery disproves free will.
The prophet peace be upon him said: (Do not be jealous of one another and do not nurse enmity against one another. Become the slaves of Allah, and be brothers to one another as He commanded. A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. The piety is here! The piety is here!” While saying so he pointed towards his chest.*)
Doesn’t this Hadith and the Hadith about the Angel Gabriel cleansing the prophet chest indicate an anatomical location (the chest region) for the spiritual heart qalb which is the seat of consciousness, and also the soul?
If they are all metaphorical then the issue is solved and I was misunderstanding.
The Hadiths about pointing to the chest and the angel cleansing the Prophet’s (ﷺ) chest do not establish an anatomical location for the soul or consciousness. In classical Islam, qalb has two meanings: the physical heart and the spiritual heart (the center of faith, intention, and moral awareness). When the Prophet (ﷺ) pointed to his chest saying “taqwa is here,” he was indicating the inner self, not teaching physiology. Likewise, the chest-cleansing was a real miracle with spiritual purification, not a lesson that the soul literally resides in cardiac tissue. The Qur’an says the soul is from Allah’s command (Q.17:85), meaning it has no physical coordinates. So these texts are symbolic in meaning, even if physically enacted, and do not conflict with neuroscience or transplant cases.
Assalam Alaikum,
there is a shoboha that is often propagated by atheists that I didn’t really find an answer for,
It’s that if a soul or spiritual heart exists, then how are some people born mentally different?
For example some people from birth do not feel any fear at all due to a brain issue. Also others like psychopaths who don’t feel empathy.
Shouldn’t the soul or spiritual heart compensate for the brain damage? Since the spiritual heart in Islam is the seat of mind, intellect and belief
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
The soul and spiritual heart are the seat of moral awareness and responsibility, but they operate through the brain and body as instruments. If the instrument is damaged or atypical, the soul’s capacities cannot fully manifest, just as a skilled musician cannot produce proper music with a broken instrument. This is why people can be born without fear responses, empathy, or normal impulse control due to neurological conditions, even though they still have a soul. Islam already accounts for this as moral accountability depends on capacity (ʿaql and qudrah), and those with impaired mental function are judged differently or not fully accountable. The soul does not override the brain, because Allah (ﷻ) created human life as a union of soul and body, not soul acting independently. So neurological differences do not refute the soul; they show that spiritual faculties require a functioning biological interface to be expressed in the world.
Honestly I’m very grateful to you for engaging in all of my questions brother 🌹. Each time you help me I do pray for you.
I think most of my questions have been sufficiently answered, however one remains
it’s that in the case of conjoined twins in humans, do they have two individual souls in one body? Even though they share a chest. If such a scenario is allowed then one can also explain the existence of a surgically created two head dog (some crazy Soviet scientist did a head transplant and made a two head dog, it lived for approximately a month before dying).
Souls are tied to individual persons, not to how many organs or how much flesh is shared. Conjoined twins are generally understood to have two souls if they show independent awareness, will, and identity, even if they share a chest or organs, because accountability and personhood follow conscious agency, not anatomy. Shared hearts or bodies do not imply a shared soul. Likewise, a two-headed dog sustained by one circulation only shows that two nervous systems can be kept alive by one body; it says nothing about souls, which are not biological entities. Physical fusion does not determine metaphysical unity.
السلام عليكم،
I believe that we were created directly by Allah SWT and not evolution, however there’s one thing that troubles me.
It’s “defective” structures that humans have, like milk duct & breast tissue in males for example. Males don’t produce milk, so all that tissue does is either stay useless or turn into a condition called gyncomastia or even breast cancer in rare cases.
Doesn’t this contradict the Quran when it says man was made in the best form or Allahs creation is perfected? The example I gave isn’t just considered useless it also has the potential to become harmful..
وَعَلَيْكُمُ ٱلسَّلَاوُ وَرَحْمَةُ ٱللَّٰهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ
The human race has been formed in the perfect of forms and this is the general reality. Someone born with a disability does not contradict the verse because the verse speaks of the shape or form of human beings in general which is the best one suitable for it. If we had eyes at the back of the head as well, we would not function that well and if we had four arms instead of two, we would encounter problems and not be the most efficient. One may be tempted to think otherwise but it would not be true. Our forms are created in the best of stature within the physics of this universe. If one is still tempted to take the mind on an imaginary journey, then we can conduct this exercise: if we had four arms, we would have more strength but that would require a change in the mind as well along with other internal organ changes so that our existence and well-being incorporate the new us well, and a change in the composition and capability of the mind would not be sufficient as the upper body strength would not be well proportioned to other parts, for instance legs. After four arms, one could say why not eight. Where does one stop? Even the change in the composition of the brain would hamper with a lot of spiritual aspects of life as well and the creation in the best of stature is not simply related to the material bodies but to the spiritual aspects as well; the challenges that we face in fasting, giving charity, in waking up early for prayers and many others, would become fully revised and different, and managing them would become very different; it is highly likely that many aspects of the spiritual life would become out of sync with the purpose of our creation and many of the tests now would become redundant (or low in importance) and newer challenges would emerge which do not serve spiritual purposes of our existence [Q.2:286]. Therefore, when Allah (ﷻ) says that He perfected our forms, we learn that it is true.
assalam alaikum I’m a Muslim revert and I have a question about Islam, specifically historical evidence for it.
since it is the first and only true religion, why don’t we see historical evidence of it prior to the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him?
secular scientists even say that the current earliest evidence of religion is of polytheistic nature or shirk, and that monotheism (worshipping one god) only developed very recently.
of course the absence of evidence doesn’t mean it’s not true, but since there were many prophets, shouldn’t at least one proof of an islam-like religion or mention of Allah SWT exist in history?
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
If idol worshippers say that their religion is the oldest on Earth, they would be wrong; their religion is the second oldest. A better choice of words for them would be to say that their religion is the oldest discovered one; and it may remain this way because Muslims do not draw or make idols of holy figures. Adam (عليه السلام) and his early descendants did not make anything that would leave proof that they were monotheists whereas those that started idol worship made idols, and these can leave traces behind.
Consider the Chinese whisper. Things passed down over thousands of years would dramatically change. There are the great flood legends among groups with no connection to each other and no interaction as well. This is an example of Chinese whisper. Take this example: Ahmed from Jordan and John from the USA both go on safari in Kenya. Two lions attack them. Ahmed shoots one lion with his last bullet, while John fends off the other with a baseball bat. Finally, Ahmed hurls a large rock that drives the lion away, saving them both. Later, when each retells the story, details may shift; perhaps they exaggerate their bravery, perhaps they misremember. By the time the story reaches their great-grandchildren, Ahmed’s descendant (Ali) may boast that his ancestor killed three lions with his bare hands, while John’s descendant (James) may claim his forefather strangled four lions and blinded two others, saving an entire village. Clearly, their competing claims are exaggerated, but the underlying truth, that there was a lion attack, and their ancestors survived it together, remains.
If there had been video footage, there would be no dispute at all. The Qur’an, being Divine Revelation, is like that clear record; it corrects distortions and reveals the truth of history (Q.25:33). Presence of isolated and distorted proofs is evidence that something occurred.
Moreover, the Children of Israel were largely monotheists. It is when the Romans took that religion, who came from Thor the son of Odin, Hercules the son of Zeus and so on, the idea of A the son of B entered true religion. Similarly, there are some scattered ideas that Shintoism was originally monotheistic until Buddhism entered – a Japanese person commented on a YouTube video and argued this somewhat convincingly but I don’t know how/where to find that video and the comment underneath it.
An important point to add is that Islam does not claim early humans were always visibly Muslim societies as the Qur’an’s message is that every nation was sent a prophet but most people rejected or corrupted the message (Q.12:103 among many others).
Polytheism builds monuments, temples, statues, shrines, mythologies, and kings who sponsor priesthoods whereas Islam says that every clean place is a place of worship. The final revelation is unique which Allah (ﷻ) promised to protect but even it came down as recitation which the Muslims transcribed in written form.
Despite all this, anthropologists like Wilhelm Schmidt showed many ancient cultures believed in One supreme creator God, remote, above all other spirits, and these include African tribes (High God above lesser spirits), Native Americans (Great Spirit), Ancient Chinese (Shangdi), Egyptians (Aten), and so on. All religions believe in a bigger God but all others except Islam attribute smaller gods to the Big God.
Wilhelm Schmidt is just the most famous one for this topic, but he’s definitely not alone. Several respected anthropologists and historians of religion, such as Andrew Lang, E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Mircea Eliade, Rodney Stark, Edwin Burrows etc., noticed the same pattern that early belief in a supreme creator God, later mixed with spirits and idols.
Try this playlist. Belief in One God is a part of fitrah (natural inclination one is born with).
Assalam Alaikum Wrahma Allah,
there is an article of yours regarding forced child marriage being forbidden. I agree with it and it is very typical of Islam.
“ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr reported that al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) married off a young daughter of his when she was newly born. It was narrated by Saʿīd ibn Manṣūr in his Sunan and by Ibn Abī Shaybah in al-Muṣannaf with an authentic chain. Al-Shāfiʿī said in al-Umm: More than one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ married off his young daughter.”
The narrations above mean only marriage contract that can be cancelled once the girl groups up correct?
