Me complace presentarles un proyecto al que he dedicado mucho esfuerzo y amor: Tafsir.es. Esta plataforma es un recurso único para aquellos interesados en profundizar su comprensión del Corán en nuestro idioma, el español.
¿Qué es Tafsir.es?
Tafsir.es ofrece audios explicativos de las diferentes suras del Corán, basados en las interpretaciones del respetado Prof. Nouman Ali Khan. Mi objetivo ha sido traducir fielmente su Tafsir del inglés al español, manteniendo la esencia y el mensaje original de sus enseñanzas.
¿Por Qué Tafsir.es?
Fidelidad al Mensaje Original: Me he esforzado por asegurar que cada traducción refleje con precisión el significado y la intención de las palabras del Prof. Khan.
Accesibilidad en Español: Reconociendo la barrera del idioma, Tafsir.es sirve como un puente para los hispanohablantes, facilitando el acceso a las enseñanzas del Corán en nuestro idioma.
Recursos Adicionales: Además de los audios, tenemos un canal de YouTube, Tafsir Corán Español, donde ampliamos los recursos disponibles.
Invitación a Explorar
Los invito cordialmente a visitar Tafsir.es y a sumergirse en la belleza y profundidad del Corán en español. Ya sea para crecimiento personal, estudio académico o fortalecimiento de la fe, espero que esta plataforma sea una fuente de luz y conocimiento para todos.
Por favor, siéntanse libres de explorar, comentar y compartir sus pensamientos y experiencias. Estoy aquí también para responder cualquier pregunta y para interactuar con todos ustedes.
Jazakum Allahu Khayran por su tiempo y apoyo.

We often get to hear that the Quran just copies Biblical stories and thus it is not an original work. I was reading the Book of Exodus and comparing it with the story of Musa (AS) in the Quran. Masha Allah! It only increased my love for the Quran. It only increased my faith that Quran is the Word of God. However, this doesn't mean that there is nothing to learn from the Bible. I could see very clearly why the Bible was meant for a particular time and why it is that the Quran is universal.
Sharing some oberservations below. Not all of them are my own, a lot of credit to goes to Dr Khaled Abou el Fadl's tafsir (Project Illumine).

1. In the Exodus, when Musa (AS) kills the Egyptian man in a fit of rage, he hides the corpse and then flees later. As if it was okay since all Egyptians are oppresive (collective guilt theory endorsed). In contrast, the Quran spends a considerable time in showing how remorseful Musa (AS) was. He asks for Allah's forgiveness because he knew it was murder, even if the victim was from the other side. He even admits his guilt in front of the Pharaoh during their confrontation.
   
2. When the Israelites leave for the Desert, they take gold and jewels from their Egyptian neighbors. The Bible endorses it as a rightful thing to do. But the Quran chastises the Israelites for it. Here again the Quran endorses the maxim: two wrongs don't make one right.
   
3. The Biblical language is more tribal in nature. The narrative is Israelites vs Egyptians. Either or. But the Quran makes it clear that the Pharaoh is punsihed for his wrongdoings and it would be the fate of Israelites too if they become ingrates.
   
4. Important oberservation by Dr Khaled Abou el Fadl in his tafsir of Surah Baqarah:
   

This surah is said to be the first Medinan surah. One of the many problems the Prophet (SAW) was dealing at the time was the rejection from the Jews. The Jews were adamant that the Prophet had to be one of them because they were the Chosen People. The Quran doesn't make the argument that Muhammad (SAW) is a descendant of Ishmael and thus qualifies for Prophetphood. Rather, the Quran rejects the idea of 'choseness based on race/descent' all together. The surah makes it clear that Allah created man for the purpose of acting as his vicegerent on earth. The more a person/community acts like it, the more it is a deserving claimant of being a chosen people. Interestingly, this is what the great Jewish scholar Maimonides took from Islamic sources and enriched his tradition with this reinvention of the idea of chosenness. Unfortunately, Muslims hardly took this idea seriously. We would worship our golden calves.

1. Another major difference is that the Biblical narrative is more in the 'clash of clans' style. But the Quran's focus is on the state of a person's heart and it's consequences on one's action. This is one of the reasons why so many historical details are allegedly missing from the Quran. It is not for us to try to fill up those details with hadiths or our own preconceived notions. The Quran separates for us the wheat from the chaff.

I know I should have posted the relevant verses from both the Exodus and the Quran to prove my point. Just posting the first draft as of now. I will do the editing and citations later, In Shaa Allah.
The Quran is such a gift from Allah to us. May He make us of those who never abandon the Quran...

The Combo we needed.
​
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P7ODDzrq_o

Article by Dr. Salah Abdulfattah al-Khalidi
There are a number of verses in Surat al-Maida that forbid referring judgement to other than Allah's shari'a and ruling by other than His shari'a. According to these verses, to judge other than Allah's shari'ah and to rule with other than His religion is kufr, zulm and fisq, and those who accept these laws and make laws accordingly are called disbelievers, oppressors and fasiqeen.
We will start (our article) by quoting the verses first, then we will mention how some people misunderstood these verses and how they distorted the meaning and concept, and as a result, we will convey the correct interpretation of the verse and support it with the opinions of the Companions, Tabi'in and previous scholars.
Our Lord says:

“Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light, by which the prophets, who submitted themselves to Allah, made judgments for Jews. So too did the rabbis and scholars judge according to Allah’s Book, with which they were entrusted and of which they were made keepers. So do not fear the people; fear Me! Nor trade my revelations for a fleeting gain. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the disbelievers.”
“We ordained for them in the Torah, “A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth—and for wounds equal retaliation.” But whoever waives it charitably, it will be atonement for them. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the wrongdoers.”
“Then in the footsteps of the prophets, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. And We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light and confirming what was revealed in the Torah—a guide and a lesson to the God-fearing.”
“So let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the rebellious.”
(O Muhammad!) We have sent down to you the Book (Qur'an) with truth, confirming the books before you, and guarding them. So judge between them by what Allah has sent down, and do not follow their desires by deviating from the truth that has come to you. We have set a law and a way for each of you. Had Allah willed, He would certainly have made you one nation. But He has divided you into nations to test you in what He has given you. If so, compete in good deeds. Your return is to Allah. Then He will let you know what you have been in dispute about.
Judge between them by what Allah has revealed. Do not follow their desires and beware that they mislead you with some of what Allah has revealed to you. If they turn away, know that Allah wants to afflict them with some calamity because of some of their sins. Many of the people have certainly gone astray.
Do they still want the judgment of the age of ignorance? But whose judgment is better than Allah's for a people who firmly believe? (Al-Maidah/44-50)

In order to be able to experience the atmosphere, to know the context in which the phrase is mentioned and we will talk about, these three qualities; that is, we have quoted all of the verses in which the attribute "disbeliever, zalimun and fasiqun" is mentioned. Because we believe that it is necessary to know the general context in which the phrase is mentioned and to evaluate the ratio within the framework of other texts. For this reason, whoever neglects this will not be able to put forward a correct understanding.
Some contemporary Islamists pondered both on these verses and on the verses' descriptions of those who do not judge and do not judge the shari'ah of Allah, and those who make laws and laws that do not rule by what Allah has revealed, and which are not permitted by Allah, and import these laws from disbelievers. They claimed that "These verses do not mention today's rulers, and the descriptions mentioned in the verses do not fit them."
Their claim is as follows: "These verses and the adjectives mentioned in these verses only refer to some tribes and members of religions before Islam. These verses refer to Jews and Christians!”
Their evidence at this point is; The words in the verse are talking about Jews and Christians.
In the first verse, "Surely, we have sent down the Torah. There is guidance and light in it. The prophets who surrendered (to Allah) used to judge the Jews with him. Those who devoted themselves to the Lord and scholars also judged accordingly. Because they were assigned to protect the book of Allah. Here, the verse is about the Torah and ruling with it. The Torah has come for the Jews. Allah (SWT) demanded that those who devote themselves to the Lord and scholars should judge according to what He had revealed. If they don't, then they are the disbelievers. For this reason, the verse ends with the description "Whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers".
Second verse at hand; This verse mentions some rulings in the Torah about qisas and ends with a general description of scholars who do not rule with it, saying, "Whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, they are the wrongdoers".
As for the last verse, which describes those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed as "fasiq", this verse no doubt refers to Christians and asks them to rule with the Bible. They are the fasiqeen themselves," according to the verse.
These three qualities mentioned in the verses; that is, the qualification "disbeliever, zalim and fasiq", according to them, is directed only to Jews and Christians and only covers them. Why do contemporary Muslims generalise this ruling? And why do they attribute this to modern rulers who do not rule by what Allah has revealed?
These people, who hold some official duties alongside the rulers who do not rule by what Allah has revealed, are attempting to misrepresent other Muslims who take the general meaning of the verse.
Some of them also assign the word "disbeliever" in the verse to Jews who do not rule only with the Torah, and the word "zalim" to Christians who do not rule only with the Bible, by sharing the attribute of "kafirun, zalimun and fasiqun" in the verse among people who belong to all three religions. As for Muslims who do not judge by what Allah has revealed; According to them, they are just "Fasiq"!
It is clear that making such a division for the aforementioned words is not based on any evidence. The basis of this is the feeling of acting according to whims and desires.
There are some who approach these verses from a different perspective and examine the aforementioned attributes from another angle. According to them, these verses also include today's rulers who attribute themselves to Islam; but with some special conditions…
When we see a ruler who attributes himself to Islam but does not rule by Allah's laws, we cannot immediately judge him as kafir, zalim or fasiq. On the contrary, we need to ask him why he abandoned judging according to Allah's shari'ah and why he ruled with anything other than what Allah sent down! Likewise, we need to ask him how he views Allah's laws and non-Islamic laws!
If such a person believes in the validity of non-Islamic laws, and puts his laws above Allah's laws, and he judges by other than Allah's laws, then we can judge that he is a disbeliever, an oppressor, and a fasiq. Of course, this only applies when the law he has decreed conflicts with Allah's law!
However, if such a person believes that Allah's laws are superior but judges with other laws, then he will not be a disbeliever!
They say, if such a ruler were to inform us that he was afraid of enforcing Allah's decrees, that he was afraid of the attacks of the enemies and that they would remove him from his seat, that he was engaging in politics against them, that he was trying to stall them, that he believed that he cancelled the shari'ah of Allah and that he ruled by their laws even though he was not pleased with them. If he were to say all these, this ruler would not be a disbeliever because of what he did!
We believe that it is nothing but distorting the meaning of the verses, deviating the meanings of the aforementioned attributes, changing the muhkam concepts of the Qur'an and replacing them with some meanings that Allah did not allow. And we still believe that the only factor that led these distortions is; their desires and interests. It is their inclination towards the rulers who declared war on the shariah of Allah. It is their strive to gain their satisfaction. It is the desire to snatch their duties, places and possessions.
There is no doubt that these are traders who make their religion a means of commerce. They cast aside the covenant of Allah; They are people who gave up honesty, bravery and frankness and preferred lies, hypocrisy and deception. With this false idea, they did not aim to please Allah, to help His religion, to shout the truth, and to respect ilm. On the contrary, their aim is to attain a pleasing glance from the rulers, words of praise, and worldly things to brag about.
The words of these official muftis, who make their religion a means of commerce, are not only false and misguided, but also very simple minded and foolish.
Will they ever ask the rulers why they do not rule by the decree of Allah and prefer the laws of the disbelievers (to the laws of Allah)? Will they dare to ask that to the rulers? Which one of them will dare to do so? Which one from those who have sold their religion? Do they have the slightest bit of courage to pose this question to them? If they can muster it and asked the question, will the rulers bother to answer their question?
After all, even assuming they've answered that question, how can we expect them to be frank with us? Which ruler came out and said to his people, "I do not rule by Allah's laws not because I do not believe in Him, I do not rule by Allah's laws but I believe in Him”?
I wonder which ruler would accept to be brought to account or to open a door that cannot be closed against him? Who among them would want to come face to face with Muslims and face them?
There is no doubt that such a thing would be done by foolish and naive people who do not work their brain cells!
Someone who asks a question to his ruler and then expects him to answer it and answer his question honestly, he is the naive and foolish.
“My brother! Without exception, all rulers, when confronted with Muslim people and their demands to apply Allah's shari'ah, certainly believed in Allah's shari'ah, but they were under the intense pressure of the superpowers and could not apply Allah's decrees because the time was not favourable and the conditions did not allow it” they will say.
Why would we ask the rulers about their point of view and attitude towards the laws of Allah? And why would we expect a clear answer from them and strive to hear their words and opinions?
Suppose they declared that they accept Allah's shari'ah and affirmed it, would it be accepted from them -as long as they did not apply Allah’s laws, but instead fought them and replaced them with laws obtained from the kuffar who were the enemies of Allah-- Will it be considered sufficient?
Undoubtedly, this points to the naivety and stupidity of those who wait for answers from the rulers—in order to testify for or against them.
I wonder what comes first in Islam; Is it actions or words?[1]
What is the measure in Islam; word or deed?
Which one should be taken into consideration and preferred when words conflict with deeds? Word or deed?
Mere words mean almost nothing in the eyes of Islam. In order for this to mean anything, it must be supported by its owner’s deeds, behaviour and commitment. That is to say, this person's life must agree with and confirm what he has said, believed and put forward. If his life, behaviour, dispositions and practices contradict his words, that person is subject to condemnation and punishment. Our Lord says:

“O you who believe! Why do you say things you didn't do? Saying what you did not do causes great hatred in the sight of Allah!”

Undoubtedly, behaviours of a person is more credible than the tongue in Islam. The most appropriate thing to be trusted in Islam is the behaviour that confirms the tongue. Words that support or disapprove of behaviour are not entertained. Even in faith, it is inevitable to have good deeds that confirm words and creed.
May Allah have mercy on Hasan-i Basri, how well he said it: “Faith is not something that can be achieved by wishing and embellishing; On the contrary, faith is the faith in the heart in which actions affirm itself.”
When words and deeds conflict, it is "deed" that will be taken into account; because the indication of deeds is stronger than the indication of words. What is the difference between those who speak and act by saying "We heard and obey" and those who say "We heard and we disobeyed" and do not act?
The Companions considered them by listening to the orders given to them, by acting and by doing what is necessary.

“They said: “We hear and we obey. Our Lord! We ask your forgiveness. In the end, the return is only to you.”

The Jews, on the other hand, received the orders directed against them, but opposed them. Even though the Prophet Moses commanded them to say "We heard and obeyed", they said "We heard and obeyed" with their tongues, but they rebelled and opposed the orders in the field of practice and application. For this reason, their direction of action that is in opposition to (Allah's order) is preferred to their words. Our Lord says:

“And (remember) when We took your covenant and We raised above you the Mount (saying), “Hold firmly to what We have given you and hear (Our Word).” They said, “We have heard and disobeyed.” And their hearts absorbed (the worship of) the calf because of their disbelief.”

Now, if the rulers came out and said thousands of times that they "believe in Allah's laws and love Allah's law", and then contrary to what they said, they threw aside Allah's laws and try to rule with things that He does not allow, their words will have no value. How can they? Of course, this is of no use or effect. Because the thing to be taken into account and rely on; what they do and show.
Of course, this only applies when they say it explicitly (what we just assumed).
What will happen then when they do not openly declare that they have accepted and adopted the shari'a of Allah? How are we going to get them to declare what they haven't explained and get them to say what they haven't said? I wonder how we’ll be able to say "They believe in Allah's law and accept that it is the highest; but they are incapable of abiding by that sharia?”
The naivety of those who say this reminds us of the following exemplary incident between the hunter and the sparrow:
It is said that a hunter catches three or five sparrows on a cold day. Then he puts those sparrows in front of him and starts cutting them one by one. Birds whose turn has not yet come are watching. With the effect of freezing cold and strong wind, tears come from the eyes of the hunter who cuts. Two of the birds look at a hunter and his tears flowing. One said to the other: “Look at that poor hunter... How sorry he feels for killing us. How is he crying because of his compassion and mercy for us”. Hearing this, the other sparrow wisely and cleverly says: “Don’t look at his tears, look at what his hands are doing!”
Our advice to today's Muslims regarding their relations with the rulers who discarded Allah's shari'ah and replaced them with the laws of the kuffar is this: Do not be deceived by their outward appearances, words and statements! On the contrary, look at what they do, their behaviour and their application of their own laws. Or our advice to them is the word of the clever sparrow: “Don’t look at his tears, look at what his hands are doing!”
The verses that form the basis of our subject talk about the rulers. Wherever they are, wherever they are...
The verses warn them and those of them who commit this crime from abandoning judging by what Allah has revealed. The verses characterise such people with kufr, oppression and fisq.
Of course, the characterisations of "disbeliever, oppressor and fasiq" are not unique to Jewish and Christian rulers. On the contrary, it covers everyone who does not judge by what Allah has revealed.
Dozens of opinions confirming and reinforcing this truth have been conveyed from both the Salaf and successor scholars. These views interpret the verse correctly and give it a correct meaning.
Ibrahim an-Nahai, one of the valuable scholars of nature, said the following about this verse: "These verses were revealed about the Children of Israel. Allah Almighty has deemed them (the rulings in it) suitable for this ummah as well.”
Hasan-i Basri said: "These verses were revealed about the Jews and were made obligatory for us."
Imam Sha'bi said the following about three qualities in the verses as "Disbelievers, opressors and fasiqun": "The first of these qualities is valid for this ummah. The second is about the Jews. The third is for Christians.”
When these verses were recited to Hudhayfah b. Yeman, a person present said: "This rule applies to the Children of Israel." Hearing this, Hudhayfah (RA) said: “What a good brother the Israelites are to you! All good (hukm) to you, all bad (hukm) to them! No, I swear by Allah that you will follow their path like a shoelace.”
Ibn Abbas (ra) said: “What a good group you are! Good and beautiful (rulings) to you, bad and difficult (rulings) to the People of the Book!
Hakîm b Jubair narrates: I asked Said b. Jubayr a question and said, "Some of them claim that these verses were revealed about the Israelites and are not valid for us. (What do you think?)” I said. Said b. Jubayr said: "Read the before and after." I just read it. Thereupon, he said: "No, on the contrary, those verses also apply to us."[2]
Alkame and Marwan asked Abdullah Ibn Masud about bribery. Abdullah Ibn Masud said: "This is Haram". They: “Is it in judgment?” they said. Abdullah Ibn Masud said: "No, it is kufr." And then he read this verse: “Whoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed such are the disbelievers.”
It is narrated from Suddi, one of the well-known scholars of the Tabi'un: "Whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed." That is, whoever does not judge by what I have revealed, leaves it intentionally and deliberately commits oppression, then he is one of the disbelievers.
Imam Tabari says the following in the interpretation of these verses:
“Allah has included those who reject the laws He has revealed in His book, and informed them that they are disbelievers because they abandoned the laws. The judgment of those who reject and do not judge according to what Allah has revealed is also the same. He has disbelieved against Allah.”
Ibn Kathir talks about the law called "Yesak", which Genghis Khan enacted for his people, and the laws of the Tatars:
“Whoever among them does this (that is, leaves the laws of Islam and enacts other laws) becomes a disbeliever. It is fard (for the Ummah) to fight him until he returns to the decree of Allah and His Messenger. Whether it is a small or an important matter, no one can be made an arbitrator other than the judgement of Allah and His Messenger!”
The Commentary of the work "El-Akîdetü't-Tahâvîyye" (İbn-u Ebi'l-İzz) states the following:
“Not ruling by what Allah has revealed is sometimes a blasphemy that makes one apostate, and sometimes it is a major or minor sin. This blasphemy was either uttered metaphorically. Or it's a minor blasphemy—which has been mentioned in previous chapters where there are two different opinions on this point—It depends on the judge's situation. If a judge believes that it is not necessary to judge by what Allah has revealed, or that he has a choice in this matter, or if he belittles him even though he knows that it is Allah's decision, then it will be a great disbelief.”
Reşit Rıza says in his tafsir “Menar”:
“Some have adopted the view that kufr is dependent on a condition known from general rules. This condition is as follows: Whoever does not judge according to what Allah has revealed, by denying it and accepting that it is oppression, even though he knows that it is Allah's judgment, they are the disbelievers! This condition neither coincides with faith nor with comprehension!
I swear, the stronger the doubt about the law-making rulers, the harder it is to answer about them. There is no doubt that a believer who is submissive to the religion of Allah (belief) who believes it is obligatory for him to rule by the laws of the Book to then turn away and change it with his own choice and changes it with another decree of his own will. It is really hard to imagine him claiming to be a believer and a Muslim together.”[3]
Sheikh Ahmed Muhammad Shakir says:
“The judgment to be given about these man-made laws is as clear as the brightness of the sun. Undoubtedly, these laws are an open disbelief with no obscurity in them. There is never an excuse for anyone who attributes himself to Islam in this regard – no matter who this person is – to be acting by these laws and obeying them. Everyone must restrain himself; for everyone is his own keeper.”
Sheikh's brother, Mahmud Muhammad Shakir, also says the following about contemporary rulers who do not rule with what Allah has revealed:
“This matter means turning away from Allah's decree, abandoning His religion, and preferring the rules of disbelief to Allah's laws. And this is disbelief, even though they differ about the takfir of the person who invites to it, no one from the Ahl-i Qibla doubts their kufr.”
Hasan al-Hudaybi says:
“As for a person who judges by other than Allah’s decree by giving it legitimacy, despite being against Allah's order; This person has considered it permissible to oppose Allah and His Messenger, denied the text that was revealed for him, and fell into disbelief and shirk by ijmaa’.”[4]
We conclude these narrations with the following sentences of the shaheed Sayyid Qutb:
“This is a very precise and unequivocal statement. Both the use of "men" as a conditional preposition in the original of the verse and the answer sentence indicate that this provision can cover everyone. As there is no ambiguity in the verse, this provision also transcends the limits of time and space. This is a general rule that covers everyone who does not judge according to the verses revealed by Allah, regardless of generation or nation.
We have explained the reason for this before. For, one who does not rule according to the verses revealed by Allah, means rejecting the divinity of Allah. However, divinity necessarily includes sovereignty and legislation. A person who does not judge according to the verses of Allah, on the one hand, rejects the divinity of Allah and the attributes of His divinity, and on the other hand, attempts to appropriate the right of divinity and the attributes of divinity. Really, if that's not kufr, what is? If practice - which is much more important than theory - just stinks of kufr, what's the point of pretending with the tongue that you are a believer or a Muslim?
Demagoguery about this very certain provision is nothing but trying to escape the truth. Trying to interpret such a decree can be nothing but distorting the verse. Demagogueries or interpretations made in this context cannot in any way change the judgement of Allah regarding the people who are addressed by the verse in question.”[5]
Sayyid Qutb also states the following about the verse: "Whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, they are the wrongdoers":
“This is a general statement. There is no basis on which we can reduce this to private. Here, however, a new attribute is added, "the oppressors".
This new quality does not mean that there is a situation different from the previous one in the form of "disbelievers". This is merely the addition of a new quality to a person who does not judge according to the verses revealed by Allah. A person who does not judge according to the verses revealed by Allah is an disbeliever because he denies the divinity of Allah and that the legislative authority over His servants is unique to Him, and attempts to claim divinity by appropriating the authority to legislate over people. Again, he is an oppressor because he forces people to break from the law of Allah, which is most suitable for them, and to follow another law. In fact, such a person has embarked on a dangerous endeavour, deserving the punishment of kufr and exposing the lives of the people whom he lives among to chaos and defeat, he is also oppressing himself.
The point of reference and the conditional sentence "those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed" require us to understand the verse as such. The answer of the second conditional sentence is added to the answer of the first conditional sentence. In both, the conditional preposition "men (who is...)", which expresses absoluteness and generality, is used and reference is made to the same point.”[6]
He also says about the third verse:
“A general and precise expression is used in the nass here. Here, however, a new one is added to the previous qualities in the form of "disbelievers" and "oppressors". This does not mean that there is a different community or a different situation than those mentioned in the previous verses. The situation is still the same. The event consists of adding a new quality in addition to the previous two qualities to a person who does not judge according to the verses revealed by Allah, regardless of nationality or generation.
Kufr is by rejecting Allah's law and denying His divinity. Oppression is committed by forcing people to abide by a system other than the sharia of Allah, and by causing turmoil and defeat in their lives. Fasiq means leaving Allah's system and being subject to another system. The first act includes all three of these qualities, and the person who commits the act fully deserves all three without any distinction between them.”[7]
Sayyid Qutb states another definite ruling stemming from his great understanding of the verses above:
“Those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are the disbelievers, the oppressors, and fasiqeen. Those who do not accept the decree of Allah among the governed are also not believers.”[8]
In order to understand the verses that form the basis of our subject correctly, we need to add some verses about hukm, tashri and that the law should be taken from Allah's sharia.
Our Lord says:

“The judgment belongs only to Allah. He has commanded you not to worship anyone but Him. This is the truest religion. But most people don't know." (Yusuf/40)
“Should I seek another arbitrator from Allah when He has sent down the Book to you with all the details laid out?” (Al-An’am/114)
"No! By your Lord, they will not believe until they make you their judge in the disputes between them, and then submit to your decision with full submission without feeling any discomfort in their hearts.” (Nisa/65)
“The only response of the ˹true˺ believers, when they are called to Allah and His Messenger so he may judge between them, is to say, “We hear and obey.” It is they who will ˹truly˺ succeed.” (Nu51)
“It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path..” (Ahzhab/36)

[1] Behaviors or words?
[2] For all these transmissions, see: "ed-Dürrü'l-Mansûr", 3/87, 88. These transmissions are summarised.
[3] Tafsîru'l-Manar, 6/407.
[4] For all these narrations, you can refer to our work called "Fi Zilâli'l-Kur'an fi'l-Mîzân". See p. 218−220.
[5] Fi Zilal, 2/898.
[6] Fi Zilal, 2/900.
[7] Fi Zilal, 2/901.
[8] Fi Zilal, 2/905. Those who want to learn about the detailed discussion of this issue can refer to our work called "Fi Zilâli'l-Kur'an fi'l-Mîzân". See p. 205−232.

• If you think about it logically the first sahaba had great belief in the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad didn’t see miracles or prophecies
• The question then becomes how can they believe in Islam then? ———————————————————————
• It is from the stupidity to think that someone would call people for the worship of one God while being a false prophet for nothing
• Lets see what were the reasons that prophet muhammed could have claimed prophet hood

#1 Did he do this to become rich or praised?

• That argument doesn’t add up
• Since his first day (PBUH) he was persecuted in mecca for 13 years for his calling of worship of the one and only God

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

• When the Verse:--'And warn your tribe of near-kindred, was revealed, the Prophet (ﷺ) ascended the Safa (mountain) and started calling, "O Bani Fihr! O Bani `Adi!" addressing various tribes of Quraish till they were assembled. Those who could not come themselves, sent their messengers to see what was there. Abu Lahab and other people from Quraish came and the Prophet (ﷺ) then said, "Suppose I told you that there is an (enemy) cavalry in the valley intending to attack you, would you believe me?" They said, "Yes, for we have not found you telling anything other than the truth." He then said, "I am a warner to you in face of a terrific punishment." Abu Lahab said (to the Prophet) "__**May your hands perish all this day. Is it for this purpose you have gathered us?"**__Then it was revealed: "Perish the hands of Abu Lahab (one of the Prophet's uncles), and perish he! His wealth and his children will not profit him...." (111.1-5)

-Source: **Sahih al-Bukhari 4770**
Grade: **Sahih (authentic) according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim**

Narrated `Umar:

• I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "__**Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary**__, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle."

-Source: **Sahih al-Bukhari 3445**
Grade: **Sahih (authentic) according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim**

'Abdullah narrated :

• "The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) was sleeping upon a mat, then he stood, and the mat had left marks on his side. We said: 'O Messenger of Allah! We said: 'O Messenger of Allah! We could get a bed for you.' He said: '__**What do I have to do with the world! I am not in the world but as a rider seeking shade under a tree, then he catches his breath and leaves it**__.'"

-Source: **Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2377**
Grade: **Hassan (Good or Fair) (Darussalam)**

#2 Did he do this to be rich?

• I could summarize this in a hadith

Narrated 'Amir bin Al-Harith:

• Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) did not leave __**a Dinar or a Dirham or a male or a female slave.**__ He left only his white mule on which he used to ride, and his weapons, and a piece of land which he gave in charity for the needy travelers.

-Source: **Sahih al-Bukhari 4461**
Grade: **Sahih (authentic) according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim**

Narrated Amr ibn Abasah:

• The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) led us in prayer facing a camel which had been taken in booty, and when he had given the salutation, he took a hair from the camel's side and said: “I have no right as much as this of your booty, but only to the fifth. and the fifth is returned to you.”

-Source: **Sunan Abi Dawud 2755**
Grade: **Sahih (authentic) according to (Al-Albani)**

• 'Urwa b. Zubair reported on the authority of 'A'isha, the wife of Allah's Apostle (ﷺ), that she said:
• Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) died (in a state) that it never happened that he could eat to his fill the bread with olive oil twice during a day.

-Source: **Sahih Muslim 2974**
Grade: **Sahih (authentic) according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim**

#3 Did he do it to marry the most 'beautiful' wives?

• Prophet muhammeds wives were mostly non virgins all of them actually except Aisha (AS)
• Edward Jibon a non muslim historian responds to this

Translation: “surprisingly all of them (I.e prophets wives) were old and non virgins except for aisha who was a virgin very surprising he didn’t marry the most beautiful girls on the contrary of Solomon”

Source: **The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (Edward Gibbon) volume 3 page number 84**
Now lets see how they felt

• Narrated Hisham b. 'Urwah:
• On the authority of his father that 'Aishah said: O my nephew, __**the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did not prefer one of us to the other in respect of his division of the time of his staying with us. It was very rare that he did not visit us any day (i.e. he visited all of us every day). He would come near each of his wives without having intercourse with her until he reached the one who had her day and passed his night with her.**__

-Source: **Sunan Abi Dawud 2135**
Grade: **Sahih (authentic) (Darussalam)**

• An interesting objection levied by some people is that Muhammad ﷺ was a liar. He lied about his claim of being a prophet. Why would one lie? They would lie for material gain such as money, power and women. So, one has to question if this is what Muhammad ﷺ was after. Well let’s see shall we.
• In “The Sealed Nectar” page 103 and 104 we read. The Quraysh made Muhammad ﷺ many offers. If you read “The Sealed Nectar” page 103 to 104. Where Utbah approached Muhammad ﷺ and offered him riches “Oh nephew if you are doing all this with a view to getting wealth, we will join together to give you greater riches than any Qurayshite has possessed. If ambition moves you, we will make you our chief. If you desire kingship, we will readily offer you that. “Muhammad ﷺ then replied reciting from the Quran chapter 41 verse 1-5. He then told Utbah “You have heard my reply. You are now free to do whatever you please. [4]
• There you go. He was offered riches, to be the richest Qurayshite in fact and he rejected. He was offered power and he rejected. It needs to be noted that was very early on in his prophetic career as well. If he was a liar, he would have eaten this offer up. But he rejected.
• What else could people say he could have done it for? Women? Ok I will address that as well. He married more than four wives in his life time. The only virgin he married was Aisha RA. Everyone else was not. Some were older than him like Khadijah and Sawda and others were younger. Critics refer to the report in Tabari. Now this is not authentic due to Al-Kalbi being in the chain of narration and he was known to be a liar, but let’s assume it is authentic.

Picture to look at

Picture

• They say this report calls him a “womaniser”. [6] The issue is if you read the Arabic, the word used is not womaniser and the footnote you see above says that Muhammad ﷺ has “wives”. Moreover, this report refutes the claim of the people who say he was in it for women. Why? Because if you read the report a woman called Layla offered herself in marriage to him, the prophet responded yes. When Layla went back to her people and told them they said that you are a jealous woman and that you will be jealous because Muhammad ﷺ had other wives. So, she went back and asked to cancel the marriage and the Prophet said “YES!” why would he reject if he was in it for the women as people try and say it does not make any sense.
• Moreover, there is a reason why he married different women, why? To consolidates relationships with others. He did not marry more women out of his physical desires for he had only one wife even till the age of 54. Till 50 he had only one wife Sayyidah Khadija who was 15 years elder to him and was twice widowed before. And for next 4 years his only wife was Sayyidah Sawda, also an aged lady. All, but one, of his wives were either widows or divorced. It was only at the age of 55 that four wives gathered in his marriage.
• John Bagot Glubb states this fact in the following words;
• “It is, however, worthy to note that of all his wives, only Aisha was a virgin when he married her. Zainab bint Jahash was a divorced wife and all the rest were widows, some of them, IT WOULD SEEM, NOT PARTICULARLY ATTRACTIVE. Moreover, the Apostle had married Khadija when he was twenty-five and SHE WAS A WIDOW CONSIDERABLY OLDER THAN HE WAS. He had remained completely faithful to her for twenty-four years until her death.” [7]
• Further he says;
• “In Medina, Muhammad had less and less leisure time and must often have been mentally and physically exhausted, especially as he was in his fifties and latterly over sixty. THESE ARE NOT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH MEN ARE INTERESTED IN THE INDULGENCE OF EXTREME SEXUALITY. The assumption that he was a SENSUALIST BECAUSE HE HAD ELEVEN WIVES WHEN HE DIED AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-TWO IS THEREFORE NOT ABSOLUTELY A FOREGONE CONCLUSION, AS MANY HAVE ASSUMED. This is particularly so in view of the fact that he had only one wife until he was fifty.” [8]
• If you want more information on this refer to the footnotes. [9]

OBJECTION 5 – HALLUCINATIONS AND DELUSION

• Another objection I have heard is that Muhammad ﷺ was a truthful person he genuinely believed in his message and he genuinely believed he was prophet however he was deceived by his own delusion. Now an objection to this would be if he did hallucinate and thus suffered from delusion then surely the revelation of the Quran would contain evidence of this. In other words, the Quran would be full of errors such as grammatical errors and it also would not contain such wisdom and knowledge that an illiterate man in the 7th century living in a pagan environment simply could not have known. I believe that is in itself is a sufficient refutation to this objection. However, some may say that he still had the ability to think rationally and logically therefore the hallucinations and delusions would not have affected him in that regard.
• My honest thoughts with this objection is that it is a gigantic stretch and it is clutching at straws. I feel like I have addressed some of the contentions for this objection in prior objections. I do however want to add some more information that will get you to think. Firstly, I want you to ponder over the following, Muhammad ﷺ taught the Quran which was revealed to him by God. The Quran is unparalleled and still is in the Arabic language, in the sense that no one can ever produce something like the Quran.
• I want to now share the reactions of the recipients i.e the early Muslims. I already mentioned they described it as magic but had no proof rather just speaking out of their own whims and desires. Have a look at the below

Source

• Just ONE ayah of the Quran. ONE! One of the reasons why people may not comprehend this is because they don’t understand Arabic. I fully get that as I said I am not an expert in Arabic. But to an Arab Bedouin whose mother tongue is Arabic this was a shock for him to hear. Immediately, his reaction was “CERTAINLY it is not a human who said that.” I want you all to just reflect on how powerful that is.

