Al-Fitrah (Innate Nature) of all humans guides them to God.

 

Worm Buffet?! Ultimate Hope & Philosophical Naturalism.

 

Casuality; educating adherents of doctrines of confusion.

 

What is the meaning of Hadith Sahih Muslim 2603?

Anas b. Malik reported that there was an orphan girl with Umm Sulaim (who was the mother of Anas). Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saw that orphan girl and said:

‏"‏ آنْتِ هِيَهْ لَقَدْ كَبِرْتِ لاَ كَبِرَ سِنُّكِ ‏"‏

"O, it is you; you have grown! May you not advance in years!"

Answer

Praise be to Allah.

Firstly:

Among the greatest characteristics of our great Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) were his forbearance, deliberation and restraint in speech. Allah the Creator, may He be glorified and exalted, described him thus in the Qur’an. He, may He be glorified, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:159].

He was also described thus in the previous scriptures, as ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

By Allah, he is described in the Torah in some of the same terms as in the Qur’an… he is not harsh and aggressive, and he does not make a noise in the market-place; he does not repay evil with evil, rather he overlooks and forgives. Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2125).

The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) also knew him to be like that, from seeing how he lived. It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was not given to impugning others, he was not foulmouthed, and he was not given to cursing. He used to say to one of us – when wanting to rebuke him –: “What is the matter with him? May his forehead be rubbed with dust.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6031). 

In some instances, he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) even refused to pray against the mushrikeen even though they deserved to be cursed. It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

It was said: O Messenger of Allah pray against the mushrikeen! He said: “I was not sent as an invoker of curses, rather I was sent as a mercy.”

Narrated by Muslim (2599).

Secondly:.

It was narrated from Jaabir ibn ‘Abdillah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “I am only human, and I have made a deal with my Lord, may He be glorified and exalted, that any Muslim whom I impugn or scold, that will be a cause of purification and reward for him.”

Thirdly:

This hadith is a refutation of those who exaggerate about the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). It clearly states that he was human and got angry as other humans get angry. Even though he was the most knowledgeable of mankind about Allah, the one who most feared Allah, and the one who was furthest removed from all sins and errors, he was not infallible and protected from error in his judgement and he was not infallible and protected from such errors, that he made in very rare circumstances, because he was human. But he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was infallible and protected in the sense that if he made any error in judgement, it would not be approved and left alone; rather revelation would come down to him to correct his errors. Moreover, with regard to words he said in a moment of anger that had to do with infringements on the rights of other people, such as impugning and cursing, whatever he uttered would not lead to bad consequences, if it was said in the case of one who did not deserve that, on the basis of the hadith which refers to Allah’s promise in that regard, that He would make it a cause of purification and reward for him, and a means of him drawing close to Allah on the Day of Resurrection.

Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

... He (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was human, according to the Qur’an and Sunnah, but he is the leader of humanity and the best of them all, according to the saheeh hadiths, and as is indicated by the story of his life and his seerah (biography), and by what Allah, may He be exalted, blessed him with of a noble attitude and praiseworthy characteristics, which were never perfected and completed in any human as they were in him (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Allah the Almighty spoke the truth when He said (interpretation of the meaning): “And indeed, you are of a great moral character” [al-Qalam 68:4].

End quote from as-Silsilah as-Saheehah (no. 84).

Fourthly:

The scholars discussed this and similar hadiths noting that, in addition to being mutawaatir, it constitutes definitive proof that refers to the Prophet’s perfect manners and attitude, his compassion towards his ummah, his forbearance and his knowledge.

Imam an-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

These hadiths clearly highlight the extent of the Prophet’s compassion towards his ummah, how he cared about their well-being, how he gave them the benefit of the doubt and his desire for everything that would benefit them.

This particular report that is mentioned towards the end explains the other reports that speak in general terms, and note that the Prophet’s du‘aa’ against a person will be turned into mercy, expiation, purification and so on, if he does not deserve that du‘aa’ against him, impugning, cursing and so on, and he was Muslim. Otherwise, we know that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) prayed against the disbelievers and hypocrites, and that cannot be a mercy for them.

If it is asked: how could he pray against someone who did not deserve to be prayed against, impugned or cursed, and so on? The answer is as the scholars said, which may be summed up in two points:

1. What is meant is that he does not deserve that in the sight of Allah, may He be exalted, or in reality, but outwardly he appeared to deserve that, and it seemed to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that he deserved that, based on the person’s outward actions that appeared to be contrary to the teachings of Islam, but in reality that person did not deserve that, but the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was enjoined to judge people on the basis of what they appeared to be, and Allah would take care of what was in their hearts.
   