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb, yes this is correct. You can even say to a friend: my unborn son will marry your unborn daughter. If/when they are born and mature, they can accept or reject it.
is the claim made by haters of Islam that Umar RA married and consummated marriage with um kulthum while she was prepubescent true? A Islamic website called islamweb seems to affirm the claim
The claim that Umar b. al-Khattab (رضي الله عنه) married and consummated marriage with Umm Kulthum b. ʿAlī (رضي الله عنها) while she was prepubescent is not firmly established by reliable early evidence. Some historical works do report a marriage between them, and IslamWeb follows that mainstream historical position. However, no authentic report explicitly states her age at consummation, nor that she was prepubescent; this idea is based on later chronological inferences, which are uncertain and disputed. In classical methodology, historical mentions without strong isnad proof do not reach the level of certainty required for firm conclusions. Therefore, while the marriage is reported in some sources, the specific claim that she was prepubescent at consummation is speculative, not proven, and should not be presented as an established fact.
my apologies for the duplicated comment. Jazak Allah khair the answer
Salam aleykoum brother, I hope you’re fine. Today there are many people that subscribes to the theory of simulation, that our world is a giant simulation created by an advanced civilisation. And some tries to prove it by pointing out the many testimonies of people saying that they encountered what they called ” glitches in the matrix” . For example, someone reported that he put an object in the table, he looked away for a second and the object diseappeared or another claimed that while he was driving, A truck was going the wrong way in his direction and then suddenly diseappeared. My question is how do we interpret these testimonies islamically and how to refute the argument that they support the theory of simulation ? Jazak Allah Khayran !
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb.
Most “glitch in the matrix” stories fall into a few categories and these include faulty human perception. Allah (ﷻ) created our senses limited and fallible. The Qur’an already teaches this: “You were given of knowledge only a little.” (Q.17:85).
We recognize hallucinations, dreamlike state, waswas (confusion), and jinn interference: “Indeed, Shaytan runs through the son of Adam like blood.” (Bukhari, Muslim).
Simulation theory rests on the idea that since we can simulate small worlds, a higher civilisation might simulate us. This is speculation, not proof. Even if it were true, it does not negate Islam, because Islam already says that reality is created, we are not self-existent, our world is temporary, and that there is a higher realm (akhirah). Islam differs fundamentally as we are created by Allah (ﷻ), not machines, reality has purpose, not entertainment, and moral responsibility exists. If we are made by machines, then there would be no purpose of life.
Simulation theory offers no evidence, no mechanism, no moral framework, and no explanatory power for consciousness. It explains nothing that Islam doesn’t explain better.
They follow nothing but conjecture, and conjecture avails nothing against the truth (Q.53:28).
Islamically, the correct interpretation for glitches is either misperception, memory error, natural cause unknown, stress or fear, coincidence, or possibly jinn involvement (rare, not default). To say that the universe is fake, physics broke, or programmers patched reality or pure conjecture.
We do not build metaphysics on personal anecdotes. Even miracles in Islam require mass transmission, verification, and/or prophetic authority. How much more should we reject random TikTok testimonies?
Argument for simulation is like saying: My phone lagged, therefore the universe is an iPhone.
Jazaka Allah Khayran ! It was the best detailed answer I received on this issue. May Allah SWT reward you immensely !
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته،
I’m the same person who came to you with a doubt related to child marriage and pregnancy.
I would like to clarify that marrying early at 9 or 10 isn’t harmful, and Aisha RA was not harmed by her marriage. This is objective fact.
However, what troubles me and what you haven’t directly addressed yet in ur response is the almost certain death from pregnancy at that age. It is incorrect to say that people matured physically earlier in the past because they lack food resources therefore physical maturity was likely delayed.
My issue isn’t with Aisha of course, it’s about the allowance to marry at that age with that risk present in general. You mentioned that if such a risk is present, then the marriage consummation would be haram. Yet 90-95% of children at age 9 or 10 cannot be pregnant and give birth safely .
According to what said said 90% of child marriages would be haram, yet this is contradicted by history because many children were married early.
Abu Rahma, how would you solve this issue brother? I’m looking forward to your response and Jazak Allah Khayaran.
وَعَلَيْكُمُ ٱلسَّلَامُ وَرَحْمَةُ ٱللَّٰهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ
There are a few misconceptions here. I did not say that people matured physically earlier in the past but spoke about some people doing so and this happens even today; in the past people judged your age by how you looked.
Before coming to your question, side points need to be added: a woman who has never been pregnant before is a high risk pregnancy if she gets pregnant after 35. Yet, it is legally and morally allowed and accepted. Another point to add is that in the West, and perhaps elsewhere too, 12 year olds engage in such activities but those societies do not frown upon that; it is both legal and moral in their view.
In Islam, marriage itself is not tied to a fixed age, but harm is forbidden. Without doctors and medical science, you can never know if a 20 year old is fit for birth. If you are as old as you look and you look mid to late teens, then one would assume that childbirth would not be harmful. There are deaths during childbirths even now of women in their 20s and 30s in rich countries but we do not say that their marriage was haram. In rural parts of the world and where malnutrition exists, childbirths still take place; if we were to go by the harm principle, then more than half the world should not even get married.
With newer knowledge, what is known is acted upon and what is unknown is assumed to the best estimate and proceeded with and this was in the past too; they assumed from the apparent. A father would not deliberately send his daughter to death. We do this best estimate today in other parts of life too such as sports, for example. A person from a poor upbringing is not forbidden to play sports at a higher, competitive level despite heavy chances of serious injuries from lack of proper childhood diet.
The standards of the past exist today as well and I hope I am able to portray these points well.
why is sexual relations with child / early teens allowed? Even if the child can physically handle it she’s still a slave.. I fail to see the wisdom behind it. Also why is child slavery allowed in Islam ? Children aren’t a threat
For the first question, refer here.
Child slavery is not allowed the way it has been phrased and I suggest these videos [1][2][3]
Thanks for the resources. Can you reply to this disgusting accusation against Islam though ?
I have a follow up question regarding the issue I had regarding prepubescent girl captives, it seems that there are narrations from scholars that came after the companions that allowed intimacy without intercourse with a girl that didn’t reach puberty. This is from a Islam webexchange question, I couldn’t post the link but I will copy paste the narrations
Whether a master is allowed to seek pleasure other than intercourse with his slavegirl before confirming of istibra (i.e. freeing of the womb)
Ibn Abi Shaiba brings opinions of five reports in this section all from authorities from the generation following the Companions.
No. 16905: It says Ibn Sirin disliked seeking any kind of pleasure with a slavegirl during such time while Hasan did not find any problem with (mere) kissing.
No. 16906: Ikrima said if a slavegirl was very young there was no problem in touching her.
No.16907 : Iyas b. Mu’waiya said if the person purchased a slavegirl there was no issue in having intercourse with a slavegirl that was too young that one could be sure she would have had no intercourse earlier.
No. 16908: Qatada disliked (even) kissing a slavegirl while istibra had not concluded.
No. 16909: After a battle Ibn Umar kissed a slavegirl with a beautiful neck.
Is all of the above incorrect
The resources are important and writing them down would be very difficult and time-consuming; I strongly suggest to go through them in detail.
As for the reports you shared, they are not Qur’an or Prophetic rulings but individual opinions (athaar) from some tabiʿeen (post-Companion scholars), and they do not have the authority of Sunnah. They are also internally contradictory (some permit, others forbid), which already shows they were personal opinions, not settled law. More importantly, authentic Hadiths establish that a man must wait for istibraaʾ (one menstrual cycle) before sexual relations, and the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade harming women or engaging in sexual use that risks harm or lineage confusion. Any opinion allowing physical intimacy with a prepubescent girl contradicts the higher principles of Islam: no harm (لا ضرر ولا ضرار), protection of children, and preservation of lineage. Classical fiqh also requires sexual capacity for intercourse, which prepubescent girls lack by definition (read more here). So these narrations are either weak, misunderstood, or isolated opinions that were not adopted as binding law. Islam’s legal position is derived from Qur’an and authentic Sunnah, not scattered early opinions, especially when they conflict with core principles of mercy, protection, and harm prevention.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “When you hear the crowing of roosters, ask for Allah’s Blessings for (their crowing indicates that) they have seen an angel. And when you hear the braying of donkeys, seek Refuge with Allah from Satan for (their braying indicates) that they have seen a Satan.” From The Sahihen
there is also Hadiths about cats hearing the torture of the dead, snakes potentially being jinn
1-Do these Hadith imply that Animals was also directly created by Allah and not guided evolution? Since if the Hadith is literal they have supernatural abilities, and clearly their nervous system is not that different from ours so how can they see supernatural creatures if they evolved naturally
2- if literal, does it mean every time? These animals like use sounds like braying to communicate
also, I would like to add, if the prophet describes that donkeys can see devils, and this supposedly does not contradict animal evolution, then which stage of the donkeys evolution did it gain the ability to see devils?
I’m not sure if supernatural abilities is the right term. There are sounds which children can hear but we cannot and it’s simple biology. There are dog whistles to which we are deaf but dogs can hear them. These are scientific things; the same is for sight – much is hidden from most while some can see.
As for evolution, I personally don’t believe in it but since it has become so mainstream that if you say something like this, you would be ridiculed and mocked – this blocks the chances of even talking further and so for that, we go by the assumption that it is true and prove that despite it being true, it is not a problem Islamically. Yes, there are fossils of pre-humanoids and there could be of various kinds of them but one transforming into another isn’t something I personally believe in.
As for the second question, honestly I don’t know but I am inclined to think that if there’s no apparent reason, then these animals have seen it. If a donkey isn’t in pain and starts braying, then an observable cause doesn’t exist and most likely it has seen a devil but if it’s in physical pain and it brays, then we could go with pain being the cause. Allah knows best.
