The Mercy in Islamic Sacrifices: A Scientific and Rational Response to Islamophobes

Some Islamophobes say:
"Be compassionate to animals, as they are beings like you who feel exactly as you feel, and it is not your right to slaughter them!!"

The scientific and rational response, God willing👇

With the arrival of each Eid al-Adha, we hear the cries and objections of some of those who fight any Islamic ritual. The objection to the sacrifices has two aspects:

The first aspect: Slaughtering sacrifices contradicts mercy ?!

Answer:

Firstly, the world and history have never witnessed a religion with mercy like the mercy in Islam. There are many pieces of evidence for this, which we will not list here, but one example of compassion towards animals during slaughter is the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him):

Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "Verily Allah has prescribed Ihsan (kindness) for everything. So when you kill, you must make the killing in the best manner; when you slaughter, make your slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife and give ease to his animal (in order to reduce his pain)."

“إن الله كتب الإحسان على كل شئ، فإذا قتلتم فأحسنوا القتلة وإذا ذبحتم فأحسنوا الذبحة، وليحد أحدكم شفرته وليرح ذبيحته” ‏(‏‏(‏رواه مسلم‏)‏‏)‏‏.‏

If you search left and right, you will not find ethics in slaughtering animals like the ethics established by Islam.

Secondly, we draw closer to Allah Almighty with this ritual, and it benefits the poor and needy. It would be more appropriate for you to direct your cries to those who enjoy and indulge in bullfighting, torturing rabbits that fall under cosmetic experiments, or those who make large holes in the bellies of cows from the outside to increase their weight.

Thirdly, why do you eat plants when they are living beings? Doesn't this act also harm plants?!
They are also living beings that feel and suffer, so when you chew cucumber or peas, your body should feel the pain of what you are chewing.

Fourthly, it would be more appropriate for you to refrain from buying insecticides because if mosquitoes and flies enter your homes, you will not be at ease unless you spray these weak, poor creatures as if they are not living beings. Perhaps if a mosquito lands on someone's hand, they would slap it hard. So why this double standard?

Fifthly, the slaughtering of sacrifices helps maintain ecological balance and stability. All living creatures on the Earth's surface share existence, and every type of living being must have a chance to live to the extent that life stabilizes. For example, if there were no animals to prey on deer, their numbers would increase to the point where they could not find food or drink, and the same goes for insects and birds. In light of this, environmental and genetic scientist John William Klunzinger said that when the first settlers migrated to Australia, there were no mammals except for the dingo (wild dog). Settlers were used to rabbit hunting in Europe, so one of them imported about 12 pairs of rabbits and released them there in 1859. Since there were no animal enemies to prey on the rabbits, their numbers increased astonishingly, and the result was disastrous. They destroyed the grass and pastures on which the sheep grazed. Many attempts were made to control the rabbits, and fences were built across the continent, extending 7,000 miles. However, it was proven that they were useless, as the rabbits managed to overcome them. Then, a type of poisonous bait was used, but this attempt also failed. It was not until recent years that a solution was found by using a specific virus that causes a deadly disease in these rabbits, called myxomatosis. This led to a significant decrease in the number of rabbits, and barren wilderness areas turned into lush green areas. Slaughtering some animals that Allah has made permissible helps balance life and the environment, while leaving them would corrupt the world.

-----

The second aspect:

 (Objecting to sacrifices and claiming that donating their money is more beneficial!!!).

This is absurd.

Where is the contradiction between establishing God's law and giving charity?
The religion that made slaughtering sacrifices a ritual and a means of drawing closer to Allah is the same religion that imposed Zakat. In fact, we are the only religion with a large number of Zakat categories, Zakat on everything (Zakat al-Fitr, Zakat on gold and silver, Zakat on wealth, crops, trade, camels, cattle, etc.).
If Zakat were applied correctly, we would not find a poor person in Muslim countries.