2. What happened of his impugning that person, praying against him and so on was not meant literally; rather it was customary in the speech of the Arabs to say phrases without meaning them literally, such as saying “May your right hand be rubbed with dust” or “May you be barren and shaven-headed” [to a woman]; and – in this hadith – “May you not grow older”; and – in the hadith of Mu‘aawiyah – “May you never be satisfied with food”, and so on. They did not mean any of that literally. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was afraid that his du‘aa’ might be answered when he did not mean it, so he asked his Lord, may He be glorified and exalted, to make that a mercy and expiation, a means of drawing close to Him, purification and reward.

This happened very rarely, and such incidents were few and far between. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was not given to foul speech or cursing, and he would not seek revenge for himself. It has been noted above that they said: Pray against Daws, but he said: O Allah, guide Daws” and he said: “O Allah, forgive my people for they do not know.” And Allah knows best.

End quote from Sharh Muslim (16/152).

Loving the Prophet ﷺ: A Necessity for Salvation - Dr. Jawad Qureshi

 

What happens to Iblees/Satan upon hearing the call to prayers (Athan)? Bukhari 1231

 What is the meaning of Bukhari 1231?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqIUX2VctRI

Is insulting Islam protected under ‘Freedom of Speech’?

 From Abdullah Andalusi blog

The purpose of free speech, when expressing opinion, is the pursuit of truth. That is all, nothing more. For it has no other rational purpose it can serve. All speech that expresses opinions must be allowed so that all ideas can be heard and to give the best chance for one of them to contain a weight of truth. Based upon this undisputed reason, how can anyone justify the right to use their speech to insult, degrade and humiliate another human being (and their identity)? Gratuitous insult offers no truth, or intellectual weight, and offers nothing to society except hate, rancour, emotional suffering, harassment, depression and divisiveness.What rational benefit can gratuitous insult serve humanity? To what good does it direct us towards? Surely if something yields no benefits, and only offers harm and negative experience to human life, should it be tolerated amongst a society of civilised human beings?

The Fallacy of the Liberal Counter-Argument of Free Speech due to Individualism

Some Liberals argue that insult should be allowed because it is an expression of ‘individuality’, and ‘individuals must be allowed to flourish outside of social constraints’. If this is so – why does the individual require other humans in order to manifest their ‘individuality’? Surely, according to this logic, the individual would not require a legal right to insult others, because ‘as an individual’ they could simply insult people and their beliefs in their own head and be content with that! As Liberal theory states, ‘Individuals’ do not need society to make them individuals. So in essence, why can’t they just be happy keeping their insults to themselves, why need a right to express their vitriolic language in public?

I could even counter that ‘freedom to insult’ actually hampers the flourishing of individuals according to Liberal theory itself! Surely an individual who wishes to express their ideas and opinions, but is fearful of public backlash and insults, has their individuality restricted? One could also say that giving people the right to gratuitously insult others and their beliefs causes unnecessary suffering to the targets of these attacks, and also diminishes their social respect in society from others. Of course, this is but one of the many contradictory issues with Liberalism. This is primarily due to Liberal theory being deeply flawed in its dogma about humans being ‘individuals’ and not also social creatures. Anyone who has studied psychology and sociology would obviously realise how humans are not not ‘individuals’ in the Liberal sense. Humans neither made themselves, nor educated ourselves from first principles – but relied on others for theses things. Humans still rely on others for social comfort, material help and intellectual help – hence humans are by nature, social creatures. If our true nature was to be anything but social creatures who ‘need to be freed from social constraints’ (as the Liberal Utopia desires), then solitary confinement would be the happiest place on earth for the human! (I know Liberals may argue that being in a prison is a restriction of Liberty. However, would life be happy for a human to live alone in a deserted wilderness, even if they had food, water, heating and entertainment?).

There is no argument to show that people should be given the right to insult and abuse others. However, the unrestricted freedom in their speech to express a sincere intellectual opinion should be granted to everyone – but no one should have the right to insult others or their beliefs – which as we know, define who they are more than superficial things, like skin colour. Insulting a belief does not change people’s minds about it when they believe their ideas are right – instead, it only makes them more entrenched to defend it, and retaliate – since it is human nature to demand respect for oneself, and one’s beliefs are a fundamental part of someone’s personality. So knowing this, how do Liberals see any benefit coming from a state of affairs more akin to a school playground, than to a noble and enlightened human society?