Picture

• Notice how the Quraysh referred to Utbah as the expert and testified that this was the case and he even knew the Quran was miraculous. He was in a linguistic shock after listening to the verses of the Quran. He went back to the Quraysh and noticed how he warned them yet they rejected to him. Another man Al-Walid-Ibn al-Mughirah says the below.

Picture

• Many people were converting to Islam it go so bad the ardant disbelievers advised one another not to listen to the Quran. Allah tells us this in Chapter 41 verse 26
• “The disbelievers advised ˹one another˺, “Do not listen to this Quran but drown it out so that you may prevail.”
• So experts in the Arabic language in poetry in soothsaying at the time testified to the fact Quran was unique, that it can’t be from man. They even converted. How could a man who hated poetry and lived in a pagan eniviromennt, was illierate cause a reaction like you just read from people who were experts within the arabic language, is this something a man who suffers from hallucinations could do? No, it does not make any sense. We have witnesses as well to his life, people who were there. People who witnessed him receving revelation, people who witnessed him performing miracles. If he suffered from hallucinations, he would not be able to do this. Another example of a miracle is the following
• “Jabir bin `Abdullah said, “The people became very thirsty on the day of Al-Hudaibiya (Treaty). A small pot containing some water was in front of the Prophet (ﷺ) and when he had finished the ablution, the people rushed towards him. He asked, ‘What is wrong with you?’ They replied, ‘We have no water either for performing ablution or for drinking except what is present in front of you.’ So, he placed his hand in that pot and the water started flowing among his fingers like springs. We all drank and performed ablution (from it).” I asked Jabir, “How many were you?” he replied, “Even if we had been one-hundred-thousand, it would have been sufficient for us, but we were fifteen-hundred.”[20]
• Again, there were plenty of eyewitnesses to do this. How could he be hallucinating. Below is taken from Hamza Andreas Tzortzis article which I will be referencing again in the next objection.

Objection number 6 prophet of war

• Many claim that prophet muhammed was actually a war lord
• But that is not a logical reasoning
• Cause war isn’t always bad
• The answer is actually pretty simple

The prophet (pbuh) didn’t kill anyone out of no reason out of facts they abused him for 13 years and he then went to Mecca but they went after him ; people hearing war will think barbaric in fact jesus according to the gospels in his 2nd coming he will fight with the sword in revelations 17:14 and after the interpretation of antonious fekri for this verse link: Source

• Let alone Matthew 10:34. So taking things out of context isn’t just ; another point I could be proud that my dear prophet stood up and defended his people to save them while your god ran away like in Matthew 4:12 your so called God called a canite a dog Matthew 15:26. The problem is jesus would have fought but Jesus was persecuted and had only 12 followers against an empire. The prophet had 12 wives but did he mistreat them he offered to all the chance to divorce but they chose him sunan al nisa’i 3203 he never hit a women nor a slave sahih Muslim 2328a he died with liberating al his slaves.and for Jesus didn’t die prophet (pbuh) did such a bad argument we believe the prophet pbuh is a human like us all Quran 18:110;3:144 so he would die so isn’t a problem but it is inappropriate for a god to die for 3 days even 1second even if so Enoch of the OT didn’t even die 1 sec so is he better than Jesus Paul was killed so is he false? ; these arguments fail to interpret so much. Last thing the prophet commanded us to only attack if we are attack as in Quran 2:190;9:4;9:6 and not to kill a women a baby a priest don’t destroy a synagogue or kill only those who fight u -[al-bayhaqui-in al sunan al kubra volume 9 page 90-91 hadith 17589] the prophet also said liberate captives that is the only source of slavery and be nice to them in sahih Muslim 1657a he also said if u strike them u must liberate them.

objection number #7 from satan

• Now in the Bible it says satan can’t contradict himself in mark 3:26-28
• Also revelations 20:2 after some commentaries says satan is locked for 1K years after Jesus and muhammed came 600 years later
• But lets keep up with the first one
• How can satan make a book such as the Quran that curses him and tells the followers to do Good not bad

Objection #8 Quran

Source

Source

Source

• How can an illeterate man bring a book like this that guides all man mind kind with all those prophecies and miracles in the Quran
• How can an illeterate man always known to be truthful as in sahih al-bukhari 7 and 4770
• The claim that he is a false prophet is the second most stupidest notion ever
• How can he bring an unchallengeable book while he is an illiterate man ?
• That is while ignoring all the prophecies and miracles in the Quran
• If you have any responses or questions please let me know

If you think about it logically the first sahaba had great belief in the prophethood of the prophet Muhammad didn’t see miracles or prophecies
The question then becomes how can they believe in Islam then?
Today I am gonna prove to you that the second stupidest notion after disbelieving in God is disbelieving in the prophethood of prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
———————————————————————
It is from the stupidity to think that someone would call people for the worship of one God while being a false prophet for nothing
Let's see what were the reasons that prophet Muhammad could have claimed prophethood

#1 Did he do this to become rich or praised?

• That argument doesn’t add up
• Since his first day (PBUH) he was persecuted in Mecca for 13 years for his calling to worship of the one and only God

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

1. When the Verse:--' And warn your tribe of near-kindred, was revealed, the Prophet (ﷺ) ascended the Safa (mountain) and started calling, "O Bani Fihr! O Bani `Adi!" addressing various tribes of Quraish till they were assembled. Those who could not come themselves, sent their messengers to see what was there. Abu Lahab and other people from Quraish came and the Prophet (ﷺ) then said, "Suppose I told you that there is an (enemy) cavalry in the valley intending to attack you, would you believe me?" They said, "Yes, for we have not found you telling anything other than the truth." He then said, "I am a warner to you in face of a terrific punishment." Abu Lahab said (to the Prophet) "__**May your hands perish all this day. Is it for this purpose you have gathered us?"**__Then it was revealed: "Perish the hands of Abu Lahab (one of the Prophet's uncles), and perish he! His wealth and his children will not profit him...." (111.1-5)

• -Source: **Sahih al-Bukhari 4770**
• Grade: **Sahih (authentic) according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim**

Narrated `Umar:

• I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "__**Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary**__, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle."
• -Source: **Sahih al-Bukhari 3445**
• Grade: **Sahih (authentic) according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim**
• 'Abdullah narrated :
• "The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) was sleeping upon a mat, then he stood, and the mat had left marks on his side. We said: 'O Messenger of Allah! We said: 'O Messenger of Allah! We could get a bed for you.' He said: '__**What do I have to do with the world! I am not in the world but as a rider seeking shade under a tree, then he catches his breath and leaves it**__.'"
• -Source: **Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2377**
• Grade: **Hassan (Good or Fair) (Darussalam)**

#2 did he do this to be rich

• I could summarize this in a hadith

Narrated 'Amir bin Al-Harith:

• Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) did not leave __**a Dinar or a Dirham or a male or a female slave.**__ He left only his white mule on which he used to ride, his weapons, and a piece of land which he gave in charity for the needy travelers.

1. -Source: **Sahih al-Bukhari 4461**
2. Grade: **Sahih (authentic) according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim**
3. Narrated Amr ibn Abasah:
4. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) led us in prayer facing a camel that had been taken in the booty, and when he had given the salutation, he took a hair from the camel's side and said: “I have no right as much as this of your booty, but only to the fifth. and the fifth is returned to you.”
5. -Source: **Sunan Abi Dawud 2755**
6. Grade: **Sahih (authentic) according to (Al-Albani)**
7. 'Urwa b. Zubair reported on the authority of 'A'isha, the wife of Allah's Apostle (ﷺ), that she said:
8. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) died (in a state) that it never happened that he could eat to his fill the bread with olive oil twice during a day.
9. -Source: **Sahih Muslim 2974**
10. Grade: **Sahih (authentic) according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim**
11. **#3 he did to marry the most beautiful wives**
12. Prophet Muhammad's wives were mostly nonvirgins all of them actually except Aisha (AS)
13. Edward Jibon a nonmuslim historian responds to this
14. Translation: “surprisingly all of them (I.e prophets wives) were old and nonvirgins except for Aisha who was a virgin very surprising he didn’t marry the most beautiful girls on the contrary of Solomon”
15. Source: **The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (Edward Gibbon) volume 3 page number 84**
16. Now let's see how they felt
17. Narrated Hisham b. 'Urwah:
18. On the authority of his father that 'Aishah said: O my nephew, __**the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did not prefer one of us to the other in respect of his division of the time of his staying with us. It was very rare that he did not visit us any day (i.e. he visited all of us every day). He would come near each of his wives without having intercourse with her until he reached the one who had her day and passed his night with her.**__
19. -Source: **Sunan Abi Dawud 2135**
20. Grade: **Sahih (authentic) (Darussalam)**
21. An interesting objection levied by some people is that Muhammad ﷺ was a liar. He lied about his claim of being a prophet. Why would one lie? They would lie for material gains such as money, power, and women. So, one has to question if this is what Muhammad ﷺ was after. Well let’s see, shall we?
22. In “The Sealed Nectar” pages 103 and 104 we read. The Quraysh made Muhammad ﷺ many offers. If you read “The Sealed Nectar” pages 103 to 104. Where Utbah approached Muhammad ﷺ and offered him riches “Oh nephew if you are doing all this with a view to getting wealth, we will join together to give you greater riches than any Qurayshite has possessed. If ambition moves you, we will make you our chief. If you desire kingship, we will readily offer you that. “Muhammad ﷺ then replied reciting from the Quran chapter 41 verse 1-5. He then told Utbah “You have heard my reply. You are now free to do whatever you please. [4]
23. There you go. He was offered riches, to be the richest Qurayshite in fact and he rejected. He was offered power and he rejected it. It needs to be noted that this was very early on in his prophetic career as well. If he was a liar, he would have eaten this offer up. But he rejected.
24. What else could people say he could have done it for? Women? Ok, I will address that as well. He married more than four wives in his lifetime. The only virgin he married was Aisha RA. Everyone else was not. Some were older than him like Khadijah and Sawda and others were younger. Critics refer to the report in Tabari. Now this is not authentic due to Al-Kalbi being in the chain of narration and he was known to be a liar, but let’s assume it is authentic.
25. [Picture to look at](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/880480336939728997/999485922833879120/image1.png)
26. [Picture](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/880480336939728997/999485952160452628/image0.png)
27. They say this report calls him a “womanizer”. [6] The issue is if you read Arabic, the word used is not a womanizer and the footnote you see above says that Muhammad ﷺ has “wives”. Moreover, this report refutes the claim of the people who say he was in it for women. Why? Because if you read the report a woman called Layla offered herself in marriage to him, the prophet responded yes. When Layla went back to her people and told them they said that you are a jealous woman and that you will be jealous because Muhammad ﷺ had other wives. So, she went back and asked to cancel the marriage and the Prophet said “YES!” why would he reject if he was in it for the woman as people try and say it does not make any sense.
28. Moreover, there is a reason why he married different women, why? To consolidate relationships with others. He did not marry more women out of his physical desires for he had only one wife even till the age of 54. Till 50 he had only one wife Sayyidah Khadija who was 15 years elder to him and was twice widowed before. And for the next 4 years, his only wife was Sayyidah Sawda, also an aged lady. All, but one, of his wives were either widows or divorced. It was only at the age of 55 that four wives gathered in his marriage.
29. John Bagot Glubb states this fact in the following words;
30. “It is, however, worthy to note that of all his wives, only Aisha was a virgin when he married her. Zainab bint Jahash was a divorced wife and all the rest were widows, some of them, IT WOULD SEEM, NOT PARTICULARLY ATTRACTIVE. Moreover, the Apostle had married Khadija when he was twenty-five and SHE WAS A WIDOW CONSIDERABLY OLDER THAN HE WAS. He had remained completely faithful to her for twenty-four years until her death.” [7]
31. Further he says;
32. “In Medina, Muhammad had less and less leisure time and must often have been mentally and physically exhausted, especially as he was in his fifties and latterly over sixty. THESE ARE NOT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH MEN ARE INTERESTED IN THE INDULGENCE OF EXTREME SEXUALITY. The assumption that he was a SENSUALIST BECAUSE HE HAD ELEVEN WIVES WHEN HE DIED AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-TWO IS THEREFORE NOT ABSOLUTELY A FOREGONE CONCLUSION, AS MANY HAVE ASSUMED. This is particularly so in view of the fact that he had only one wife until he was fifty.” [8]
33. If you want more information on this refer to the footnotes. [9]