It would be more appropriate for those who object to sacrifices and claim that donating their money is more beneficial to refrain from buying the latest cars and mobile phones, not to own the most expensive houses, and to be content with buying simple things that serve their purpose and save money for the poor. At least, buying the latest iPhone and Mercedes models is not a priority.

Similarly, they should refrain from going on vacations, buying villas and chalets that they visit for a few days a year, and save their money for the poor and needy, who are more deserving.

Also, they should refrain from going to theaters, cinemas, and concerts so that the poor can benefit from the price of those tickets. And they should avoid other distractions that have no benefit or can be dispensed with.

If they say that they donate and still buy things that provide them comfort, we tell them that we also sacrifice to draw closer to Allah and donate as well, so there is no contradiction.

However, they will not do so, and their primary goal will remain to fight all Islamic laws, but it is in vain.

From the book "One Hundred Doubts about Islam" by the author Mohammed Sayed Saleh.

 

Pastor tells Christians "DON'T PRAY LIKE THE MUSLIMS"

 

Meme Debunked: There’s 3000 Gods But Only Yours Is Real?

 

The popularity of some memes tend to fluctuate for some reason or another. One meme which has become popular again with internet atheists recently has Ricky Gervais saying:

There have been nearly 3000 Gods so far but only yours actually exists. The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real.

Interacting with this meme is a bit difficult because it’s not really making a claim. The best I can do at this point is give different interpretations of what it’s trying to say in the form of a question or claim and respond to those. Here are some possible interpretations:

1. “Why do you believe your god exists but others don’t?”
2. “What is the probability that your god exists when all these countless others, don’t?”
3. “Did you disprove all the other gods in order to come to the conclusion that yours exists?”
4. “If you applied the same methods you used to disprove other gods to yours, then you wouldn’t believe in a god.”
5. “You’re an atheist regarding the existence of all those other gods, right? Well, I just go step further and say the same regarding the god you believe in.”

“Why do you believe your god exists but not the others?”

Because there is good evidence justifying the belief that God exists. A lot of the time, atheists try to place God, who is an immaterial and necessary being, in the same category with Harry Potter, the Flying Spaghetti monster, or Zeus. This is a fundamental error. Regarding the first two examples, see:

Refuting Fallacious comparisons of God to Harry Potter, Santa Claus and other Fictional Characters.

As for Zeus or Thor (whom I’m pretty sure Ricky had in mind when he said this) both are competing explanations for thunder or lightening people gave in the past. They aren’t an immaterial necessarily existent deity with the power to create from nothing and bring about the existence of the universe, for example. To see arguments (which are evidence, though not scientific evidence) for the existence of God see:

Divine Link: Dependency and God’s Existence

Divine Certainty: A Qur’anic and Philosophical Argument for God

“What is the probability that your god exists when all these countless others, don’t?”

The probability of existence is incredibly high (I am quite certain) and this is due to the evidence we have. If it’s being argued that the nonexistence of countless alleged deities like Zeus or Thor somehow makes God less likely to exist, than that is fallacious. It would be similar to saying that 2+2 doesn’t equal 4 since all other answers to the question are false. 2+2 not being 3 has no effect on the probability of it being 4.

“Did you disprove all the other gods in order to come to the conclusion that yours exists?”

I don’t need to disprove all the other gods in order to come such a conclusion. All I need to do is prove God exists. If God exists, then Zeus, Thor, or whatever have you, can’t exist.

“If you applied the same methods you used to disprove other gods to yours, then you wouldn’t believe in a god.”

But I do apply the same methods. Where are the valid and sound arguments for Zeus, Thor, etc?

“You’re an atheist regarding the existence of all those other gods, right? Well, I just go step further and say the same regarding the god you believe in.”

This question is based on a misunderstanding of how language works. There aren't degrees of theism, its binary, this is to say that you either are one, or aren't. For example, it would be irrational for someone to say that they are a vegetarian when it comes to eating cows (even though they eat lamb) or an anarchist when it comes republics (even though they advocate for a direct democracy). The point of this misuse of language is to make atheism sound less radical than it really is.