Did the religion of Islam developed as a coping mechanism?

 Written by mlife.org

The opponents of the religious life argue that religion was put together as a sort of outpouring of man's feeling of powerlessness in the world or of his feelings of relief and gratitude when rescued from powerlessness. In summary form, the argument goes like this:
Certain natural phenomena proved impenetrable to man's understanding and control and so he attributed them to a creator. Or, man attached to certain natural phenomena an aura of sacredness because he derived an unreliable benefit from them. Indeed, he went so far, in some cases, as to deify such phenomena. Thus it was, they say, that the river Ganges came to be held sacred by the people of India, or the Nile by the people of Egypt, and, in different ways, the cow by both. Confronted by fearful insecurity in the world, they say, man sought to secure himself by revering and appeasing what he supposed to be the source of his security or insecurity. The division, in some cultures, of this aura of sacredness between two deities, one good the other evil, led to the attribution of love and mercy to one, and of terror and punishment to the other. The argument carries on to 'explain' in a similar way the concept of hell and heaven, and eventually concludes with the observation that religion became, for the middle classes of people in society, a comforting illusion, and for the men of power in that society, and most especially for the men of religion, a means of manipulating the masses in short, 'the opiate of the people'

Does this argument have any real foundation?

It does not.

Religion is not by any means a consequence of infirmity in reason nor does it depend upon any infirmity of will.

Among the meanings of the term religion are obedience, recompense, and a way or path. These meanings are interlinked. The path is the way that leads, through obedience, to God, the All Mighty, and at the end of life man will have to render full account of his good and bad deeds, all that he did on the way. In a more technical sense, religion may be defined as 'the whole of the Divine Law as it guides any person possessed of reason to do good'. Just as the Law distinguishes a legally responsible person from one who is not, so also the demands of the religious life are addressed to a being capable of reason and not to one incapable. Religion is not there because man cannot reason or because of what he cannot understand; rather, it is there because, by God, he can reason and because of what, by God, he can understand. Further, man obeys or disobeys God by exercising his free will. Obedience is required of him, it is not imposed. The notion that religion happens simply because man desires to obtain a good harvest and to avoid a bad one, in other words simply because he has no choice, no control, in his affairs, is utterly absurd. The true religion does not negate free will. On the contrary, it most particularly points out that nature was not created to impose upon man but to benefit him and enlarge his potential, and it emphasizes that man was endowed with the ability to choose his way by exercising the freedom to do so.

Did Religions Cause All/Most Wars in History?

Do religions really cause violence? Is religion the cause of most wars?

Throughout history religion has been tied to massive tragedy and loss of life but is religion truly at fault for events like the Crusades, the Holocaust, and extremism in the Middle East? It is a very common claim that "Religions caused most of the wars in history".

Many atheists and agnostics will often cite the Crusades, 9/11, and other such conflicts to back up their claims. "Look at Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, ISIS, 911!" they say.

But are there alternative views and explanations? Perhaps religion doesn't cause as many wars as you think.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxXkMnJdwy8

 

The Encyclopedia of War proves that only seven percent of wars throughout recorded history were religious wars. What about all of the other (non-religious) ideologies, political regimes, and tyrants that have tainted human history?

Western scholars: Islam was not spread by violence and swrods.

One of the bizarre myths perpetuated about Islam is that Muslim armies forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword. Unfortunately this myth survives among Islamophobes and ignorant disbelievers to this day.

Many Western scholars have now repudiated this myth.

The historian De Lacy O’Leary wrote in “Islam At the Cross-roads”:

Gustave le Bon

He was a French Orientalist and researcher in sociology and psychology. Among his famous books is La Civilization des Arabes (The Civilization of the Arabs), one of the most fundamental books written in Europe in the modern age.