I had initially thought , that the Hadith produces a problem for evolution since if you say that a donkey can see devils, then one can say, which stage of its evolution did it begin to see devils? Or was this ability miraculously granted ?
also I’m surprised to hear that you don’t believe in evolution, despite you having a very good article on it regarding the Islamic stance. There’s an article that discusses evidence for evolution and the way to islamically reconcile with it, https://blog.fussilat.com/on-evolution/
assalam abu rahma,
I have a doubt related to hijab. while I’m not a feminist a friend of is, and brought this up
it’s that women struggle daily with wearing hijab, for hours on end, yet men do not have a similar struggle to women. isn’t this considered injustice ?
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb. An abaya is just like an overcoat; you can wear tights or anything under it and the abaya covers it up instantly so that’s not difficult at all. The hair cover is also not that difficult either; the way Arabs in the Gulf wear their headgear is equally difficult and requires a lot of styling and technique so it is equally difficult for them; however, if you want a stylish hijab with a focus on fashion, then sure, it would be time-consuming and burdensome.
lots of Muslims nowadays use the term “pedophilia” on anyone who expresses interest in an individual less than 18 years old. we are obliged to obey the ruler, and since the age of consent in most Islam countries 18+ it is haram to marry less than that,
according to the above, if someone expressed interest in a 10-14 year old, would it be okay to call him a pedo? since it’s haram due to laws even though it was acceptable centuries ago
Hello Abu Rahma, are you doing well? I noticed your absence on the blog. Hope everything with you is well.
I still am wondering if criticizing someone for marrying a minor in our time would be indirectly insulting the prophet. Looking forward to hearing from you
In Germany, the age of consent is 14 (unless the man is in a position of power over her [such as teacher, principal, mayor, governor etc.]) and this is the case in a number of European countries. Would someone be pedophile in USA while not in those European countries? I don’t know but it’s a question they need to address.
I don’t know about your question but what I can say is that in Islam, we don’t label people by their actions. We don’t recognize terms like ‘gay’ but acknowledge the acts. What gays do is sin but it is not applied as a label to them. If they refrain and control their desires, then they would not be sinning but may in fact be rewarded. If I still had to answer your question, I would say that such people are breaking the law and would not apply a label to them.
Assalam Alaikum,
There is a flaw in humans when it comes to drowning. when someone is drowning they willl drown any rescuer that approaches them due to a reflex called instinctive drowning response (this is done in so the victim can pull himself up to surface even if he is deep in water) This doesn’t seem to have any other benefit then increasing the risk of killing both the person drowning and the rescuer. No one can survive drowning from this reflex alone and must be rescued,
it makes rescuing harder It would have been much more effective if it just forces you to lie on your back to float
The last part of the argument is technically correct, if your body forced you to lie on your back you would have a better chance of surviving drowning due to floating. Does this contradict the Quran verses about perfect creation And Allah being a designer (either through natural means or direct creation?) it does seem like a critical flaw
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb. No this is not a flaw. We do need to die. The purpose of life is not immortality. Dying could also be considered a flaw. Within the purpose of creation, we have been created in the best of form otherwise, so many laws of universe would not exist such as gravity among many others.
The premise of the argument is if the reflex made us float by lying on our back it would make us survive, but the one we have is flawed and makes us die.
Is ur point bro that this Was this intended by Allah (designed to be a flaw) so it can me a mechanism of death?
this argument I commented above about drowning is used to argue against intelligent design and Allahs existence. Although it does seem goofy I do want your refutation
Assalam Alaikaum Regarding ZamZam water The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) described this water itself as: “It is blessed, it (even) serves as food.” Narrated by Muslim (2473). As far as I searched is no authentic wording that says Zamzam cures illness, but the blessing mentioned above may cure disease if Zamzam acts as a cure for illnesses, then why is it not use by hospitals especially ones in Muslim countries? Especially to treat cancer and other hard to cure diseases. Or does blessing here doesn’t necessarily mean curing? In addition, what is the meaning of Zamzam serves as food? I heard a story of a companion who survived 40 days with no food just Zamzam, but scientifically it’s just water with different minerals Jazakm Allah Khayaran.
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
Regarding Zamzam, it is blessed, and it is food that satisfies. The key word here is barakah (blessing) and barakah does not mean guaranteed physical cure. Blessing is what increases beyond normal expectation, includes benefits placed by Allah (ﷻ), and spiritual or physical good that may appear in different ways; something can be blessed without acting like a pharmaceutical drug.
The Qur’an is described as shifaʾ (healing), yet we don’t replace doctors with recitation. Honey is mentioned as healing (Q.16:69), but not every illness disappears when someone drinks honey. So yes, Zamzam can be a means of healing by Allah’s (ﷻ) permission, but that does not make it a universal medical treatment.
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Seek treatment, for Allah (ﷻ) has not created a disease except that He created for it a cure. Islam actually encourages medical science.
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The water of Zamzam is for whatever it is drunk for. It doesn’t mean automatic miracles. It means Zamzam is drunk with niyyah, asking Allah (ﷻ) for benefit. Some people experience healing, others don’t, just like duʿa itself.
Chemically, Zamzam has higher mineral content and higher total dissolved solids which alone doesn’t make it ‘food’ nutritionally, but it may contribute to a feeling of nourishment as in the case of the Sahabi you quoted.
So what if it’s just water with different minerals? It can suffice as ‘food’ in the sense that it fulfils.
problem is the sahabi survived 30 days on it and as quoted by him, he got fat from it.
it is scientifically impossible unless there was divine intervention.
I have asked many brothers on the matter, most brothers say that it does actually act as food.
to me this is sort of problematic because it would be easy to prove Islam by letting someone survive on this water alone with no food for multiple days, and it would be very economical for a Muslim to just survive on zamzam without spending money on food
It’s not a problem. It’s true and you can try it yourself. However, your body will miss out on other needed nutrients such as protein, carbs, fiber etc.
apologies for not sticking to the thread as I could not reply to your comment,
but if we were missing other needed nutrients, then zamzam wouldn’t be considered food and Abo zarr who survived 30-40 days without any food and just Zamzam water & have gained weight shouldn’t have lived.
also this Hadith about zamzam Ibn Abbas reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “May Allah have mercy upon the mother of Ishmael. If she had not hastened to take water, the Zamzam well would have become a flowing spring.” Some narrations even lost that it would have filled Mecca with valleys of water. Most scholars hold it literal, but springs don’t form from just water being dug up (we know zamzam has a natural aquaatic source behind itt) are you aware of a metaphorical interpretation regarding this?
Cabbage is food but it doesn’t have all the nutrients the body needs.
Zamzam originated as a miracle.
Salam aleykoum my dear brother, I hope you’re fine. There is a major theological doubt which bothers me so much bcs I fear that it might change my view on Allah’s widsom and perfection. Here’s my view on divine justice and moral accountability.
I struggle to see how this dunya is called a test when so many people, especially in pre-industrial societies died before puberty and even as infants. Those people couldn’t do the test. I know that Islam mentions that they will be tested on the day of Judgement but I feel that it makes this dunya pointless for them and it seems unequal treatement because some are tested while others aren’t. Another thing troubling me is the unequal access to revelation historically. Many people, especially between Isa AS and the Prophet Muhammad SWS didn’t have access to the truth. Allah SWT says in the Qu’ran “But whoever turns away from My Reminder will certainly have a miserable life, then We will raise them up blind on the Day of Judgment.” (Qu’ran 20:124). Allah SWT mentions that someone living without the remembrance of him will have a sad life but those people couldn’t access to the truth while someone living in Syria in the 8th century had aceess to it. I struggle to see what’s the divine wisdom letting so many people without access to the truth while others had access to it and lived fullfiling life. And it is something out of their control because it depends to where they lived and when. And one our main objections behind oour critique of Deism is that God can’t let people without access to the truth but we see that Allah SWT did it depending on the periods and where they lived. Even after the Islamic conquests, many regions on earth didn’t hear the message of Islam before centuries later. I think especially about America where Islam wasn’t introduced until almost a millinium after. I think what’s a problem for me is that I’ve seen so many people finding true purpose in life trought Islam and it looks like many people in the past couldn’t achieve it. I thought a lot about it when I studied history and I fail to see what’s the widsom behind all this. I don’t want to have a bad opinion on Allah SWT. I wondered if you could shed some light on this. Jazaka Allah Khayran !
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
We find it mentioned in the Qur’an quite a few times: they will not believe but most of the disbelievers did in fact believe later on. This shows that the definition of ‘disbeliever’ is two: one from our perspective and one from Allah’s (ﷻ) perspective. From our perspective, a kafir (disbeliever) is someone we can assess but from Allah’s (ﷻ) perspective, a kafir is one who will die upon disbelief (an ultimate disbeliever considering the present and the future). No matter what you do, they will not believe is an indication towards that. We learn that for some people hell is decided in their lives and the decision is not pending till their death. Therefore, we deduce that for some, hell is decided while they are alive but they are not given death until a later time. Why is that? There could be various reasons and one of them could be that they are kept alive for the test of others.
Even though such a person’s test is done and over, this person still lives: his life is a test for others. The same is true for those who die in infancy. It is a test for their parents and others while they get their rewards from Allah (ﷻ). We agreed to come to this world; we were asked before being sent here and how that plays out is not in our control. We usually take this life as complete but in the grand scale of things, the context of life includes this world and the next so if someone is tested outside of this life, then that still falls within the overall context.
Coming your second question, I’m copy/pasting from notes I’ve written: you can access the work here: https://t.me/tadabbur
We learn from the Qur’an that just like people being admitted to paradise will not question as to why they are being admitted to paradise, the people being sent to hell will not question the decision as well but will request for another chance. This shows the height of justice that will be there on the Day of Judgment that even those being punished will neither question it nor deny their wrongdoings.