As it stands, I've shared 5 possible interpretations of what the meme might be trying to argue. If I think of another or come across something else trying to explain it in the best way possible, I’ll add it then respond to it as well.

Source

Prophet Muhammad's cousins "Abu Sufyan Ibn al Harith" & "Abdullah bin Abi Umayyah" embraced Islam after insults & disbelief

Abu Sufyan Ibn al Harith was the cousin of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his brother in breast-milk; he used to like the Prophet ﷺ before Islam, but once he ﷺ received revelation, Abu Sufyan expressed enmity towards the Prophet ﷺ and composed poetry to defame him.

Thus, Hassaan Ibn Thabet asked for permission to answer back. 

Then Abu Sufyan embraced Islam in the year of the conquest of Makkah:
At the year of the conquest of Makkah, Abu Sufyan bin Al-Harith, his son and Abdullah bin Abi Umayyah bin Al-Mughirah, his cousin and son-in-law met the Messenger of Allah ﷺ at Al-Abwa’ and they sought to enter to him, but they were not given permission, so Umm Salamah spoke to him about them, and she said,

“Oh, Messenger of God, your cousins and your son-in-law are not the most wretched of people with you.” (she wants him to forgive their enmity and insults)

He ﷺ said,

“I have no need for them. As for my cousin, he insulted my honor. As for my cousin and son-in-law, he is the one who said in Mecca what he said”

فَقَالَ: لَا حَاجَةَ لِي فِيهِمَا، أَمَّا ابْنُ عَمِّي فَهَتَكَ عِرْضِي، وَأَمَّا ابْنُ عَمَّتِي وَصِهْرِي فَهُوَ الَّذِي، قَالَ لِي بِمَكَّةَ مَا قَالَ . 

He referred to the fact that Abu Sufyan used to frequently annoy the Messenger of God and slander him by his poets, even though before the prophetic mission he was from the most beloved of people to him. Hassaan bin Thabit then asked the permission of the Prophet (ﷺ) to respond and lampoon (i.e. compose satirical poetry defaming) the Abu Sufyan and infidels. Aisha said: he, Hassaan, used to defend the Prophet (with his poetry) (Bukhari 3531 - Muslim 2489a)

Abdullah bin Abi Umayyah, was the one who asked the prophet earlier in Mecca to punish them or do extraordinary miracles to believe. 

Ibn Qayyim's argument against atheism and the necessity of Allah's existence in his "Miftaah Daar al-Sa'aadah"

 

 

 

 

Here page 63:

 

 

فمن ذا الذي تولى ذلك كله وأحكمه ودبره وقدره أحسن تقدير ؟! 

وكأني بك أيها المسكين تقول "هذا كله من فعل الطبيعة وفي الطبيعة عجائب وأسرار"

 فلو أراد الله أن يهديك لسألت نفسك بنفسك وقلت "أخبريني عن هذه الطبيعة أهي ذات قائمة بنفسها لها علم وقدرة على هذه الأفعال العجيبة أم ليست كذلك بل عرض وصفة قائمة بالمطبوع تابعة له محمولة فيه؟"

 فإن قالت لك "بل هي ذات قائمة بنفسها لها العلم التام والقدرة والإرادة والحكمة" فقل لها 

"هذا هو الخالق البارئ المصور فلم تسمينه طبيعية ويا لله من ذكر الطبائع ومن يرغب فيها فهلا سميته بما سمى به نفسه على ألسن رسله ودخلت في جملة العقلاء والسعداء فإن هذا الذي وصفت به الطبيعة صفته تعالى"

 

 وإن قالت تلك "بل الطبيعة عرض محمول مفتقر الى حامل وهذا كله فعلها بغير علم منها ولا إرادة ولا قدرة ولا شعور أصلا وقد شوهد من آثارها ما شوهد" فقل لها