He wrote:

Absolute toleration

“With the flourishing of Arab civilization, religious toleration was absolute – a fact for which we have brought more than one indication. It would not be verbose to refer to what is translated by monsieur Dousi about one of the Arab scholars who devoted himself in Baghdad to many lessons in philosophy attended by Jews, atheists, Magians, Muslims, Christians and others. Whenever anyone of them spoke, attention would be paid to him with great respect and he would be asked to rely only on a logical rather than textual proof. Such toleration had not been attained in Europe even after suffering along one-thousand years of destructive wars, deep-rooted resentments and bloody carnages.”[2]

They have never seen its like
“The reader will see, in our discussion of the conquests of the Arabs and the causes of their victory, that force was not the main factor of the spread of the Qur’an. The Arabs left the conquered free to practice their religions. If it happened that some Christians embraced Islam and took Arabic as their language, this was due to the justice they saw from the victorious Arabs the like of which they did not see from their previous masters, in addition to the ease of Islam which they knew not before.”[3]

Religions could not be imposed by force
“It has been proven throughout history that religions cannot be imposed by force. When the Christians conquered the Arabs of Andalusia, the Arabs favored to be killed and driven out entirely rather than to leave Islam. Nevertheless, the Qur’an did not spread by the sword. On the contrary, it spread only by invitation and by invitation alone was it embraced by different peoples who later conquered the Arabs, like the Turks and Mongols.”[4]

Does Feminism Really Oppose Islam? - Dr. Sami Ameri

Do Muslims just follow their fathers' religion without thinking for themselves? Dr. Sami Ameri

Classical Islamic Arguments For The Existence Of God

by Majid Fakhry
First published in The Muslim World, 47:1957, pp. 133-145

After Wensinck’s brilliant study1, a fresh examination of the argument for the existence of God in Islam might appear impertinent. Some justification for the present discussion, however, may be found in the fact that some of the material on which this study is based was not available to Wensinck, when his monograph appeared in 1936, and in the slightly different interpretation of certain relevant data here attempted.
The systematic examination of the proofs of the existence of God should be preceded by a legitimate enquiry: Is the demonstration of God’s existence possible at all? In the Latin scholastic treatises of the Middle Ages, as for example in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) this enquiry figures as the prelude to the demonstration of God’s existence proper. Although Wensinck has discussed some aspects of the problem of knowledge (erkenntnislehre) in his celebrated Muslim Creed2, he does not touch upon this particular aspect of the problem in his monograph, except incidentally, as, for example, in connection with Al-Ghazali’s attitude to the question of God’s existence.3 But this question, it would seem, requires a fuller treatment than is accorded it in that parenthesis.

In his two little tracts; Fasl al-Maqal and al-Kashf ‘an Manahij al-Adillah, Ibn Rushd (d. 1198) raises this question in a systematic way. In the former tract, he is concerned with a wider problem: viz. Whether the philosophical method tallies with the teaching of revelation or not –- to which he replies in the affirmative. “For if the aim of philosophy,” he writes, “is nothing other than the consideration of existing things and their examination, in so far as they manifest the Creator — viz. in so far as they created objects…revelation (al-shar’) definitely enjoins the consideration of existing things and commends it”4 -– a thesis which he supports by a wealth of Qur’anic quotations. When he returns to this question at the beginning of Al-Khasf, he distinguishes between three schools of thought on the specific problem of God’s existence:

(1) The Literalist who reject rational argument altogether5 and claim that God’s existence can be known by means of authority (al-sam‘) only.6

(2) The Ash‘arites (with whom he includes the Mu‘tazilites) who admit the possibility of a rational demonstration of the existence of God from the concepts of temporality (huduth) or contingency (jawaz), as we will see later and;

(3) finally the Sufis who claim that we apprehend God directly but “whose method,” as Ibn Rushd observes, “is not speculative at all” and which, even if its validity is conceded, is not common to all men.7

Are there different versions of the Quran? The Ahruf & the Qira'aat

The recital modes (Qira'at) of The Noble Qur'an. (Dr. Haitham Talaat)

The recital modes (Qira'at) of The Noble Qur'an.
(Dr. Haitham Talaat)

(with English subtitles).

Science & Scientism! (Asadullah Ali)

Re: Umar, Sauda and revelation of the Hijab Ayah!

Some people doubt that hijab is really for women protection. They are invited to watch this video here.

The five prayers in the Noble Quran.

