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.
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