 "هذا مالا يصدقه ذو عقل سليم كيف تصدر هذه الأفعال العجيبة والحكم الدقيقة التي تعجز عقول العقلاء عن معرفتها وعن القدرة عليها ممن لا عقل له ولا قدرة ولا حكمة ولا شعور وهل التصديق بمثل هذا إلا دخول في سلك المجانين والمبرسمين؟" ثم قل لها بعد "ولو ثبت لك ما ادعيت فمعلوم أن مثل هذه الصفة ليست بخالقة لنفسها ولا مبدعة لذاتها فمن ربها ومبدعها وخالقها ومن طبعها وجعلها تفعل ذلك فهي إذا من أدل الدلائل على بارئها وفاطرها وكمال قدرته وعلمه وحكمته فلم يجد عليك تعطيلك رب العالم وجحدك لصفاته وأفعاله إلا مخالفتك العقل والفطرة ولو حاكمناك الى الطبيعة لرأيناك انك خارج عن موجبها فلا أنت مع موجب العقل ولا الفطرة ولا الطبيعة ولا الإنسانية أصلا وكفى بذلك جهلا وضلالا "

فإن رجعت إلى العقل وقلت لا يوجد حكمة إلا من حكيم قادر عليم ولا تدبيرمتقن إلا من صانع قادر مختار مدبر عليم بما يريد قادر عليه لا يعجزه ولا يؤؤده قيل لك فإذا أقررت - ويحك- بالخلاق العظيم الذي لا إله غيره ولا رب سواه فدع تسميته طبيعة أوعقلا فعالا او موجبا بذاته وقل هذا هو الله الخالق البارئ المصور رب العالمين وقيوم السموات والأرضين ورب المشارق والمغارب الذي أحسن كل شيء خلقه وأتقن ما صنع فمالك جحدت أسماءه وصفاته وذاته أضفت صنيعه الى غيره وخلقه الى سواه مع أنك مضطر الى الإقرار به إضافة الابداع والخلق والربوبية والتدبير إليه ولا بد والحمد لله رب العالمين

على أنك لو تأملت قولك طبيعة ومعنى هذه اللفظة لدلك على الخالق الباريء لفظها كما دل العقول عليه معناها لأن طبيعة فعيلة بمعنى مفعولة أي مطبوعة ولا يحتمل غيرهذا البتة لأنها على بناء الغرائز التي ركبت في الجسم ووضعت فيه كالسجية والغريزة والبحيرة والسليقة والطبيعة فهي التي طبع عليها الحيوان وطبعت فيه ومعلوم ان طبيعة من غير طابع لها محال فقد دل لفظ الطبيعة على البارئ تعالى كما دل معناها عليه والمسلمون يقولون إن الطبيعة خلق من خلق الله مسخر مربوب وهي سنته في خليقته التي أجراها عليه ثم إنه يتصرف فيها كيف شاء وكما شاء فيسلبها تأثيرها إذا اراد ويقلب تأثيرها إلى ضده إذا شاء ليرى عباده أنه وحده الخالق البارئ المصور وأنه يخلق ما يشاء كما يشاء وإِنَّمَا أَمْرُهُ إِذَا أَرَادَ شَيْئًا أَن يَقُولَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ وإن الطبيعة التي انتهى نظر الخفافيش اليها إنما هي خلق من خلقه بمنزلة سائر ملخوقاته فكيف يحسن بمن له حظ من إنسانية أوعقل أن ينسى من طبعها وخلقها ويحيل الصنع والابداع عليها ولم يزل الله سبحانه يسلبها قوتها ويحيلها ويقلبها الى ضد ما جعلت له حتى يرى عباده أنها خلقه وصنعه مسخرة بأمره أَلَا لَهُ الْخَلْقُ وَالْأَمْرُ ۗ تَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ
فصل
فأعد النظر في نفسك وتأمل حكمة اللطيف الخبير في تركيب البدن

Re: Umdah al-Ahkam:Vol.3, Hadith no.460 ?!