1- Salat Al-Fajr (Dawn Prayer):

"O you who have believed, let those whom your right hands possess and those who have not [yet] reached puberty among you ask permission of you [before entering] at three times: before the dawn prayer ...."-- an-Nur 24:58

"And establish prayer at the two ends of the day and at the approach of the night. Indeed, good deeds do away with misdeeds. That is a reminder for those who remember". -- Hud 11:114  

2- Salat Al-Dhuhr:

"Establish prayer at the decline of the sun [from its meridian] until the darkness of the night and [also] the Qur'an of dawn. Indeed, the recitation of dawn is ever witnessed. "-- 17:78

"And to Him belongs praise in the heavens and the earth, and at nightfall and when you are at midday." --30:18

3- Salat Al-Asr:

 

"Maintain with care the [obligatory] prayers and [in particular] the middle prayer and stand before Allah , devoutly obedient." 2:238

 4- Salat Al-Maghreb:

"And establish prayer at the two ends of the day and at the approach of the night. Indeed, good deeds do away with misdeeds. That is a reminder for those who remember". -- Hud 11:114  

5- Salat Al-Ishaa':

"O you who have believed, let those whom your right hands possess and those who have not [yet] reached puberty among you ask permission of you [before entering] at three times: before the dawn prayer and when you put aside your clothing [for rest] at noon and after the night (Ishaa') prayer. .." an-Nur 24:58

 

Did Uthman really burn the original Quran ?

Question:

Did Uthman really burn the original Quran ?

Answer:

Praise be to God.

1- There is nothing called original Quran. Quran is primarily preserved by mass-memorisation and transmission from generation to another.

Watch this for details:



2- Regarding the Mushaf compiled by Abu Bakr after Al-Yamamah battle; It was not burnt by Uthman. That single copy was with Abu Bakr. Then it was transferred to Umar. After the death of Umar, it was transferred to Hafsa, one of the wives of the Prophet, who was a hafiz.

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

حُذَيْفَةَ بْنَ الْيَمَانِ قَدِمَ عَلَى عُثْمَانَ وَكَانَ يُغَازِي أَهْلَ الشَّأْمِ فِي فَتْحِ إِرْمِينِيَةَ وَأَذْرَبِيجَانَ مَعَ أَهْلِ الْعِرَاقِ فَأَفْزَعَ حُذَيْفَةَ اخْتِلاَفُهُمْ فِي الْقِرَاءَةِ فَقَالَ حُذَيْفَةُ لِعُثْمَانَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَدْرِكْ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَخْتَلِفُوا فِي الْكِتَابِ اخْتِلاَفَ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى فَأَرْسَلَ عُثْمَانُ إِلَى حَفْصَةَ أَنْ أَرْسِلِي إِلَيْنَا بِالصُّحُفِ نَنْسَخُهَا فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ ثُمَّ نَرُدُّهَا إِلَيْكِ فَأَرْسَلَتْ بِهَا حَفْصَةُ إِلَى عُثْمَانَ فَأَمَرَ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ وَعَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ وَسَعِيدَ بْنَ الْعَاصِ وَعَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنَ الْحَارِثِ بْنِ هِشَامٍ فَنَسَخُوهَا فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ وَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ لِلرَّهْطِ الْقُرَشِيِّينَ الثَّلاَثَةِ إِذَا اخْتَلَفْتُمْ أَنْتُمْ وَزَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ فِي شَىْءٍ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ فَاكْتُبُوهُ بِلِسَانِ قُرَيْشٍ فَإِنَّمَا نَزَلَ بِلِسَانِهِمْ فَفَعَلُوا حَتَّى إِذَا نَسَخُوا الصُّحُفَ فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ رَدَّ عُثْمَانُ الصُّحُفَ إِلَى حَفْصَةَ وَأَرْسَلَ إِلَى كُلِّ أُفُقٍ بِمُصْحَفٍ مِمَّا نَسَخُوا وَأَمَرَ بِمَا سِوَاهُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ فِي كُلِّ صَحِيفَةٍ أَوْ مُصْحَفٍ أَنْ يُحْرَقَ‏.‏

Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to `Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before." So `Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to `Uthman. `Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, `Abdullah bin AzZubair, Sa`id bin Al-As and `AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. `Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, `Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. `Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Bukhari 4987)

And Allah knows best !

Re: Best of Hitchens on Islam ?!

Did the atheist Christopher Hitchens Rip Islam Apart ?

Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh - Surah 33:37 - Sheikh Asrar Rashid & Yasir Qadhi

Another person made the same claim and got refuted here.

Does Quran 9:31 say that Jesus Christ "Al-Masih" is God?

Question:

Does Quran 9:31 say that Jesus Christ "Al-Masih" is God ?