OBJECTION 5 – HALLUCINATIONS AND DELUSION

1. Another objection I have heard is that Muhammad ﷺ was a truthful person he genuinely believed in his message and he genuinely believed he was prophet however he was deceived by his own delusion. Now an objection to this would be if he did hallucinate and thus suffered from delusion then surely the revelation of the Quran would contain evidence of this. In other words, the Quran would be full of errors such as grammatical errors and it also would not contain such wisdom and knowledge that an illiterate man in the 7th century living in a pagan environment simply could not have known. I believe that is in itself is a sufficient refutation to this objection. However, some may say that he still had the ability to think rationally and logically therefore the hallucinations and delusions would not have affected him in that regard.
2. My honest thoughts with this objection is that it is a gigantic stretch and it is clutching at straws. I feel like I have addressed some of the contentions for this objection in prior objections. I do however want to add some more information that will get you to think. Firstly, I want you to ponder over the following, Muhammad ﷺ taught the Quran which was revealed to him by God. The Quran is unparalleled and still is in the Arabic language, in the sense that no one can ever produce something like the Quran.
3. I want to now share the reactions of the recipients i.e the early Muslims. I already mentioned they described it as magic but had no proof rather just speaking out of their own whims and desires. Have a look at the below
4. [Source](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/880480336939728997/999486994335928390/IMG\_2430.png)
5. Just ONE ayah of the Quran. ONE! One of the reasons why people may not comprehend this is because they don’t understand Arabic. I fully get that as I said I am not an expert in Arabic. But to an Arab Bedouin whose mother tongue is Arabic this was a shock for him to hear. Immediately, his reaction was “CERTAINLY it is not a human who said that.” I want you all to just reflect on how powerful that is.
6. [Picture](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/880480336939728997/999487086119899207/IMG\_2433.png)
7. Notice how the Quraysh referred to Utbah as the expert and testified that this was the case and he even knew the Quran was miraculous. He was in a linguistic shock after listening to the verses of the Quran. He went back to the Quraysh and noticed how he warned them yet they rejected to him. Another man Al-Walid-Ibn al-Mughirah says the below.
8. [Picture](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/880480336939728997/999487179904532510/IMG\_2434.png)
9. Many people were converting to Islam it go so bad the ardant disbelievers advised one another not to listen to the Quran. Allah tells us this in Chapter 41 verse 26
10. “The disbelievers advised ˹one another˺, “Do not listen to this Quran but drown it out so that you may prevail.”
11. So experts in the Arabic language in poetry in soothsaying at the time testified to the fact Quran was unique, that it can’t be from man. They even converted. How could a man who hated poetry and lived in a pagan eniviromennt, was illierate cause a reaction like you just read from people who were experts within the arabic language, is this something a man who suffers from hallucinations could do? No, it does not make any sense. We have witnesses as well to his life, people who were there. People who witnessed him receving revelation, people who witnessed him performing miracles. If he suffered from hallucinations, he would not be able to do this. Another example of a miracle is the following
12. “Jabir bin `Abdullah said, “The people became very thirsty on the day of Al-Hudaibiya (Treaty). A small pot containing some water was in front of the Prophet (ﷺ) and when he had finished the ablution, the people rushed towards him. He asked, ‘What is wrong with you?’ They replied, ‘We have no water either for performing ablution or for drinking except what is present in front of you.’ So, he placed his hand in that pot and the water started flowing among his fingers like springs. We all drank and performed ablution (from it).” I asked Jabir, “How many were you?” he replied, “Even if we had been one-hundred-thousand, it would have been sufficient for us, but we were fifteen-hundred.”[20]
13. Again, there were plenty of eyewitnesses to do this. How could he be hallucinating. Below is taken from Hamza Andreas Tzortzis article which I will be referencing again in the next objection.

Objection number 6 prophet of war

1. Many claim that prophet muhammed was actually a war lord
2. But that is not a logical reasoning
3. Cause war isn’t always bad
4. The answer is actually pretty simple
5. The prophet (pbuh) didn’t kill anyone out of no reason out of facts they abused him for 13 years and he then went to Mecca but they went after him ; people hearing war will think barbaric in fact jesus according to the gospels in his 2nd coming he will fight with the sword in revelations 17:14 and after the interpretation of antonious fekri for this verse link: [Source](https://st-takla.org/pub\_Bible-Interpretations/Holy-Bible-Tafsir-02-New-Testament/Father-Antonious-Fekry/27-Sefr-El-Ro2ya/Tafseer-Sefr-Roia-Youhanna-El-Lahouty\_\_01-Chapter-17.html#14)
6. Let alone Matthew 10:34. So taking things out of context isn’t just ; another point I could be proud that my dear prophet stood up and defended his people to save them while your god ran away like in Matthew 4:12 your so called God called a canite a dog Matthew 15:26. The problem is jesus would have fought but Jesus was persecuted and had only 12 followers against an empire. The prophet had 12 wives but did he mistreat them he offered to all the chance to divorce but they chose him sunan al nisa’i 3203 he never hit a women nor a slave sahih Muslim 2328a he died with liberating al his slaves.and for Jesus didn’t die prophet (pbuh) did such a bad argument we believe the prophet pbuh is a human like us all Quran 18:110;3:144 so he would die so isn’t a problem but it is inappropriate for a god to die for 3 days even 1second even if so Enoch of the OT didn’t even die 1 sec so is he better than Jesus Paul was killed so is he false? ; these arguments fail to interpret so much. Last thing the prophet commanded us to only attack if we are attack as in Quran 2:190;9:4;9:6 and not to kill a women a baby a priest don’t destroy a synagogue or kill only those who fight u -[al-bayhaqui-in al sunan al kubra volume 9 page 90-91 hadith 17589] the prophet also said liberate captives that is the only source of slavery and be nice to them in sahih Muslim 1657a he also said if u strike them u must liberate them.

objection number #7 from satan

1. Now in the Bible it says satan can’t contradict himself in mark 3:26-28
2. Also revelations 20:2 after some commentaries says satan is locked for 1K years after Jesus and muhammed came 600 years later
3. But lets keep up with the first one
4. How can satan make a book such as the Quran that curses him and tells the followers to do Good not bad

Objection #8 Quran

1. [Source](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/880480336939728997/999488025874669628/IMG\_1503.png)
2. [Source](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/880480336939728997/999488028642902136/IMG\_6926.png)
3. [Source](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/880480336939728997/999488051707392060/IMG\_1502.png)
4. How can an illeterate man bring a book like this that guides all man mind kind with all those prophecies and miracles in the Quran
5. How can an illeterate man always known to be truthful as in sahih al-bukhari 7 and 4770
6. The claim that he is a false prophet is the second most stupidest notion ever
7. How can he bring an unchallengeable book while he is an illiterate man ?
8. That is while ignoring all the prophecies and miracles in the Quran
9. If you have any responses or questions please let me know

In light of recent events in this space, there is need to discuss the misplaced moralities of this ummah.
This post is not meant to discuss in depth or dissect the extensive discourse surrounding same sex rulings in Islam - but rather the attitudes the ummah holds towards these beliefs and where such behaviour stems from within the Quran and society as a whole.
_____________________
Table of Contents:

1. Quranic Verses on Homosexuality - Argument One: Same sex lust is not condemned.
2. Allah's Silence - Argument Two: Same sex lust is condemned.
3. Lack of Priorities and Misplaced Morals.
4. Homophobia - Why We're Uncomfortable.
5. Pride Month and Supporting the LGBTQ community.
6. LGBTQ+ Muslim Organizations and Help Resources
7. Closing Note

___________________________________________________
Quranic Verses on Homosexuality - Argument One: Same sex lust is not condemned:
​

"Verily, you practice your lusts on men instead of women. Nay*, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds."* (7:81)

• The verse begins with addressing and recognizing that those thugs "practiced their lusts on men instead of women." However, that is not the act being condemned.
• The verse continues with "Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds". Because of the presence of the term, "Nay", this indicates male on male lust is not what Hazrat Lut (AS) is referring to. He is addressing something far greater than that.
• The key word here is "Nay". In this context, it means: "No, you are people who exceed this"

​

"And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?" (7:80)

• People have been practising same sex relationships since the beginning of time and existed in the earliest civilizations.
• Therefore, the abomination that is being highlighted in bold is not in reference to same sex relationships (since people would engage in such things prior to the incident of Sodom).
• It also mentions "no creature has ever done it before" but many creatures in the animal kingdom take part in same sex mating.)
• The abomination that is being referred to, is the raping and sexual assault of angels, something no creature or jinn or human has done before. They are the transgressors.

Edit: In addition, the men were not homosexuals. They were straight men (who were already married to women) engaging in rape. I repeat, the act of Sodom is not one of homosexual sex - as neither the men nor the angels were gay, nor can that act be classified as "sex" as this would require consent. The men were rapists, this is not about sex, nor gays. It is about rape and adultery.