Question: Is this a hadith? Is it authentic?

Narrated by Anas Ibn Malik "I heard from the Apostle of Allah (Peace and blessing be upon him) that he said "Allah was satan in the form of an angel that revealed to me the verses and his book the Quran and I' am his prophet.(Umdah al-Ahkam:Vol.3,Hadith no.460)

رواه أنس ابن مالك "سمعت من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه" كان الله شيطان في شكل ملاك كشف لي الآيات وكتابه القرآن وأنا نبي .

Answer:

Praise be to God.
There is no such a hadith in any book. It's a fabrication of desperate missionaries to deceive Muslims.
Umdat Al Ahkam itself in one volume and Hadith no.460 is shown below:

Umdah al-Ahkam:Hadith no.460

 

(The book can be found here)

Here is the  translation of  the Hadith no.460:

وَفِي رِوَايَةٍ: ((لا يَقْضِيَنَّ حَكِمٌ بَيْنَ اثْنَيْنِ وَهُوَ غَضْبَانُ)) .

and in another version "No judge must give judgment between two people when he is angry.” 

 That's the real hadith and it has nothing to do with the fabrication of missionaries.

And Allah knows best.

Re: Why did prophet Muhammad ﷺ sell the Mudabbar slave in Bukhari 6716, 2141 & 6947 ?

The life of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is filled with lessons that guide Muslims in every aspect of their lives: spiritual, social, and financial. One such lesson comes from Hadith 2415  in Sahih al-Bukhari , where the Prophet (ﷺ) intervened in a situation involving a slave. This incident sheds light on Islamic principles of justice, compassion, and financial responsibility.
 

The Story Behind Hadith

A man from the Ansar declared his slave as Mudabbar , meaning the slave would be freed upon the master’s death. However, this man had no other property or wealth besides the slave. When the Prophet (ﷺ) learned about this situation, he took action.

Instead of allowing the man to proceed with the Mudabbar arrangement, the Prophet (ﷺ) canceled the manumission and sold the slave. Nu'aim bin Al-Nahham  purchased the slave for 800 dirhams . The money was then given to the man, who used it to pay off his debts and support his family.

 

Key Details from Other Narrations 

    Bulugh al-Maram :   
        The man became needy, prompting the Prophet (ﷺ) to sell the slave.
        In another version, the man had a debt, so the Prophet (ﷺ) sold the slave and instructed him:
        "Pay off your debt and spend on your dependents."
         

    Nasa'i :   
        The man owed a debt, and the Prophet (ﷺ) ensured the proceeds from the sale were used to settle it.
         
     

------------------ 

 

Hadith 2415 (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Sahih al-Bukhari » Khusoomaat - كتاب الخصومات » Hadith 2415

A man manumitted a slave and he had no other property than that, so the Prophet (ﷺ) canceled the manumission (and sold the slave for him). Nu'aim bin Al-Nahham bought the slave from him.

 

Bukhari » Expiation for Unfulfilled Oaths - كتاب كفارات الأيمان » Hadith 6716

USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 9, Book 85, Hadith 80

Bukhari » (Statements made under) Coercion - كتاب الإكراه » Hadith 6947

USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 8, Book 79, Hadith 707

Narrated `Amr:Jabir said: 

An Ansari man made his slave a Mudabbar and he had no other property than him. When the Prophet (ﷺ) heard of that, he said (to his companions), "Who wants to buy him (i.e., the slave) for me?" Nu'aim bin An-Nahham bought him for eight hundred Dirhams. I heard Jabir saying, "That was a coptic slave who died in the same year."