Answer:

Praise be to Allah,

God says in Surat Attawbah Ayah 31:

Sahih International

They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

Transliteration:

Ittakhathoo ahbarahum waruhbanahum arbaban min dooni Allahi wa almaseeha ibna maryama wama omiroo illa liyaAAbudoo ilahan wahidan la ilaha illa huwa subhanahu Aaamma mushrikoona

Anyone who knows basic Arabic will know that 'Messiah' (maseeh) in the Ayah above has a fatha at the end of it, which is indicated by 'ha' being added to the word Maseeh. This indicates that it is the accusative (maf'ool bihi) of the Ayah.

The verb in the Ayah is 'they have taken' (Ittakhathoo). Thus, the Messiah is the accusative of the verb, which means that the verse is saying that the Messiah was taken as a lord by those that also took their Rabbis and Priests as lords. 

Not only were the words of the whole Quran memorized by Muslims and mass-transmitted, but also their pronunciation, later which formed into a science in itself called Tajweed. This science meticulously elucidates how each letter is to be pronounced, as well as the word as a whole, both in context of other letters and words. Today, we can find people of all different languages able to recite the Quran as if they are Arabs themselves, living during the time of the Prophet.

Note 1:
If the Ayah means that they took their priests and rabbis as lords besides taking Allah and the Messiah as lords, then the verse would have said...  waalmaseehi ..with a 'hi' at the end just like the word 'Allah' has right before it (genitive case). However, this is not the case in the Ayah.

Note 2:
The Ayah refer to the fact that rabbis and monks were taken as lords when they prohibited what was allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed what was prohibited, and they obeyed them. Prophet Jesus, on the other hand, was added as a person in the trinity worshipped by trinitarian Christians.

Allah knows best.

Hafs vs. Douri Recitations of Quran: Mistakes or Miracles of Eloquence ?

The Quranic recitations are a well known fact that has always been accepted by Muslims since the first generation. Through out the centuries, Muslims have always been reciting the Quran in the variant recitations (Qiraat). Books have been written and lectures have been made about them.


However, many Muslims have lost touch with this important Islamic field and have begun to assume that there is only one recitation. Orientalists and enemies of Islam have used this to their advantage to sptrike doubt into the hearts of Muslims in regards to the preservation of the Quran.


Farid responds to one of these attacks by showing that these recitation are actually not mistakes, complement one another, add greatly to the eloquence of the Quran, and are therefore, a miracle from Allah the Almighty.

What if there are "missing words" in a quranic manuscript ?!

Farid gives a glimpse of Daniel Alan Brubakers pathetic book "Corrections in Early Qur'an Manuscripts" which is being perpetuated by some disbelievers who have no idea that Quran is mainly transmitted orally.

"Everything is dependent on God". By Hamza Andreas

Why is Allah Testing us so Hard with The COVID-19 ?

Mohammed Hijab responds to Ricky Gervais on Atheism

Prophet Muhammad's revelations, bells and Satan ?! Muslim 2114 (24, 5279) - Bukhari, (1, 1, Num. 2) & (4, 54, 438) Muslim 2333 b (30, 5765)

Question: 

How do Muslims understand these hadiths ?

1.    "The bell is one of the musical instruments of Satan."

2.    Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?" Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says." 'Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet (ﷺ) being inspired divinely on a very cold day and noticed the sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over).

Answer :

Praise be to Allah,

The first Hadith:

‏"الجرس مزامير الشيطان‏"‏‏

"The bell is the 'Mazameer' of the Satan."

As for the hadith “The bell is the flutes/Psalms of the Satan”, it is reported by Imam Muslim in the Chapter of “the disapproval of setting out on a journey along with a dog and bells”. There is another narration of the same hadith that reads, “Angels (of mercy) don’t accompany people who set out on a journey along with a dog or bell”.

The hadith is clearly a metaphor. Bells are neither flutes nor Psalms.

In his book, an-Nihayyah, Ibn al-Athir says, 

"الجُلْجُل الَّذِي يُعلَّق عَلَى الدَّوابّ، قِيلَ إِنَّمَا كَرِهَه لِأَنَّهُ يَدُلُّ عَلَى أَصْحَابِهِ بِصَوْته. وَكَانَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ يحبُّ أَنْ لَا يَعْلم الْعَدُوُّ بِهِ حَتَّى يَأْتِيَهُمْ فَجْأَةً"

“Bells were hanged on camels and other riding animals. Bells were then disliked (by the Prophet) as they make voices through which enemies would know about the coming of the Muslim army."