Many disbelievers feel that the punishments stated by God are harsh and unfair; however, they ignore the entire context and ask this emotionally. It has already been clarified why they are wrong in asking such questions (Q.2:23-24). Moreover, when Allah (ﷻ) mentions hell for them, He does so after providing them not just ample opportunities but also mentioning the reasons why they will be in hell. If the law has been clearly stated, which is fair, and then the judgment takes places in a fair way, then the decision cannot be contested, and they will not do that – the people being sent to hell will not question the decision but will request for another chance. Right now, their arrogance leads them to deny and even consider the judgment to be unfair, but they are only fooling themselves.
We know that God is Just and Fair and that He does not punish unjustly. The keepers of hellfire i.e., the angels rhetorically ask the dwellers of Hell whether they received a warner or not to which they would reply yes, a warner had come to us, but we denied. It is not appropriate for a Muslim to say that a particular non-Muslim is in Hell because we do not know, and such knowledge is with Allah (ﷻ) and the fate of those who did not receive the message is with Allah (ﷻ) as well.
One may think that it is better not to share the message with non-Muslims because if they reject, they would land in trouble but that is a very faulty thinking. Before looking at the consequences/the negative aspect, let’s look at the positive one. Why would a believer not want to share the goodness with disbelievers? How is it better for disbelievers to humiliate themselves by worshiping the devils and the creation instead of the One True God? Why should believers let the disbelievers suffer from the emptiness and spiritual void in this world and face the vices without guidance and support? Now coming to the negative, how is it a surety that the test that an uninformed non-Muslim will go through would be easier than the test that he goes through in this life? It may very well be that upon invitation, the disbeliever may reject Islam at first but may accept it later on in life but if he gets tested in the afterlife, he may find that more difficult and fail there. Not sharing the message with them and not inviting them to Islam is like telling a student that it is OK not to study for the exams and take the risk of failing the class as he can always attend summer school and not repeat the coming year in the same class. What if he fails the summer classes as well? Not only would this student have wasted his time and effort pursuing unimportant things but would have less time in the summer and may be exposed to greater risk.
The verses that you presented should be read in context; when Allah (ﷻ) mentions the punishments in hell, He mentions the crimes of those people and they are severely transgressing ones. Being raised up blind is also about one who consciously rejects and not the one who never knew or was mistaken. Turning away from the reminder is not the same as not knowing; it is a willful act to turn away upon knowing the truth.
An ordinary, regular disbeliever may be put into the easiest part of hell and that may be something like an extension of this world looking similar to this life with similar geography, economics, biology, physics and other sciences, with a temperature of 45°C (113°F) with a monthly salary of 10,000 but expenses of 11,000 having a quick to anger, foul-mouthed wife and going about daily life like this forever. Some people in this world already live like this.
This is neither from the Qur’an nor from the Hadith nor even deduced from a statement of any scholar. This should not be taken as reality and is just given as an example to show that there are differences amongst the disbelievers and that hell is not the same at all levels. Moreover, it does not appear that there is any verse or a Hadith that would rule out the possibility of something similar.
The idea of their fate is our test and the way we pass is that we not just affirm but believe from the depth of our hearts based on revealed knowledge that Allah (ﷻ) is Just and Fair and that no one will be wronged.
Allah (ﷻ) knows best and may He make things easy for us.
Assalam Alayakum Abu Rahma, I struggle with a medically-related doubt regarding Two Hadiths. Inshallah I can get a logical solution from you, Here’s the Hadiths
1- A’isha said that when a person complained to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, of some illness or had a wound or an injury, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, would say, doing this with his forefinger, (and Sufyan ibn ‘Uyayna the transmitter would place his finger on the earth and then raise it and say), ‘In the name of Allah, the dust of our earth combined with the saliva of some of us by which our sick are healed by the permission of our Lord.'”
2 [ this is taken from a much longer Hadith where the companions did ruqya on a snake bite wound ] The Prophet’s companions said, “You refuse to entertain us, so we will not treat (your chief) unless you pay us for it.” So they agreed to pay them a flock of sheep. One of them (the Prophet’s companions) started reciting Surat-al-Fatiha and gathering his saliva and spitting it (at the snake-bite). The patient got cured and his people presented the sheep to them
So what’s the medical correlation here? In the first Hadith, Soil and saliva is used to treat a wound. Soil can harbor many nasty infections, and by putting soil on a wound you are giving bacteria a free access to the body. This can result in death easily. It wouldn’t be a problem if this was specific to the prophet, but it is often cited as a general method of ruqya anyone can use. Basically the ruqya treatment given by the Hadith is flawed because leaving a wound un-attended is better than putting soil in it.
Regarding the second (and even first Hadith). Spit is also used, indicated by the companion gathering his saliva, Like soil saliva can be infectious if given to a wound caused by a snake bite. I fail to understand the wisdom of both of these Hadiths as they make an already pre-existing problem potentially worse by introducing microbes to the wound. Could you clarify this point?
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
Classical scholars consistently described these narrations under ruqya (spiritual supplication) rather than medical procedure. The wording itself emphasizes this: “Our sick are healed by the permission of our Lord.” This clause indicates that healing is attributed to divine permission, not to soil or saliva as physical agents. Scholars such as al-Nawawi, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalani, and Qadi ʿIyad explained that the gestures accompanied du’a (prayer/supplication) and were not intended as a universal medical formula.
Ruqya involves recitation, supplication, and reliance upon Allah (ﷻ), and historically coexisted alongside practical medical treatment.
The Arabic phrase does not necessarily imply placing dirt into wounds. Narrations describe lightly touching the ground with the finger while making supplication; this is something like Tayammum where you do not actually put your hands in sand/dust/dirt. Ibn Hajar mentions that the motion demonstrated by transmitters involved touching and lifting the finger i.e., a symbolic gesture rather than a therapeutic application of soil.
In Arabic rhetoric, relational phrases such as our earth often express familiarity or humility rather than literal medicinal ingredients.
The term reeq can refer to slight moisture of the mouth or breath. Many scholars linked it to nafth i.e., gentle blowing associated with ruqya, rather than spitting or transferring bodily fluids into wounds. A comparable act is spitting to the left thrice after saying a’uzubillahi min ash shaytanir rajeem, after which we dry/symbolic spit thrice to the left side. Thus, linguistic analysis shows that the Hadith does not mandate introducing contaminants into injuries.
I’ll summarize a few scholars: Al-Nawawi described the act as a form of permissible ruqya and emphasized that healing occurs through Allah’s permission. He did not treat it as a medical instruction for wound treatment. Ibn Hajar collected multiple interpretations, including that the gesture symbolized humility and reliance on Allah. He clarified that only a trace contact with the earth was described, not the packing of wounds with soil. Qadi Iyad highlighted the theological structure of the supplication: the causal power lies with Allah (ﷻ), not the physical elements mentioned. Ibn al-Qayyim distinguished between spiritual remedies and physical medicine. Qur’anic recitation and breath were viewed as means of supplication rather than biochemical treatment.
The Prophet (ﷺ) encouraged seeking treatment: “Seek treatment, O servants of Allah…” Historical reports describe wounds being washed, bandaged, and treated practically. Early Islamic teachings also included quarantine principles during epidemics, reflecting concern for infection control. Islamic jurisprudence derived universal principles from the Sunnah:
• “There is no harming nor reciprocating harm.” (لا ضرر ولا ضرار)
• “Harm must be removed.” (الضرر يزال)
These maxims guide scholars to avoid literal applications of actions that would cause medical risk in new contexts.
The second Hadith is discussed below:
In the narration where companions recited Surat al-Fātiḥah for a snakebite, the Prophet (ﷺ) approved the ruqya itself. The focus remained on Qur’anic recitation and divine healing, not on saliva as a medical antidote. Classical scholars therefore interpreted the event as evidence of spiritual efficacy, not a replacement for medical treatment.
Modern microbiology identifies risks associated with contaminated materials entering wounds. Classical scholarship does not require Muslims to ignore such knowledge. Because Islamic law prioritizes the removal of harm, contemporary scholars commonly advise:
• Perform ruqya through recitation and du’a.
• Maintain proper medical hygiene.
• Seek professional treatment for injuries.
The spiritual dimension of the Hadith remains intact without necessitating unsafe physical practices.
The Hadiths mentioning dust and saliva describe a form of ruqya accompanied by symbolic gestures, not a universal medical procedure. Linguistic analysis, classical commentary, and comparison with broader Prophetic teachings all indicate that:
• Healing is attributed to Allah’s permission.
• The gestures were contextual and spiritual.
• Islam consistently promotes cleanliness, treatment, and avoidance of harm.
Understanding these narrations within their scholarly and linguistic framework resolves the apparent conflict with modern medical science and preserves the balance between spiritual practice and responsible healthcare.
ramzan kareem, please check this narration ,
at the first of the narration it is claimed that hajar was the first to wear a girdle. this is impossible since she is said to be from ancient egypt and girdles existed prior to that. it is important to mention that this narration is mostly from ibn abbas, but does contain quotes from the prophet. no scholar said this part of the girdle is not marfu or attributed to the prophet. knowing this, could we still say that it is israeliyyat and not knowledge from the prophet ?
Wish you a great Ramadan too.
The narration stating that Sayyidah Hajar was the first woman to use a girdle (al-mintaq) is not understood by scholars as a universal historical claim that girdles did not exist before her, especially since waist garments were known in ancient Egypt and earlier civilizations. Rather, classical commentators explain that the word first (awwal) in Arabic Hadith language is often contextual or relative, meaning the first in a particular circumstance, among a certain people, or for a specific purpose; in this case, that she tied a girdle to conceal her tracks during her departure, which made this usage notable and memorable. So the narration may be highlighting a specific style or functional use of which she was the first, not the invention of belts as a technology.