"You approach males among worldly beings forsaking spouses whom your Lord created for you? Nay! You are a folk ones who turn away." (26:165-66)

_______________________________________________
Allah's Silence - Argument Two: Same sex lust is condemned:

• When analyzing the Quranic verses in relation to homosexuality, one notices Allah is silent on the matter. All the verses which condemn this sexuality and same sex "intercourse" (rape) - all directly stem from Hazrat Lut (AS).
• A further reading of the text hints that the prophet was not in a stable state or condition: a position argued by preachers against homosexuality. However, if this is true, to uphold him to a moral or ethical standard would be incorrect.

​

"And his people came rushing towards him, and before it they were committing sin, he said: “My people, these are my daughters, they are purer for you, so be aware of God and do not disgrace me regarding my guests. Is there no wise man among you?” (11:78)

• According to records, Hazrat Lut (AS) had 2-3 daughters.
• There were several rapists in the town of Sodom.
• By these accounts, the prophet was offering his daughters to a gang of rapists to be sexually abused. He was not offering their hands in marriage, as this would result in polyandry.
• Another interpretation implies he was addressing the women of his town, as homosexuality is forbidden. Thus, the prophet would be redirecting them to a heterosexual relationship. However, this would still be rendered as a problematic interpretation as he is offering women in marriage to violent men without their consent or permission.

​

"Verily, you practice your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds." (7:81)

• If the prophet is truly condemning homosexuality when addressing rape, then this implied the prophet would rather men rape women instead of other men. "Why are you raping men instead of women?"
• If Muslims continue to uphold Hazrat Lut (AS) and follow his sentiments in regards to his disgust with male on male "lust", it would also insinuate his other attitudes and views are also valid - suggesting offering your daughters to be raped (or offering women unrelated to you to violent men) is Islamically sound and acceptable - in addition to suggesting men raping women is a more moral alternative to raping other men.
• In conclusion, Allah Himself is silent on the matter of homosexuals. Any verses that is toned with the implication that homosexuality is condemned comes directly and solely from Hazrat Lut (AS).

​
Please refer to these links:
[Homosexuality and Same-Sex Relations in Islam]
[Prophet Lut (a.s.) and Bal]
_____________________________________________
Lack of Priorities and Misplaced Morals:

• The ummah recognizes male on male lust (or acting upon same sex lust) is forbidden and haram as supported by Islamic tradition.
• Yet, Islamic tradition and its ancient scholars find room to justify and deem it Islamically permissible to engage in pedophilia (child marriages), sex slavery, concubinage, etc.
• The ummah will defend fathers marrying off their infant daughters to elderly men, find excuses to justify the enslavement and rape of women, but draw the line at consensual relations between same sex couples.
• Compare the kinds of relationships Islamic Jurists have deemed permissible in contrast to homosexual relations: Child marriage, sex slaves, concubines.
• The three examples of relationships all have one thing in common - all three demonstrate ancient scholars upheld the entire framework of marriage through patriarchal lens that relied on power imbalance and hierarchy.
• In these relationships, there is a strict emphasis on gender to ensure the best possible outcomes for men - allowing them to rely on gender norms and roles in order to stay in power and exert their authority and force over women and girls.
• Introducing or allowing same sex marriages or relationships causes their patriarchal framework of marriage to fall apart and diminish, rendering men as "powerless" and risk losing the ability to abuse their self appointed authority. Because introducing gender to marriage and understanding that kinship through the lens of affection and companionship - rather than solely subscribing to binary roles such as "breadwinner", "maintainer", "protector" causes men to recognize marriage is an institution of love. Not ownership.

​

• There are more pressing issues at hand to focus on rather than argue against the rights of homosexuals, such as the Muslim concentration camps in Mynamar and China, the issue in Palestine, the Taliban barring girls from education in Afghanistan, poverty - all in addition to environmental issues: Global warming, light pollution, water pollution, thermal pollution, noise pollution, land pollution, over-fishing, endangered species, etc.
• I will revisit this post to edit in resources and links to donate to organizations to help solve these crises.

____________________________________________
Homophobia - Why We're Uncomfortable:
The media has done a great injustice to the queer community and has severely moulded our perception of queer individuals in a harmful light. One of the biggest factors stems from the porn industry selling heterosexual audiences broken lens with which we are forced to perceive the queer community through heavily sexualized and derogatory stereotypes.
Often times, when we hear the terms, “Lesbian”, “Gay”, “Bisexual”, we immediately picture bodies. Naked bodies. Girl on girl, guy on guy. We think of sex - of things which do not concern us. Yet, it’s an automatic response. A flawed response - because the media has conditioned us to invalidate queers because we see them as bodies before we see them as humans.
We’re uncomfortable by the concept of someone being confident and experiencing sexuality in a different way from us to the point we feel threatened - especially when it involves literal children. Because we know it’s wrong.
We know we’re looking at this child and thinking of the physical intimacy between her fathers even though that’s not an automated response we’d have toeards6a straight couple. It makes us feel icky, makes our skin crawl because we’re aware and disgusted by ourselves - disgusted to be viewing children through sexual lens.
It makes sense to ask then, where these things stem from? There are several roots, a major factor being porn and how it massively aids in misrepresenting sexuality.
​

One in five straight men watch gay porn.
“Lesbian” is one of the most searched terms on pornhub.
Societies allow for queers to be sexualized, but does not allow one to be actually queer.

​
When it comes to depicting physical intimacy between lesbians, the majority of viewers are heterosexual men and such content is predominately made for the heterosexual male gaze, all of which are produced and directed by cis men - further selling lesbian relationships as a fetish while promoting false stereotypes. A straight man’s fantasy dictates how we go about communicating with people who experience and express womanhood, manhood, and femininity and masculinity differently than us..
When it comes to gay, bisexual, or lesbian porn - an overwhelming amount of those characters are depicted to be predatory by coercing and actively pursuing straight individuals into sex until they give in.
When heterosexuals look at Homosexual family units, they focus on explicit physical intimacy rather than appreciate the louder themes of family and companionship.
Queer individuals grow up surrounded by heterosexual mediums their entire lives - but still grow up to have a different sexual orientation or gender expression. Gays have always existed in ancient civilizations, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Egypt, the Han dynasty, Japan, the ottoman empire - which can be recognized through imagery on sculptures, pottery, paintings, poetry, etc.
More people are not “becoming” gay, it’s just that queers now have greater acceptance and have an extensive platform through which information is more readily available - allowing people facing similar feelings to speak up and feel safer in the community as opposed to silencing themselves in fear in a stricter environment.
___________________________________________________________
Pride Month and Supporting the LGBTQ community:
Queer individuals:

• Are evicted from their homes.
• Do not have equal access to employment.
• Are fired from their jobs.
• Face workplace harassment.
• Are not allowed to donate blood.
• Deal with Housing inequality.
• Lack of access to healthcare.
• Are denied goods and services.
• Are thrown off buildings and stoned in the name of a "peaceful" and "tolerant" religion.

​
Muslims support alcoholics. Consuming alcohol is haram.
Muslims support smokers. Many believe smoking is haram.
Muslims support drug addicts. Consuming drugs is haram.
Despite this, we continue to support them.
​
We support their human rights, their right to shelter, their right to food, to employment, to healthcare, to access to goods and services and so much more.
Muslims do not support Queers because they believe it is a sin. Yet, do not maintain that same attitude to other groups of people such as alcoholics or drug addicts.
Muslims do not go around executing, harassing, stoning, silencing, isolating and behave in hostility towards alcoholics and drug addicts, yet are obsessed and reserve their hate towards one group of people.
​
__________________________________________________________
LGBTQ+ Muslim Organizations and Help Resources:

• Muslim Alliance for Sexual and Gender Diversity (USA)
• Imaan UK
• Salaam Canada
• Safra Project (UK)
• El-Tawhid Juma Circle (Can join jummah via video)
• Secret Gardens (Netherlands)
• The Inner Circle (South Africa)
• CALEM (France based but for all of Europe)
• H2M (France)
• LGBT Muslim Retreat (International)
• DESI LGBTQ HELPLINE FOR SOUTH ASIANS
• Queer Muslims of Boston
• Masjid Al-Rabia (Chicago)
• OUTMuslim, Haven: The Inclusive Muslim Union of Philadelphia (Pennsylvania)
• Seattle’s Queer Muslim Collective
• Queer Crescent Healing (Bay Area, CA)
• Islamic Healing Space of A2 & Ypsi (Michigan)

​

• Additional Post Listing Help Resources: LGBTQ+ Helplines

________________
Closing Note:
​

~ When you hear the call "I support the LGBTQ community"
You see naked bodies.
I see humans. ~

​
Please refrain from commenting if you have not read the post in its entirety, I don't want to hear the same brain dead takes over and over again that have already been addressed and clarified above.
*[Important Notice: Please do not crosspost this paper to other subreddits. It feels anxiety inducing and I do not want to be at risk of being harassed or labelled a kafir for presenting alternative viewpoints. If you would like to share my posts, I sincerely request you do so by copying the link and sharing it privately - or through other means as long as you are not crossposting it. Thank you for your time].*