In his explanation of the above hadith, the great Imam an-Nawawi says, 

"أما فقه الحديث ففيه كراهة استصحاب الكلب والجرس في الأسفار ، وأن الملائكة لا تصحب رفقة فيها أحدهما ، والمراد بالملائكة ملائكة الرحمة والاستغفار ، لا الحفظة ... وأما الجرس فقيل : سبب منافرة الملائكة له أنه شبيه بالنواقيس ، أو لأنه من المعاليق المنهي عنها ، وقيل : سببه كراهة صوتها ، وتؤيده رواية ( مزامير الشيطان)"

“The hadith indicates the abhorrence of setting out on a journey along with a dog or bell. Angels don’t accompany people who have a dog or bell; “Angels” here refers to angels of mercy and seeking Allah’s forgiveness (for people). It is said that angels dislike bells for they are similar to the bells of Christians or they are hanged out of belief in their own protection against evils, which is forbidden, such as amulets or the dislike of their sound and this's supported by the other narration "the flutes/Psalms of the Satan”." 

From the above, we can conclude that the hadith is a reference to the early Arab practice of using the bell as a sign of good luck when tied on camel (Pagan superstition but later caused problem for early Muslims; so described here as Satan's handiwork) or to the physical musical instruments; by which Satan can lead people's hearts astray from the remembrance of God either by immersion in the melody or by promoting polytheism (Christians' bells). Moreover, the music, especially nowadays, takes us away from reality and paves the way to debauchery. We may repeat meaningless and shameless lyrics without thinking twice.

The second Hadith:

Revelation:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes off after I have grasped what is inspired."

Here, a bell is not meant literally. No one is actually ringing a physical bell. It's a figure of speech. 

The concept is that the revelation was very powerful and hard upon him and it has. 

Narrated 'Aisha: (the mother of the faithful believers) Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah's Messenger "O Allah's Messenger! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?" Allah's Messenger replied, "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says." 

  قَالَتْ عائشة رضي الله عنها: فَلَقَدْ رَأَيْتُهُ يَنْزِلُ عَلَيْهِ الْوَحْيُ فِي الْيَوْمِ الشَّدِيدِ الْبَرْدِ فَيَفْصِمُ عَنْهُ، وَإِنَّ جبينه صلى الله عليه وسلم ليتفصد عرقاً"

'Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired divinely on a very cold day and noticed the sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over). (Sahih Al-Bukhari)

Even the weight of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would increase during the revelation. His camel would sink down. Once the leg of Prophet,peace and blessings be upon him, was on the leg of another Sahabi" Zaid bin Thabit"; He says that when the revelation came, he felt that his leg would be broken under effect of the increased weight of the Prophet Muhammad SAW.

How can this hadith be understood in the light of the first hadith ?

Ibn Hajar said in his explanation of the Hadith, in Fath Al Bari:

فكيف يشبه ما فعله الملك بأمر تنفر منه الملائكة والجواب أنه لا يلزم في التشبيه تساوي المشبه بالمشبه به في الصفات كلها بل ولا في أخص وصف له بل يكفي اشتراكهما في صفة ما و المقصود هنا بيان الحس فذكر ما ألف السامعون سماعه تقريبا لأفهامهم والحاصل أن الصوت له جهتان جهة قوة وجهة طنين فمن حيث القوة وقع التشبيه به ومن حيث الطرب وقع التنفير عنه

"It is not required for a "simile" (Analogy/figure of speech) that the compared items should be exactly similar in all aspects, not even in the most specific characteristic. Rather, it's enough to share one common quality.  Here, he mentioned a sound known to the audience to help them to understand his feelings;

The ringing sound has two qualities: the strength, and the tinkling. The  comparison was drawn regarding the strength and the prohibition (in the other reports) was meant for the musical quality."

Here, he refers by "the strength" to the fact that the sound of the angel and the bell's ringing deafens the listener to everything else.

That's why it was described in the other hadith as "the buzz of the bees".

قال عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ، رضى الله عنه : كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم إِذَا نَزَلَ عَلَيْهِ الْوَحْىُ سُمِعَ عِنْدَ وَجْهِهِ كَدَوِيِّ النَّحْلِ.

"When revelation came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), one could hear what sounds like the buzz of bees before his face." (Tirmidhi Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3173)

So, the revelation would take over all the Prophet's, peace and blessings be upon him, senses. Interestingly, the "tinnitus" has been described as "ringing" or "buzzing", but no one understand that there are actual bells or bees inside the ears of the patients !

Allah knows best !