Arabic narration frequently uses expressions like ‘first to do X i.e., first known in that setting, or first remembered for that practice. Think of how people say today: “She was the first to start this trend” even if similar things existed earlier elsewhere.
Moreover, the term al-mintaq itself refers to a tied waist-cloth or sash, not necessarily the invention of belts as a garment. Therefore, the narration highlights a distinctive action within the story of Sayyidah Hajar rather than making an anthropological statement about the origin of girdles, and it does not conflict with established historical knowledge about earlier clothing practices.
Assalamu Alaikum Wrahma Allah Wbarakatu. I’m a young new revert , I came to ur website after seeing ur article about Aisha. I have a question unrelated to that
it’s that do we as sunni muslims have to believe that black magic and evil eye are real or that it has an effect?
growing up I always thought it’s superstition, since if it was real, one can go and do the one million dollar change right now by performing magic. also science hasn’t proved it.
it’s also worth noting that since black magic and evil eye are harmful things, why hasn’t anyone given evil eye to a celebrity or a powerful president ? Or why isn’t magic used against world leaders or powerful people?
all of these questions make think it’s all superstition. I have tried many for a rational explanation, but people just tell me that’s the unseen and no one answers my questions.
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
A lot of the world leaders and powerful people are into this stuff. Soviet officials used to visit Baba Vanga, Indian leaders regularly visit magicians, Western leaders perform rituals at Bohemian Grove where they worship owls and goats and what not; Epstein files are filled with such incidents too. A lot of celebrities perform the one eye symbol/ritual; they may have made a deal with the devil. Some of them die in weird ways. A lot of them are very ugly and only look good due to surgeries and makeup; it could be the eye that harms them but they keep the illusion up.
Iblis/Lucifer/Shaytan has a very organized system by which he operates. He has hierarchies and reporting structure. If someone turns to the devil, Iblis does not visit that person himself but sends a representative as per that person’s status. To Issa (عليه السلام), he visited himself and he may not do that to other ordinary humans. The more righteous the person, and when he turns to the devil, the bigger the Satan Iblis sends to him.
Moreover, our prayers and daily words of remembrance of God act as a shield of protection. Nothing happens without the Will of Allah (ﷻ). My family and I have been victims of black magic for several years/decades and Allah (ﷻ) removed it one day; there are wisdoms behind it being allowed and there is wisdom on why/when it was removed and not allowed to continue. I could be a victim of black magic even now and not feel anything and may be protected by Allah (ﷻ).
The best approach is to live our lives with as much piety as we can and not think about these things. Everything is in the control of Allah (ﷻ).
what about jinn sightings like the story mentioned in the hadith below? I always found jinn easy to believe since I thought they can’t be seen. but according to the hadith they can shapeshift into visible weird animal/human mix form. wouldn’t this be easily documented in the internet ?
Ubayy ibn Kaʿb (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “I had a store of dates, and I used to check on it, and I noticed it was decreasing. So I guarded it one night. Suddenly, there appeared to me a creature that resembled a young adolescent boy. I greeted it with salām, and it returned the greeting. I said, ‘What are you—are you a jinn or a human?’ It replied, ‘A jinn.’ I said, ‘Then show me your hand.’ So it showed me its hand, and behold, it was like the paw of a dog, with hair like the fur of a dog. I said, ‘Is this how the jinn are created?’ It said, ‘The jinn know that there is no man among them stronger than me.’ I said, ‘What made you do what you did?’ It replied, ‘I was told that you are a man who loves charity, so I wanted to take some of your food.’ I said, ‘What protects us from you?’ It said, ‘This verse in Sūrat al-Baqarah: Allah—there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of all (Āyat al-Kursī).’ Ubayy said: ‘The next morning I went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and informed him of what had happened. He said: “The wicked one has spoken the truth.”’”
Many people have seen them too including black magicians and their clients and the owl and goat worshippers.
I have seen, my mother has seen, my brother has seen. Perhaps with time, you may see as well.
Ok bro, but if they can really shape shift and become animals
why haven’t Muslim jinn then became a poisonous snake for example, then murdered prominent evil kuffars like netenyahu? This makes me doubt the matter because it could have been done easily
The jinns are not supposed to interfere in the human world and those who do are disobedient which is why Muslim jinn mind their own business. The disbelieving jinns are from the team of Satan and he is powerful and has a detailed and complex setup; evil like Natanyahu are from the team of Satan.
Your question could be framed as –> why haven’t a Muslim human murdered the evil kafir by taking the shape of one of his ministers or security? When you think of an answer to this, you can apply that answer to your question.
True I agree it would be logical if they don’t interfere in the human world, but in this Hadith doesn’t a person die by attacking the jinn? Also there are many scholars who say jinn can harm people.
this is a Hadith where someone died
Sahih Muslim We went with Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) (to participate in the Battle) of Trench when a young man in the midday used to seek permission from Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) to return to his family. One day he sought permission from him and Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) (after granting him the permission) said to him: Carry your weapons with you for I fear the tribe of Quraiza (may harm you). The man carried the weapons and then came back and found his wife standing between the two doors. He bent towards her smitten by jealousy and made a dash towards her with a spear in order to stab her. She said: Keep your spear away and enter the house until you see that which has made me come out. He entered and found a big snake coiled on the bedding. He darted with the spear and pierced it and then went out having fixed it in the house, but the snake quivered and attacked him and no one knew which of them died first, the snake or the young man. We came to Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) and made a mention to him and said: Supplicate to Allah that that (man) may be brought back to life. Thereupon he said: Ask forgiveness for your companion and then said: There are in Medina jinns who have accepted Islam, so when you see any one of them, pronounce a warning to it for three days, and if they appear before you after that, then kill it for that is a devil.
Visibility is exceptional, not normal. If something happens rarely, unpredictably, and often at night or in isolated contexts, it will not become something easily filmed or documented like animals or public events.
Jinn are morally accountable, not superheroes. The Qur’an is explicit: And among us are the righteous, and among us are otherwise; we are of divided ways. (Q.72:11). Muslim jinn are bound by Shariah.
This narration is important and often misunderstood. Some jinn in Madinah took the form of snakes inside homes. Because of this, the Prophet (ﷺ) instructed Muslims to warn house-snakes for three days before killing them. This is because not every snake was a jinn but some could be, so caution was required.
The Prophet (ﷺ) did not encourage people to fight jinn or hunt them. He gave preventive etiquette, not permission to engage in conflict. The death of the man was not framed as humans fighting jinn normally. It was an exceptional incident, not a daily occurrence.
Jinn can sometimes harm humans (like a lion can harm humans), but only in limited ways and only by Allah’s (ﷻ) permission, not freely or constantly; the Qur’an indicates that Shaytan and jinn may whisper, frighten, or attempt harm, yet they have no real authority over believers (Q.16:99) and cannot harm anyone except if Allah (ﷻ) allows it (Q.2:102), while reports such as the snake incident show that rare physical encounters can occur but were treated with caution rather than fear; jinn harm is possible but uncommon, most problems have natural causes, and Muslims are taught simple protections like remembrance of God and Ayat al-Kursi rather than living in anxiety about unseen attacks.
The reason I’m emphasizing this matter especially the point about harm, is that I saw a pretty famous apologist named haitham taalaat explain that the reason black magic which operates through jinn isn’t used against world leaders/ weaponized is that magic can only split husband/wife and distort a persons thoughts.
Knowing this, wouldn’t it theoretically possible to use black magic to kill ? The Muslims are protected from black magic, but why don’t we see kuffar using it against each other if jinn can harm/kill
This is pretty much my main issue summarized ^^
Shayateen report to their boss; Iblis. He is the Chairman of the Group and if he does not want one of his follower to harm another of his follower, then his subordinates will follow that order. Moreover, Shaytan wants us to go to hell; that is his prime mission. Killing us would not benefit him in any way. He wants us to sin and stray away from the right path.
Good evening, some have accused the prophet PBUH of suffering from a seizure disorder that resulted in his revelation from a certain experiment called the god helmet. They use this experiment results to argue against revelation and even against the existence of a soul. We ofc have evidence of Islam due to prophetic miracles but how to reply to them objectively?
here’s some info;
The God helmet is an experimental apparatus (originally called the Koren helmet) developed by neuropsychological researcher Stanley Koren and neuroscientist Michael Persinger to study creativity, religious experience and the effects of subtle stimulation of the temporal lobes.
Most reports from Persinger’s lab consist of people sensing “presences”; people often interpreted these to be that of angels, a deceased being known to the subject, or a group of beings of some kind. There have also been reports in which the participant has experienced what they perceive as God.[40] Persinger reports that “at least” 80 percent of his participants experience a presence beside them in the room,[41] and others report less evocative experiences of “another consciousness or sentient being”.[42]
This theory has been floated for over a century by some polemicists but neurologists who have seriously examined the historical data do not support it.
Temporal lobe epilepsy episodes cause confusion, memory disruption, disorganized speech, fatigue and post-ictal recovery, and long-term cognitive decline in severe cases. However, we do NOT see that in the Prophet (ﷺ). A few proofs to refute the attack are:
– Coherent, linguistically unmatched Qur’anic discourse
– Consistency over 23 years
– Legal structure, theology, moral philosophy
– Strategic leadership and statecraft
– No progressive neurological deterioration
That profile does not match epilepsy. God Helmet participants report vague sensations, emotional feelings, someone is here; however, revelation involved structured speech, memorization by others, public recitation, legal rulings, and immediate social implementation. That’s categorically different from I felt something in the room.