تكمله علي ده
طبعا هحاول مكررش الكلام الي اصلا في البوست, وهكتب الي يوصل المعلومه بس
اولا نزلت الايه عن عده المطلقه في صوره البقره 228
وَٱلْمُطَلَّقَـٰتُ يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنفُسِهِنَّ ثَلَـٰثَةَ قُرُوٓءٍۢ ۚ وَلَا يَحِلُّ لَهُنَّ أَن يَكْتُمْنَ مَا خَلَقَ ٱللَّهُ فِىٓ أَرْحَامِهِنَّ إِن كُنَّ يُؤْمِنَّ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْـَٔاخِرِ ۚ وَبُعُولَتُهُنَّ أَحَقُّ بِرَدِّهِنَّ فِى ذَٰلِكَ إِنْ أَرَادُوٓا۟ إِصْلَـٰحًۭا ۚ وَلَهُنَّ مِثْلُ ٱلَّذِى عَلَيْهِنَّ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ ۚ وَلِلرِّجَالِ عَلَيْهِنَّ دَرَجَةٌۭ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ
"ثلاثه قروء" : ثلاث حيضات
----------------------------------------------------------
انت ممكن تسأل سؤال هنا, طب والي مبيحضوش, وده نفس الي سئلته نساء المدينه طبري ابن كثير
حدثنا أبو كُرَيب وأبو السائب، قالا: ثنا ابن إدريس، قال: أخبرنا مطرف، عن عمرو بن سالم، قال: قال أبيّ بن كعب: يا رسول الله إن عِدداً من عِدد النساء لم تذكر في الكتاب الصغار والكبار، وأولات الأحمال، فأنزل الله: { وَاللاَّئِي يَئِسْنَ مِنَ المَحيضِ مِنْ نِسائِكُمْ إنِ ارْتَبْتُمْ فَعِدَّتُهُنَّ ثَلاثَةُ أشْهُرٍ واللاَّئِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ وأُولاتُ الأحْمالِ أجَلُهُنَّ أنْ يَضَعْنَ حَمْلَهُنَّ
ونزلت ايه رقم 4 في سوره الطلاق الي بتتكلم عن ثلاث فئات
الكبار السن الي مبقوش يحيضوا خلاص
والصغار علي الحيض
وزوات الحمل
----------------------------------------------------------
طب هتقولي يبني, ما ده زواج من غير اي نكاح او اي حاجه
هقولك لا, اني لو مفيش اي نوع من العلاقه ف الطلاق هيبقي من غير عده اصلا, طبقا للايه ديه 33:49
يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ إِذَا نَكَحْتُمُ ٱلْمُؤْمِنَـٰتِ ثُمَّ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تَمَسُّوهُنَّ فَمَا لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ عِدَّةٍۢ تَعْتَدُّونَهَا ۖ فَمَتِّعُوهُنَّ وَسَرِّحُوهُنَّ سَرَاحًۭا جَمِيلًۭا
اعتقد الكلام واضح يعني, وانت ممكن تشوف التفسير في اي وقت يعني
----------------------------------------------------------
كده مفيش اي سن, طب السؤال المهم ازاي هياخد اذنها اذا كانت صغيره, الفكره انها ملهاش اذن اصلا, انت بس تتفق مع الاب وخد الي تحبه
https://i.imgur.com/tazsNkt.png, فتح الباري ص346 حديث 5081
اقرا معايا كده:
وقال ابن بطال: يجوز تزويج الصغيره بالكبير اجماعا ولو كان في المهد لكن لا يمكن منها حتي تصلح للوطء ويؤخد من الحديث ان الأب يزوج البكر الصغيره بغير استئذانها
وده موقع درر السنيه في الفقه بيقول نفس الكلام dorar
يجوزُ للأبِ تزويجُ ابنتِه البكرِ الصغيرةِ دونَ إذنِها، وهذا باتِّفاقِ المَذاهِبِ الفِقهيَّةِ الأربَعةِ: الحَنَفيَّةِ، والمالِكيَّةِ، والشَّافِعيَّةِ، والحَنابِلةِ، وحُكِيَ الإجماعُ على ذلك
هذا صَريحٌ في جوازِ تَزويجِ الأبِ الصَّغيرةَ بغيرِ إذنِها؛ لأنَّه لا إذنَ لها
----------------------------------------------------------
طب انت ممكن تسأل هي ايه ضوابط الوطء, هي بكل بساطه
وجاء في (الموسوعة الفقهية): ذهب الفقهاء إلى أن من موانع التسليم الصغر، فلا تسلم صغيرة لا تحتمل الوطء إلى زوجها حتى تكبر ويزول هذا المانع؛ لأنه قد يحمله فرط الشهوة على الجماع فتتضرر به. وذهب المالكية والشافعية إلى زوال مانع الصغر بتحملها للوطء. قال الشافعية: ولو قال الزوج: سلموها لي ولا أطؤها حتى تحتمله، فإنه لا تسلم له وإن كان ثقة؛ إذ لا يؤمن من هيجان الشهوة. اهـ.
وأما عند الحنفية فقال ابن نجيم في (البحر الرائق): اختلفوا في وقت الدخول بالصغيرة، فقيل: لا يدخل بها ما لم تبلغ. وقيل: يدخل بها إذا بلغت تسع سنين. وقيل: إن كانت سمينة جسيمة تطيق الجماع يدخل بها، وإلا فلا. اهـ.
وجاء في الفتاوى الهندية: أكثر المشايخ على أنه لا عبرة للسن في هذا الباب وإنما العبرة للطاقة، إن كانت ضخمة سمينة تطيق الرجال ولا يخاف عليها المرض من ذلك; كان للزوج أن يدخل بها وإن لم تبلغ تسع سنين, وإن كانت نحيفة مهزولة لا تطيق الجماع، ويخاف عليها المرض لا يحل للزوج أن يدخل بها وإن كبر سنها، وهو الصحيح. اهـ
يعني اربع حاجات علي حسب المذاهب

• لو تتحمل الوطء
• لو بلغت
• لو تسع سنين
• لو ضخمه سمينه

جامد
----------------------------------------------------------
تمام يعني كده مفيش سن وممكن تتجوزها من غير اذنها حتي لو ملهاش اذن علشان صغيره وبينفش تتمكن منها الا لما تصلح للوطء
طب السؤال المهم, لو انت عاوز تحمل اي حاجه غير الوطء, اه عادي من الاتفاق من الاب بردو (اصل انت بتشتري تلاجه)
https://i.imgur.com/7aKogFr.png, شرح النووي لصحيح مسلم جزء 9 ص206
اقرا كده:
واما وقت زفاف الصغيره المزوجه والدخول بها فان اتفق الزوج والولي علي شيء لاضرر فيه علي الصغيره عمل به, فقال احمد وابو عبيد تجبر علي ذلك بنت تسع سنين دون غيرها
----------------------------------------------------------
تمام تمام, يعني كده مفيش سن وممكن تتجوزها من غير اذنها حتي لو ملهاش اذن علشان صغيره وبينفش تتمكن منها الا لما تصلح للوطء, وتتفق مع الولي علي حاجه بشرط انه مفيش ضرر عليها
وكام حاجه بقي نقفل بيها والفتوه الجميله ديه islamweb
فإن جواز تقبيل الزوجة الصغيرة بشهوة والمفاخذة ونحو ذلك له ضوابط, وقد بين العلماء رحمهم الله تعالى أن الأصل جواز استمتاع الرجل بزوجته كيف شاء إذا لم يكن ضرر، وذكروا في ذلك استمناءه بيدها ومداعبتها وتقبيلها وغير ذلك... قال شيخ الإسلام زكريا الأنصاري في الغرر البهية: (والبعل) أي: الزوج (كل تمتع) بزوجته جائز (له) حتى الاستمناء بيدها، وإن لم يجز بيده وحتى الإيلاج في قبلها من جهة دبرها. انتهى
----------------------------------------------------------
تمام, يعني كده مفيش سن وممكن تتجوزها من غير اذنها حتي لو ملهاش اذن علشان صغيره وبينفش تتمكن منها الا لما تصلح للوطء, وتتفق مع الولي علي حاجه بشرط انه مفيش ضرر عليها, يعني ممكن يفخدها عادي ويبوسها وتعمله هاند جوب كمان
جميل
وفتوه عن اغلب الكلام جزاهم الله خيرا بيخلوا الموضوع البحث اسهل
islamweb
وموضوع رد علي الحجج مكتوب في البوست الي حطيته فوق ف مش شرط اكتبه ثاني يعني

Something is really bothering me.
“Each one believes in Allaah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. (They say,) ‘We make no distinction between one another of His Messengers’”[al-Baqarah 2:136]
I converted to Islam last year, originally from Christianity, but am currently going through some stupid crisis since maybe half way through ramadan. One thing that has been really bothering me more and more during this period of reflection is the Muslim attitude towards Jesus.
While belief in divine messengers and scriptures (Moses, Jesus, Torah, Gospel) is theoretically part of Islamic Creed, most Muslims, at least on a popular level do in fact make a distinction between messengers and books. This was an enormous barrier to my conversion. I would have become Muslim literally years ago if I had read anything remotely convincing on this topic.
The most common response is "The Bible has been corrupted" (along with other commonly stated nonsense like "the Christians invented the Trinity in the Council of Nicaea", "there are so many different Bibles", "the Orthodox Christians are closer to the message of Jesus (as)" etc.)... but I don't think that this is necessarily this Islamic position. Dr. Ali Ataie from Zaytuna College wrote his p.h.D on an Islamic exegesis of the Gospel of John, and he calls this position 'Standard Muslim Biblicism". The worst manifestation of this in my eyes is the book 'Jesus: Prophet of Islam' by Muhammad 'Ata ur-Rahim. As someone who has been pretty well-versed in Christian theology, doctrine, church history and exegesis ( I understand some Koine Greek), this book was literally the biggest load of garbage I have ever read on paper. The author COMPLETELY and intentionally misrepresents every single aspect of church history and historical theology, to the point that I cannot understand why it was published.
"And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This is from Allah ," but it is not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know." (3:78)
Christians have written extensive polemics on this topic, for example in the very well-written book 'Cross and Cresent' by Colin Chapman, who points out two things: 1) The Qur'an does not necessarily say in verses like this one that the Christian scriptures have been textually corrupted (more on this later). 2) When Muslims adopt this position they create a contradiction for themselves.
Surah 5:47 says "And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient." How can God instruct Christians to do this if their texts are irreparably fabricated? No, we cannot say "this is specifically referring to Christians in the time of the Prophet (saws) who had a more preserved scripture, but this is also crock. We know what the Christians in Arabia in the 7th century were reading (eg. the Diatessaron Gospel harmony). The oldest complete BIBLES (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) date from the 4th Christian century and these are some of the manuscripts that modern Bible translations are based off. This verse creates an enormous dilemma which I you can briefly hear from Frank Turek yourself: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqLQTgKqODY)
So, what do we do? Most of us adopt a belief in what Dr Ataie calls the "Injil Archetype"- that God revealed a book through Jesus called the Injil which was probably similar to the Qur'an, maybe in Aramaic, which is now lost to the entire world (even with modern studies in archaeology, textual criticism, etc.) This is the most popularly-accepted theory, championed especially by Ahmed Deedat- who I recommend everyone promptly disregard (most Christians laugh at him- and I see why. Here is an example of someone speaking without knowledge. He was a smart man, and has his benefits, but he was not trained in Christian theology and made many embarrassing blunders.) But the necessary question is... WHERE IS THIS BOOK?? If you believe in the Injil Archetype, you will have to blasphemously disregard Surah 5:47. If we don't want to do that, we have to come up with something better.
Tahrif
When I see Christians convert to Islam, the strangest thing is that they seem to jump from believing that the New Testament is θεόπνευστος (Theopneustos- literally 'breathed out by God') to believing it has been corrupted in the blink of an eye. I used to ask Muslims to SHOW me how it has been corrupted, only to find out that they have often never even seen a Bible, let alone read one. (HUGE contrast to this man- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OGB3g92FwA- who converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism)
In 'The Alchemy of Happiness', al-Ghazali quotes a Psalm (to be fair I did not recognise it and could not locate it myself), while at the end of the Ihya he actually quotes Jesus from the Gospel of Mathew. He took the 'Injil' to mean the extant books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. He even wrote a book (attributed to him, at least) (which I have not yet had the pleasure of reading) called 'Al-Radd Al-jamīl' - 'A Splendid Refutation of the Divinity of Jesus' which uses the Gospels to argue his case. He respects the evangelists and even Paul (It seems Muslims only dislike him since they started reading Critical Scholarship which came out of 19th century Germany and now championed by the likes of Bart Ehrman).
What is interesting to me is that everything that the Qur'an says about the Christians and their scriptures even in this day and age, and amongst Protestants, who by no means existed in the 7th century- is 100% true- although, as the Qur'an miraculously does- comes from many different angles. For example, in 3:74, I believe that changing things "with their tongues" refers to translation. I personally have examined certain translations of key Christological texts and found that they are most certainly (mis)translated to reflect a Trinitarian theology. An example of this is the famous "I am" ( ἐγώ εἰμι) statements of Jesus in the Gospel of John, which are used to argue that Jesus claimed to be divine (even though he clearly refutes this in John 10). This culminates in John 5:58, where Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am." However, the first instance of this in John 4:26 which is clearly a claim to Messiahship, rather than divinity. Most translation try so hard to sneak around the language, because by translating ἐγώ εἰμι as I am would be a theological anchor for all subsequent ἐγώ εἰμι statements, and would necessitate a different interpretation of John 8:58. But enough of this (I have lots of private material I can share if anyone is interested).
This would mean that Tahrif exists in the post-authorship interpretation of the text (let's be real- translations are always interpretations), rather than on the textual level.
So the question is, if Tahrif DOES exist on the textual level, I would love if someone could prove it to me. (I do not include the Pericope Adulterae, Johannine Comma or the ending of the Gospel of Mark to be acceptable arguments. If you want to make your case based off these, you still have an enormous body of text to work through which is completely untouched by these passages)
My view of the Christian scriptures and the divinity of Jesus at this point in time is incredibly nuanced. Regardless of their level of inspiration, it is undeniable that the four Gospels are incredibly unique texts that I will, God willing, spend my life pondering over and marveling at, and am currently working my way through Leon Morris' commentary on John- my favourite Gospel. I believe in Tawhid, and in the Prophethood of Muhammad- peace and blessings of God be upon him, but I also believe wholeheartedly in the Prophethood of Jesus- peace and blessings of God be upon him, and I do not feel the need to construct some unhistorical imaginary Jesus- because this is exactly what Christians do in their worship of the divine, 'cosmic' Jesus. I am frustrated that most Muslims don't share this, and Christians laugh at us. You will not convince any of them if you just ask them "WhErE iS tHe ReAl GoSpEl, HuH??¿¿??
We could also talk about what this means for the crucifixion of Jesus, but I think this is not the time. I for one accept it as a historical reality- of course open to the possibility to being wrong. Occam's Razor; I have to do some very flexible intellectual contortions to accept that Jesus did not die. I commend to you Todd Lawson's brilliant book 'The Crucifixion and the Qur'an' which is an exhaustive examination of EVERY SINGLE tafsir of Surah 4:157
I would love to hear everyone's thoughts, I apologise if the wording of this post comes across as angry or invective in any way. It's not good because I'm starting to see Muslims as ignorant - even my teachers. And then the thought creeps in that if they can be so blatantly in error in this matter, why should I take their guidance in other matters?
May God's peace and blessings be upon you all.