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو النُّعْمَانِ، أَخْبَرَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ جَابِرٍ، أَنَّ رَجُلاً، مِنَ الأَنْصَارِ دَبَّرَ مَمْلُوكًا لَهُ، وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ مَالٌ غَيْرُهُ فَبَلَغَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ ‏ "‏ مَنْ يَشْتَرِيهِ مِنِّي ‏"‏‏.‏ فَاشْتَرَاهُ نُعَيْمُ بْنُ النَّحَّامِ بِثَمَانِمِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ، فَسَمِعْتُ جَابِرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ يَقُولُ عَبْدًا قِبْطِيًّا مَاتَ عَامَ أَوَّلَ‏.‏

 

To understand this hadith, we must read other versions to get the whole story:

Bulugh al-Maram » Emancipation كتاب العتق » Hadith

Jabir bin ·Abdullah (RAA) narrated that:

A man from the Ansar declared that his slave lad would be free after his death (would be Mudabbar), yet he had no other property. When the Prophet heard of that he said, “Who will buy him from me?” And Nu'aim bin 'Abdullah bought him for eight hundred Dirhams. Agreed upon. In a narration by Al-Bukhari:

“The man became needy,’ (so the Prophet took the slave and said...).’ A version by An-Nasa’i says, “The man had a debt, so the Prophet sold the slave for eight hundred Dirhams and gave him the money and said, “Pay off your debt.”

 
عَنْ جَابِرٍ ‏- رضى الله عنه ‏- { أَنَّ رَجُلًا مِنْ اَلْأَنْصَارِ أَعْتَقَ غُلَامًا لَهُ عَنْ دُبُرٍ, لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ مَالٌ غَيْرُهُ, فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ اَلنَّبِيَّ ‏- صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏-.‏ فَقَالَ: "مَنْ يَشْتَرِيهِ مِنِّي?" فَاشْتَرَاهُ نُعَيْمُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ بِثَمَانِمَائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ } مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْه ِ
‏ .‏ وَفِي لَفْظٍ لِلْبُخَارِيِّ: فَاحْتَاج َ وَفِي رِوَايَةٍ لِلنَّسَائِيِّ: { وَكَانَ عَلَيْهِ دَيْنٌ, فَبَاعَهُ بِثَمَانِمَائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ, فَأَعْطَاهُ وَقَالَ: " اِقْضِ دَيْنَكَ" }.‏

 

Nasa'i : The Book of the Etiquette of Judges - كتاب آداب القضاة: 49, Hadith: 5418 

 English translation : Vol. 6, Book 49, Hadith 5420

It was narrated that Jabir bin 'Abdullah said:

"A man among the Ansar stated that his salve was to be set free after he died; he was in need, and he owed a debt. The Messenger of Allah [SAW] sold him (the slave) for eight hundred Dirhams, and he gave (the money) to him and said: 'Pay off your debt and spend on your dependents.'"

أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الأَعْلَى بْنُ وَاصِلِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الأَعْلَى، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَاضِرُ بْنُ الْمُوَرِّعِ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا الأَعْمَشُ، عَنْ سَلَمَةَ بْنِ كُهَيْلٍ، عَنْ عَطَاءٍ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ أَعْتَقَ رَجُلٌ مِنَ الأَنْصَارِ غُلاَمًا لَهُ عَنْ دُبُرٍ وَكَانَ مُحْتَاجًا وَكَانَ عَلَيْهِ دَيْنٌ فَبَاعَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِثَمَانِمِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ فَأَعْطَاهُ فَقَالَ ‏ "‏ اقْضِ دَيْنَكَ وَأَنْفِقْ عَلَى عِيَالِكَ ‏"‏ ‏.‏

-------------

These details clarify that the Prophet’s decision was not arbitrary but rooted in addressing the man’s financial struggles and ensuring fairness. While freeing slaves is a noble act, it must align with practical realities. The Prophet (ﷺ) provided a solution that addressed the root cause of the man’s hardship rather than allowing a symbolic gesture to exacerbate his difficulties. As a leader, the Prophet (ﷺ) acted decisively to resolve the issue. He took proactive steps to address societal challenges. 

 

Allah knows best!