Even if (for argument’s sake) religious experience correlates with temporal lobe activity, that proves nothing metaphysical. When you see a sunset, visual cortex activates. When you feel love, limbic system activates, when you solve math, prefrontal cortex activates. No one says sunsets don’t exist because your brain lights up. The brain being involved in spiritual experience does not mean the experience is generated by the brain. On the contrary, spiritual and biological aspects can go hand-in-hand. The brain activation could simply mean that the brain is the interface. If the soul exists, it must interact with the brain somehow. Neural activity during revelation would be expected, not disproving.
If this were epilepsy, why did enemies who desperately wanted to discredit him never call him epileptic? Why did those closest to him never describe post-seizure confusion? Why was there no progressive neurological damage over decades? Even orientalists who are critical of Islam have largely abandoned the epilepsy theory because it doesn’t fit the data.
The criticism is philosophical, not scientific and even then it does not stand.
Salam aleykoum brother, I hope you’re fine. I wanted to know if you could respond to the alledged inconsistenty claim by critics of Islam who argue that the Prophet SWS shouldn’t have denied Abu Bakr and Umar’s proposols of marriage to Fatima since she was young while the Prophet married Aisha RA also young and that the age of difference between Abu Bakr and Umar and Fatima were as long as the Prophet SWS and Aisha RA. I read that some scholars mentioned that Aisha’s RA young marriage to the Prophet SWS was specific to him but I’m not sure if it’s true. Jazaka Allah Khayran !
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
You are as old as you look. Aisha (r) looked mature/older and the Prophet (s) looked young. Fatima (r) had not matured.
You are as old as you look was the norm then. They did not assess based in birth certificates. A 16 year old could be treated like a child while a 12 year old as an adult simply based on how they looked and how their bodies developed.
I think their claim isn’t based on physical maturity but why didn’t the Prophet SWS marry Fatima to Abu Bakr or Umar and then she would consummate her marriage later like it was done by Aisha RA ?
Salam Alaikum,
how do reply to the shoboha regarding Adam AS and human history ?
Adam was probably similar to us in intelligence, and probably smarter than the humanoid/human-like beings that were before him, yet in history there isn’t a identifiable point where intelligence or consciousness exploded or sky rocketed, anthropologists and those who believe in evolution claim that the fossil evidence and other evidences (cave art, structures) points to gradual development of intellect and consciousness, not sudden appearance.
To clarify my point because admittedly I wasn’t that clear, I meant Doesn’t Adam creation contradict human history? Because his descent on earth should have been obvious historically (sudden jump of intelligence and rationality) and this jump isn’t detected history, unless we assume that the beings before Adam was just as intelligent as us.
Wa’alaykumusSalaam, most of such pre-historic details are guesswork or hypothesis and not concrete/established facts. We may take them as theories and possibilities. Prehistoric history is reconstructed from physical evidence, but interpretations can evolve as new discoveries are made. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Assalam Alaikum Abu Rahma, First of All, I would like to mention that I’m aware of the holy Quran verse about us knowing very little about the soul. However many scholars have said the Ruh is responsible for Consciousness and personality (alongside the brain of course due to the modern knowledge we have) this made me get a lot of questions…. That I haven’t been able to solve yet.
since we retain our memories after passing away, this means memories are stored in the soul. Yet neuroscience proves that memories are stored in the brain. If the soul retains memory’s, how are then memories affected by brain injuries ? The Quran also implies that memories can be stored in the soul with this these verses
[those who believe and whose hearts find comfort in the remembrance of Allah. Surely in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find comfort.] Quran 13:28
[“Have they not travelled through the land so that they may have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not the eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.”] Quran 22:46
And, can the soul change or “age” with normal aging? Since the ruh/soul is responsible for consciousness and personality And we know personality changes with aging and getting older, so does the soul get affected by aging? Also, There’s also cases if people changing religion after a brain injury despite everything else being normal. Is their soul affected here even if everything else like intellect and decision making is normal? Would the pen be lifted from him ?
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
The brain and soul work together but play different roles. The brain is the physical storage and processing system for memories and personality traits in this life, which is why brain injuries, dementia, or aging can affect memory, temperament, or beliefs. The soul, however, is the deeper conscious self that receives experiences through the brain and remains after death. When scholars say memories remain after death, they mean the record of one’s experiences and deeds is preserved by Allah and known to the soul, not that the brain’s neural storage continues physically. Qur’anic verses about the heart reasoning refer to the spiritual center of understanding, not a biological storage device.
Personality changes with aging or injury occur because the brain (the interface) changes, not because the soul itself ages or degrades. The soul is not subject to biological aging. If a brain injury severely impairs judgment or awareness, then Islamic law already accounts for this: accountability depends on capacity. If someone’s reasoning is genuinely impaired, responsibility may be reduced or lifted. But if a person still has intact understanding and chooses differently after injury, the soul itself has not changed; rather, the conditions through which it thinks and decides have changed.
Assalamualaikum akhi, can you address the following?
Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn `Abd Allah ibn Mousa al-Kindi in his “Musannaf” reports the next hadith: “Umar was once talking when his wife interjected, so he said to her: ‘You are a toy, if you are needed we will call you”
Source : Al-Musanaf by Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mousa Al-Kanadi , Vol.1, Part 2, p. 263. See also Ihy’a ‘Uloum ed-Din by Ghazali, Vol II, Kitab Adab al-Nikah, p.52
The next saying is attributed Amru bin al-‘Aas: “Women are toys, so choose.”
Source : Kanz-el-‘Ummal, Vol. 21, Hadith No. 919.
The next saying is attributed to the Prophet : “The woman is a toy, whoever takes her let him care for her (or do not lose her).”
Source : Tuffaha, Ahmad Zaky, Al-Mar’ah wal- Islam, Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani, Beirut, first edition, 1985, p. 180.
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
This report is not a reliable or widely recognized narration about Umar b. al-Khattab (رضي الله عنه). Many later citations of this report appear without a chain of narration (isnad). Umar (رضي الله عنه) is authentically reported to have said: “Women are partners of men.” i.e., they share rights and responsibilities. And his well-known statement: “Before Islam we did not consider women important, but when Islam came and Allah (ﷻ) mentioned them, we realized they have rights over us.” [Sahih al-Bukhari]. The toy quote is unreliable or misattributed.
The attribution to Amr b. al-Aas (رضي الله عنه) is also not reliable. Kanz al-Ummal is not a primary Hadith source; it is a later compilation that gathers both authentic and weak narrations. Many reports in it have weak or missing chains.
Saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is a Hadith with similar wording, but this one is misleading. The Arabic wording appears as [الدنيا متاع وخير متاع الدنيا المرأة الصالحة] – The world is enjoyment, and the best enjoyment of the world is a righteous woman [Sahih Muslim]. The word متاع (mata’) means provision, comfort, blessing, and something beneficial. It does not mean toy which is incorrect and misleading.
But the report attributed to the Prophet is not the one from Muslim
Yes, the report that says “the woman is a plaything/toy (المرأة لعبة)” is not the Hadith found in Sahih Muslim about “the best enjoyment of the world is a righteous woman.” The wording with “lu’bah” (plaything) appears in some later compilations and works on marriage ethics, but it does not occur in the major authentic collections like Sahih al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, and Hadith scholars consider its chains weak and unreliable, which is why it is not used as a reliable proof. Authentic teachings instead emphasize kindness and respect toward wives, such as the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) saying: “The best of you are those who are best to their wives.”
Assalm Alaikum Abu Rahma, there is a huge science related doubt I need your help with. I will write it down:
Prophet Nuh (A.S) could not have existed more than 10-15k years ago.
The holy Quran has this timeline Nuh -> Hud -> Saleh. There are verses that say salehs qawm are successors of Hud, and the same goes for Hud and Noah.
Surah Al-A’raf (7:69) – Succession after Nuh:
“And remember when He made you successors after the people of Noah and increased you in stature extensively. So remember the favors of Allah that you might succeed.”
Surah Al-A’raf (7:74) – Succession after ‘Aad:
“And remember when He made you [Thamud] successors after the ‘Aad and settled you in the land, [and] you take for yourselves palaces from its plains and carve from the mountains, homes…”
We know from Bukhari and Muslim that the prophet PBUH visited the remains of Thamud, which are the tribe prophet saleh was sent to. Therefore Prophet saleh couldn’t have existed way too long ago, and scholars mostly hold this position.
So why does this go against science? Because:
1- Shirk Began with Nuh, so he couldn’t have lived far from Adam. Humanity started with Adam, yet modern humans, our species (homo sapiens), came to be 300,000 years ago. If the timeline above is literal then Adam couldn’t have existed more than 25k years ago.
2-It is said that Nuhs people knew about agriculture, and scientifically it is proven agriculture started 11k years ago, history of religion and polytheism exist waaay before 11k years ago. Nuh can’t be more than 11k years ago because agriculture didn’t exist.
In conclusion, how can we interpret the verses about succession ? Can we say for example that between Nuh and Aad there was 150000 years ? Also how would you solve the agriculture issue?
(Of course, Jallad’s theory may be speculative and based on very circumstantial evidence)
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb, sorry I forgot about this until I got a notification from another comment.
In Arabic, this succession does NOT automatically mean immediate, next-generation succession. It can mean a people who came after another (even with long gaps), those who inherited land/civilization, and/or those who replaced a destroyed nation. Allah (ﷻ) says in other places that many nations were destroyed and replaced, sometimes with no indication of short timelines.
Nuh (a.s.) to Hud (a.s.) (‘Aad) does not necessarily mean next generation | Hud (a.s.) to Saleh (a.s.) (Thamud) also does not require a short gap. It can simply mean that they came after them and inherited their land/status – it seems to be pointing towards sequence rather than immediacy. Large time gaps, even tens of thousands of years, are linguistically possible.
Regarding the Prophet (ﷺ) visiting Thamud, I suggest reading this. That incident shows the timeline is: Saleh -> historically closer (possibly within last 5–10k years) | Hud -> before that (unknown gap) | Nuh -> could be much earlier. Nothing in Hadith says that Nuh (a.s.) was close in time to Saleh (a.s.); so the chain is not compressed automatically.
Another timeline could be timeline could be: Adam (a.s.) -> very early human period – long stretch of monotheism – then shirk develops -> Nuh (a.s.) sent. That gap could be very long. There are Hadiths which mention that shirk started slow and added generation after generation; when the pious ones passed away, first pictures came, then statues, then praise, which eventually turned to worship and so on. This could have taken a very long period.
Regarding agriculture starting 11,000 years ago, then that is not absolute. What happened then was Neolithic Revolution (large-scale farming) and does not mention earlier primitive cultivation, local or small-scale farming, and there could even be lost or undocumented practices. The Qur’an does not require advanced agriculture.
Archaeology is incomplete and we only know what has been preserved and discovered. Entire civilizations could have disappeared, been wiped out, or left no trace. In simpler terms, we have no strong evidence of widespread agriculture before that time (11K years).
Discussion on Adam’s (a.s.) timeline in next comment.
The Qur’an does not provide a specific date for Adam (a.s.), nor does it explicitly state how long ago he lived, which leaves room for multiple valid interpretations.
Modern humans (Homo sapiens) are estimated to have existed for around 300,000 years, based on fossil and genetic evidence. The problem is only if one assumes that Adam (a.s.) lived very recently (within the last 10–20K years). Many scholars resolve this by distinguishing between biological humanity (prehumans) and theological humanity (us humans). Adam (a.s.) may not necessarily have been the first biological human in the strict scientific sense, but rather the first true human in a spiritual and moral sense. Basically, he was the first being endowed with a soul (ruh), divine guidance, and accountability before Allah (ﷻ). Those before him (humanoids but not really human and I’m calling them pre-human here). There could have been human-like beings before Adam (a.s.), but he represents the beginning of revealed human history (human), not necessarily biological existence (pre-humans).
The other view is that Adam (a.s.) was the first human absolutely (irrespective of pre-humans or not). There is not fixed Qur’anic timeline and it is possibile that he lived much earlier than previously thought.
In both cases, the key point is that the Qur’an is not a chronological or scientific document but a guidance text, so it establishes origins and purpose without committing to specific date-leaving space for the human timeline discovered by science to coexist with the theological role of Adam (a.s.) as the first prophet and father of morally accountable humanity (all of us).
Salam aleykoum brother, I hope you’re doing fine. This guy has done a thread showing that Pharaoh claiming divinity was already mentioned in Rabbinic literature before Islam and claiming that it’s proof of Islam’s divine origin is questioned. What are your thoughts on it ? Jazaka Khayran ahki !
x.com/i/status/1831419459497767309
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb, this tweet thread is attacking a strawman and Muslims do not make this claim. We do claim miracles in the Qur’anic accounts of ancient Egypt but he chose something we do not claim and refuted that.
I saw a Christian argue (I think the channel was C apologist) that the strongest evidence against Islam is neuroscience and the soul.
apparently in Christianity they don’t believe in dualism (body + soul) they just believe that only the body exists and the soul is used to describe the brain, well at least in some Christian sects.
they say that since people change their personalities, beliefs, and morals with aging and even brain injury (there are documented cases of people who had their identity and beliefs changed after a brain injury, but are other wise healthy mentally and physically, and still are able to think, form ideas, and solve problems). They use this to say that personality and consciousness is only due to the bran and the soul doesn’t exist.
how do we reply to this
I hope this helps.
Also this.
As well as this.
Salam aleykoum brother, I wanted to ask you if there are any authentic reports regarding the Sufyani, the Yamani and the Khurasani. I recently read an English translation of Kitab Al Fitan from Nu’aym Ibn Hammad and I noticed that there are so many narrations regarding the Sufyani in this book. I know that most if not all reports regarding these 3 figures are weak but I wondered if all these chains strenghten each other, especially since those figures are lined to authentic events. In authentic ahadith, we know that there will be an evil ruler from Al Sham sending an army against the Mahdi and the weak reports mentions that it is the Sufyani. What are your thoughts on this ? jazaka Allah Khayran !
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
I believe all narrations are weak or fabricated and don’t recall any that is reliable. Moreover, it contradicts the Sahih Hadith about the evil ruler of Shaam. That ruler will emerge after the first army is sunk between Makkah and Madinah. That ruler will have a Qureshi father and Kalbi mother (probably Alawi).
Baraka Allahu Fik ahki ! Btw I wrote all the possible prophecies fullfiled in Kitab Al Fitan as I was looking to some obscure prophecies and I believe that some were clearly fullfiled. Do you mind if I share some prophecies from Kitab Al Fitan with commentaries with you so you can tell me what are your thoughts regarding this ? Jazaka Allah Khayran !
Yes please. That would be great and I’m excited to read them.
Alhamdoulilah. I read David Cook’s translation of Kitab Al Fitan. The hadith numbering differs from the Arabic version from what I saw. Anyways, here is what I found regarding possible obscure prophecies fullfiled :
Hadith 49: “Ibn `Umar that he saw a building on Mt. Abū Qays, and said: “O Mujāhid! When you see the houses of Mecca appearing on its rugged mountains (akhāshib), and the water coming through its lanes, then beware!” .
This hadith clearly describes urban expansion onto Mecca’s mountains and water infrastructure in the city’s lanes as we see in the modern era.
Hadith 635 : ” Abū al-Zāhiriyya: How will it be for you when your desert dwellers come in and share with you your wealth, and none can forbid them without somebody saying: “How long you have lived in comfort, while we lived in misery??” Acc to DeepSeek, it was fulfilled during the Mamluk era (ie between the 13th and 16th centuries) when there was a miss migration of desert dwellers in the cities bcs of changing trade routes and since the black death killed a large amount of laborers and artisans, the mamluks hired a lot of them. ChatGPT also agrees with this interpretation.
But after more research, it could have been fulfilled as early as the late Umayyad period and early Abbasid period, so even though it was fulfilled it isn’t as impressive as other prophecies since by the time of Nu’aym Ibn Hammad, it was already fulfilled.
Hadith 743: “`Umar b. al-Khațțāb said [162] to man from the Egyptians: The Andalusians will come to you, such that they will fight you at Wasīm.”
Interestingly, there was an incident during the Abbasid period in 819 where a group of Andalusians sacked Alexandria. But the issue is that I wasn’t able to locate where Wasim is exactly. If you have any info on that, it would be good.
Hadith 821: “Thawban: The Prophet said to Umm Ḥabība when he mentioned the `Abbāsids and their turn, so he turned to Umm Ḥabība and said: Their destruction will be at the hands of a man from this stock [the Umayyads].”. It clearly refers to the destruction of the Umayyads by the Abbassids but one would need to check its authenticity since it was fulfilled before the author’s time.
Hadith 1235. `Abdallāh b. `Umar: “When the idol of Dhū al-Khalṣa is worshipped [again], the Byzantines will be victorious over Syria. On that day they will send to the people of the acacia tree (Medina) asking them for aid, so they will come upon their young she-camels, meaning the Hijāzis.” Al-Walīd said: “Yemen.” Nu`aym said: “I doubt it.” “. This one is quite impressive but needs more research. Here the term “Romans” refers to Westerners so not necessarily the Byzantine Empire. The Dhu al Khalasa idol was worshiped again in the late 19th century and it was destroyed in 1925, around the time of the French colonization of Syria ! Al Sham actually refers to the Levant and we know that the British and the French colonized it entirely after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.So they fit the description of the Romans. The timing of its fulfillment is impressive as the two events happened at the same time. But the only thing I need to do more research is the last part mentioning help from the Hijazis.
1442. Tubay`: Before the Dajjāl there are three signs: three years of hunger, in which the rivers will decrease, the aromatic plants become yellow, the springs dry up, so [the tribes of] Madhḥij and Hamdān will move from Iraq to settle in Qinnasrin and Aleppo, so then they will fight the Dajjāl in their homelands morning and evening”
This last part of the prophecy regarding the tribes of Madhhij and Hamdan from Iraq to Syria happened recently during the Syrian Civil War a decade ago !
Hadith 1473: “`Abdallāh b. `Amr heard the Prophet saying: “People will emerge from the direction of the east, reading/reciting the Qur’ān, but it will not pass their clavicles. Every time a horn emerges from them, it is cut” until the Prophet counted them more than ten times. “Every time a horn emerges from them it is cut off until the Dajjāl will emerge from their remnant.” This hadith prophesizes the Khawarij extremists and the part of them being cut off applies to ISIS/PKK today
I found this interesting prophecy in hadith 1654: ” Ibn `Umar on the authority of the Prophet: “The Hour will not arise until idols are erected, and the first who will erect them will be the people of Ḥuḍayr in the Tihāma.” Hudayr is approximately sixty miles to the south of Mecca. Tihama is in Central Yemen. Another Ahadith mentions that the tribe of Daws will return to idol worship. But it would be interesting to check if historically the tribe of Hudayr in Yemen returned to idol worship. Do you have any information on that ahki ?
Hadith 1872: “Abdallāh b. Burayda from his father: The Prophet said: “A wide-faced, small-eyed people, as if their faces were stripped, will drive my community until they reach the Arabian Peninsula three times. As for the first, the ones who flee will be saved, as for the second some will perish, some will be saved, but the third will uproot. They are the Turks—and by Him who holds my soul in His hands, they will fasten their horses to the pillars of the Muslims’ mosque.” Burayda used to never be far away from two or three camels, and traveling gear for fleeing, because of what he had heard of the Turks.”. It may be a reach but one would need to see the Arabic but we know that historically three Turkish empires that raided the Arabian peninsula: The Khazars, the Seljuks and the Ottomans. What’s interesting is that the prophecy mentions that the third wave of Turks will reach the Muslims’ mosque (i.e. Medina). And we know that the Ottomans conquered the Hijaz. The only thing unfillfiled is that as far as I’ve researched, I didn’t find evidence about the Khazars ever raiding the Arabian peninsula. There is also the question about the Mongols but they reached the Levant but not the Arabian peninsula. Also, the prophecy may point to a massacre rather than raids/ conquests of Arabs by the Turks so my interpretation may be questionable. So I’m not too sure about the fulfillment of this prophecy.
Hadith 1873: ” `Abdallāh b. `Amr: “The Banū Qanțūrā are about to expel you from the land of Iraq.” I said: “We will return.” He said: “Do you want that?” This is a fascinating prophecy because I think it refers to the Mongol’s brutal slaughter of the Iraqi population and the destruction of Baghdad. It only happened during the Mongols’era. And we know that many Iraqis fled to Anatolia and some returned, especially during Ghazan’s reign.
Hadith 1878: ” Ḥudhayfa said to the people of Kūfa: A small-eyed, snub-nosed people, as if their faces were beaten shields, wearing shoes of hair, will expel you from it [Kūfa], and will fasten their horses on the palm of Jūkhā [River],and they will drink from the mouth of the Euphrates.” Another prophecy linked the Mongols. We know that the Mongols conquered Kufa and the entirety of Iraq and expelled its inhabitants.
Hadith 1887: “Makḥūl: The Prophet said: The Turks will have two emergences: one of them in which they will emerge in Azarbayjān, and the other one in which they will drink on the shores of the Euphrates.”. Suhanallah, we know that the Khazars had an empire in the Caucasus region which covers Azarbayjan and they’re the first Turkish empire the Muslim fought. As for the second part, we know that the Seljuks did reach the Euphrates in the 11th century.
Hadith 1892: “Al-Ḥasan: The Messenger of God said: Among the portents of the Hour are that you fight a people whose faces are like beaten shields, and that you fight a people whose shoes are hair. I have seen the first, they are the Turks, and we have seen those, who are the Kurds. AlḤasan said: “When you are in the midst of the portents of the Hour, it will be as if you see them eye-to-eye.” The Muslims fought the Turks and Kurds very early on. Not the most impressive prophecy but I felt like it was interesting enough.
I’m extremely curious to hear your opinions regarding this. Baraka Allahu Fik !
Salam,
I am also interested in Abo Sami’s question above (about Nuh AS, Hud AS, Saleh AS, and history). Ahmad Al Jallad says he found evidence that Iram of ‘Ad was in Wadi Rum in Jorda. The problem is that this evidence is for ‘Ad being there not more than one or two centures BC, wheras ‘Ad should be millenia before this. Can you give us some insights? Thanks.
Wassalam
One last question: what are your thoughts about Al-Jallad’s assertion (from this paper: https://www.academia.edu/119758967/Al_Jallad_2025_The_Epigraphy_of_the_Tribe_of_%CA%BF%C4%80d) that the ‘Iram and ‘Ad mentioned in the Qur’an are found in Wadi Rumm in Jordan? The dating he posits is for ‘Ad ‘Iram to be close to the time of Sayyidna ‘Isa AS and not several thousand years prior as the Qu’ranic timeline would indicate (we know the believing man from Pharoah’s people mentioned ‘Ad and ‘Thamud, so they must have predated Pharoah by at least a thousand years). Putting ‘Iram in Wadi Rumm in Jordan would pose a timeline dilemma and seem to be on the surface to be anachronistic. To be honest, Al-Jallad’s theory seems to be a little speculative, but he seems to be confident in his finding. Any other way to explain his findings? Jazakallah khair.
Thanks for sharing the link; I will go through it in a few days iA. In the meantime, see if this addresses anything of your query.
Edit (and addition): Jallad’s paper is best understood as an observation rather than a definitive historical identification. What he has shown is that the name Aad appears in Safaitic inscriptions from the region of Wadi Rum and the northeastern Arabian desert, dating roughly to the late antique period. This establishes that a group identifying as Aad, or associating themselves with that name, existed in that geographical area around the time of the Roman Near East. However, the step from a group called Aad existed here to this is the same Aad mentioned in the Qur’an, including Iram is interpretive and not conclusively proven by the inscriptions themselves.
You correctly noted, the believing man from the people of Firawn references Aad and Thamud as already-destroyed nations, implying that they belonged to a much earlier historical layer. Classical understanding therefore situates Aad thousands of years before the time of Eissa (a.s.), not close to it. If one were to equate Jallad’s late antique Aad directly with the Qur’anic quwm Aad, it would indeed create a problem.
There’s this idea of name continuity across time, which is very common in human history and especially in Arab genealogical culture. Tribal names often persist for centuries, even millennia, with later groups claiming descent from or affiliation with earlier, prestigious ancestors. In this framework, the Safaitic Aad would not be the original qawm Aad who were destroyed, but rather a later population that preserved the name, either as a lineage claim, a cultural memory, or a symbolic identity. This removes the timeline conflict entirely, because the Qur’anic Aad and the epigraphic Aad are not required to be the same historical layer.
Another possibility is that there may have been multiple groups associated with the name Aad, including remnants, offshoots, or later communities who inherited the name after the destruction of the original qawm Aad. Islamic tradition itself distinguishes between earlier and later peoples (e.g., references to Aad al-Ula), which leaves room for the possibility that the name survived even if the primary civilization did not. In this light, the inscriptions could reflect a later branch or a reused ethnonym rather than the original qawm Aad addressed by Prophet Hud (a.s.).
As for identifying Wadi Rum with Iram, this part of Jallad’s argument is more speculative. The connection relies partly on phonetic similarity (Iram vs. Rum) and geographic proximity, but there is no explicit inscriptional evidence that labels the region as Iram, nor is there archaeological evidence of a uniquely monumental civilization matching the Qur’anic description of a city ‘the like of which was not created in the lands’. The Safaitic corpus consists largely of nomadic inscriptions rather than indications of a grand urban center, which makes a direct equation with Iram difficult to substantiate.
Jallad’s findings are valuable in demonstrating that the name Aad had historical circulation in northern Arabia during late antiquity, but they do not contradict the Qur’anic timeline. The Qur’an refers to an ancient, pre-Firawn civilization of Aad, while the inscriptions reflect later groups who retained or adopted the same name.
Salam Alaykum,
For the longest time I did believe in Jinn and their ability to shapeshift into humans or animals (because technically you can never disprove this) but I recently came across an odd narration that states that Jinn can shapeshift into a humanoid form with animalistic features (basically something that is obviously supernatural).
This made me doubt the narrations truthfulness even if it’s authentic because if jinn can do that (transform into a human with animalistic features like a dog paw), then we would have easily captured it on camera or we would at least have multiple sighting reports
I hope you can help me make sense of it, this is the narration:
Ubayy ibn Kaʿb (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “I had a store of dates, and I used to check on it, and I noticed it was decreasing. So I guarded it one night. Suddenly, there appeared to me a creature that resembled a young adolescent boy. I greeted it with salām, and it returned the greeting. I said, ‘What are you—are you a jinn or a human?’ It replied, ‘A jinn.’ I said, ‘Then show me your hand.’ So it showed me its hand, and behold, it was like the paw of a dog, with hair like the fur of a dog. I said, ‘Is this how the jinn are created?’ It said, ‘The jinn know that there is no man among them stronger than me.’ I said, ‘What made you do what you did?’ It replied, ‘I was told that you are a man who loves charity, so I wanted to take some of your food.’ I said, ‘What protects us from you?’ It said, ‘This verse in Sūrat al-Baqarah: Allah—there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of all (Āyat al-Kursī).’ Ubayy said: ‘The next morning I went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and informed him of what had happened. He said: “The wicked one has spoken the truth.”’”
the narration is graded as authentic by albani Source: Sahih al-Targhib (No. 662)
Wa’alaykumusSalaam wr wb,
Recently, I was talking with a friend about someone who has a jinn and does fortune-telling. My friend, attempting to refute this idea, asked: “Is this person a billionaire?” It may look like a good argument that if someone has access to something like this, then they should have unimaginable riches. The essence of his argument is similar to your query.
The world operates through a system; even in chaos, there is organization. Satan/Iblis has a hierarchy and system of operations and chaos in that could cause chaos in the world and his system could collapse. If everyone with access to a jinn could get billions, banks would become empty and chaos would ensue. Moreover, doubts would arise even if it only happened on rare occasions and the world of jinns and of shaytan would become public. They have a system for that; those who seek riches have to sell their soul to the devil and that contract takes place through an organized system as well. The person selling his soul would get an offer from a producer, he would execute/record music or whatever, distribution channels would support, media would help, and wealth and fame would come in through a process. The sudden snap your finger and get rich doesn’t happen even in the satanic world; a proper way has to be followed.
Similarly, jinns have abilities and they do not purposely show them; accidents may happen here and there that a human witness it but now with newer technology, they may take extra precaution and not be discovered.
That is an unseen world and they have their ways and isms. Even without being in that world, we can imagine why we don’t witness such things and the information we have is sufficient. Revelation is true and even if we don’t understand something, it doesn’t make it false.
Salam aleykoum my dear brother, I hope you’re doing fine. I posted my findings regarding possible obscure fullfiled prophecies in Kitab Al Fitan 6 days ago. I wanted to know if you read them and what are your thoughts regarding them. Jazaka Allahu Khayran !