https://github.com/MuslimTechNet/Islamic-Open-Source-Flutter-Apps

Islamic-Open-Source-Flutter-Apps

Open source flutter apps useful for Muslims
Flutter Packages/Widgets on pub.dev. Kindly check the last updated date, manys seem to be unmaintained.

• Qur'an package on pub.dev - Full Quran text (Arabic) & details including pages, juz, surah, verses and place of revelation etc.
  
• Alquran Cloud - Unofficial api wrapper for the free islamic api alquran.cloud usage
  
• Adhan Dart - Adhan Dart is a port of excellent Adhan JavaScript.
  
• Adhan - Adhan Dart is a library for calculating Islamic prayer times.
  
• Flutter Adhan - A Port adhan-java to Dart Flutter package
  
• Prayer Time - A Dart Package to find prayers/ramazan timings for your exact location.
  
• libpray - Muslim Prayer Times Library for Dart
  

Flutter Apps

• Quran App - Beautiful Quran Majeed app with aesthetic Animation.
  
• 114 - Holy Quran Search App. Searching By Word and getting the Surah & the Ayah where the word is located and how many times the word is repeated in quran.
  
• Quran Flutter - Quran made with Flutter for All platforms
  
• Muslim Guide App - Muslim guide app is the app that help muslims in their dialy habits like reading Qur'an, Azkar, Sebha, praying time and ElQibla direction.
  
• Sirate Mustaqeem - Quran, Hadith, Prayers, Duas - It’s an Islamic application that contains quran, hadees, azkar.
  
• Raheem App - Raheem is an Islamic app for Calculating Prayer Times and Daily Islamic Stories Quran-Verse , Hadith & Tafsir.
  
• Arshad - Simple Quran App (Indonesian)
  
• Al Quran Al Karim - The Noble Qur’an - Hafs from Asim [Arabic Edition].
  
• Khatam Quran - simple app for help people Khatam Quran using Flutter
  
• Quran - Quran And Prayer Time App (Indonesian)
  
• Forqan - A simple Quran app made with flutter without any images or pdf.
  
• Quran App - Quran app built with Flutter
  
• Noor - A Dua and Azkar app
  

The Canaanites Nation , The Ishmaelites Nation. We're you will hear the truth about Islam and hear the truth fully. I Isaiah Muhammad El Shabazz Abdul Latif will tell you the ways of the Holy Quran the Glorious book that was sent as a mercy and guidance to all mankind. The Hadith's of the sahabas and companions of the prophet of God last to all of the world's Muhammad son of Abdullah. Andy tafsir for if men or woman in Islam don't have the TAFSEER then they don't understand their Quran. By the mercy of almighty God Allah come and join this nation of peace everyone of every ethnicity is welcome.

Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
In the name of Allah, The Gracious, The Merciful

Introduction

After doing some research and exploring the different viewpoints of Ahmadi’s and Sunnis, I firmly believe that Ahmadis have the correct and logical viewpoint on the Khataman Nabiyyan title of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and want to have my view challenged in a debate.
For the non-Muslim readers, there are many sects within Islam, I am from the Ahmadi sect which differentiates from the rest of the Muslims in that we do not believe that Prophethood has ended and that Prophet Jesus (as) died a natural death. Due to these differences, Ahmadis are persecuted by countries such as Pakistan's s298C of the Penal Code and we are also barred from performing Hajj. The differences are very complex and I cannot cover them with justice in this one post, so in this post I want to debate on Khataman Nabiyyan. All the Muslims would already know the emphasis that Islam lays on always telling the truth, and in Sahih Muslim introduction 9 it is stated by Umar ibn Al-Khattab (ra) that it is enough of a lie for a man to narrate everything he hears. So, it is important to at least know my actual beliefs before labelling me a Kafir or anything else. To the Muslims, if this evidence does not convince you, it should at least show that Ahmadis are not out of the fold of Islam by believing that Prophethood has not ended.
Khataman Nabiyyan is used to refer to the Prophet Muhammad in 33:40 of the Quran and it translates to “seal of the Prophets” and Muslims have interpreted this to mean that there is to be no more Prophets after the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) whereas Ahmadis say that this means that the Prophet Muhammad is the last law bearing Prophet and Khatam is to highlight is status as the greatest of all Prophets.

Analysis of Quran 33:40

First the context.
The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) had no surviving male children, they would all pass away at a young age. The opponents of the Prophet (SAW) began mocking him in this regard saying that he will not have any progeny and his dispensation will thus vanish from the earth. The opponents called him أبتر (Abtr) meaning the one who has no male issue. So, Allah (SWT) revealed chapter 108 of the Quran, Surah Al-Kausar:
“Surely, we have bestowed upon thee an abundance of good; so, pray to thy lord, and offer sacrifice. Surely it is thy enemy who shall be without issue (Al-Abtr).”
This verse was revealed after the passing of the Prophet’s (SAW) son, Al-Qasim. This is also stated in Tafsir Ibn Kathir. The idea naturally flowed with the Muslims that this meant that the Prophet (SAW) was going to have a son who would live to an adult age, however this was not the case as he had more sons, and none survived to reach the age of puberty.
So, then Allah revealed in Quran 33:40:
“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah has full knowledge of all things.”
A simple analysis of the context and the grammatical structure of the verse would reveal the meaning of this verse. The subject matter of the verse is fatherhood. Firstly Allah (SWT) negates the physical fatherhood of the Prophet (SAW) confirming that he will not have any physical progeny. Then the word “but” is used (Lakin in Arabic), we know that this is a conjunction word used to contrast the first part of a sentence to the latter part. In the first part of the verse Allah has negated the physical fatherhood of the Prophet by saying that “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men”, so the latter part of the verse will affirm his fatherhood in some manner. After the word “but” (lakin), Allah states that the Prophet (SAW) is “the Messenger of Allah”. Earlier on in the same chapter, Allah refers to the wives of the Prophet (SAW) as the mother of believers (33:6). As the wives are the mother of believers, the Prophet (SAW) being a Messenger, is the father of the Ummah as affirmed by this verse. Early scholars of Islam share this view
⁃ In Tafsir Al Kashnaaf, Imam Zamakshari: Meaning every messenger is the father of his Ummah (under 33:40)
⁃ In Al Tafsir-ul-Kabeer, Imam Razi states that the messenger of Allah’s like a father to the Ummah (under 33:40)
⁃ Imam Baydawi says the same in his Tafsir
Then, to raise the status of the Prophet (SAW) beyond that of any other Prophet, Allah gives him (SAW) the title of Khataman Nabiyyan, the seal of the Prophets. In this context this means that he is the father of all the Prophets before him and any to come after him. The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) acts as an authentication for all other Prophets, like a Kings seal on a letter to authenticate it. If anyone is to claim Prophethood they must be in full obedience to the laws of the Prophet (SAW) and cannot change anything even an atoms worth, and all Prophets of the past preached the same message as the Prophet (SAW) so if you want to determine if someone from the past is a prophet you would have to compare their teachings to the Prophet Muhammads (SAW) teachings to authenticate them. SImilarly, a new Prophet must bear the seal of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), which as I stated means that he must follow the law of Islam and cannot bring a new law. The dictionary definitions of the word Khatam can be found below.
In this context it would be strange for this to mean the end of Prophethood as this is debunking the enemies remarks that the Prophet (SAW) will have no more progeny, it affirms that though he will not have physical progeny, he will have spiritual progeny from that moment until the end of time and that billions upon billions of people will have more obedience towards the Prophet (SAW) than they do to their own fathers. Certainly, Khatam cannot mean to say here that he is the last of the Prophets.
Ibn Hajar-al-Asqalani was called Khatam-ul-Huffaz, the chief of the memorisers (on the title page of Tabaqat-ul-Mudallisin). Certainly no one would take this in the literal sense to say Khatam means the last of the memorisers of the Quran as there clearly have been many people that memorised the Quran after Ibn Hajar. This term is being used to show the status of how well Ibn Hajar memorised the Quran that in a hyperbolic sense, no one will be able to memorise the Quran like him. Similarly, it is used to show the status of the Holy Prophet that no one has ever been or will be a Prophet like him, one who demonstrated the perfect qualities and gave us a perfected law that cannot be abrogated.

Arabic Dictionaries

It is also worth looking at Arabic dictionaries on the word Khatam.
In Aqrabul Mawarid:
Khatama-hu, Khatman, and Khataaman mean: He sealed it (taba‘a-hu) or put a seal (stamp) on it and it also crosses as it is said: He sealed the book and put (it) on the book. To seal something: To reach its end. (For) the book: He read it completely and finished it. (To seal) the book: He put the impression of his stamp on it so that it (is authenticated and) cannot be faked.
Lisanul Arab
Khatama-hu, yakhtima-hu, khatman, and khitaaman: The last, on the authority of Laihani: He sealed it (taba‘a-hu), hence it becomes sealed or stamped. It is for emphasis. And, Khatim, is the one who does (the act of sealing). And al-khatm on the heart means: He does not understand anything, and nothing is comprehended by it, as it is sealed. And in the revelation (of the Quran, it is stated): Allah has set a seal upon their hearts. It is similar to His statement: Allah has sealed (taba‘a) their hearts, i.e., they do not understand, nor comprehend, anything. Abu Ishaq said: It means khatama and taba’a have the same meaning, and they mean that a cover has been laid on a thing, and (to place an) obstacle next to it such that nothing reaches it. This is similar to the statement of God Almighty: “Is it that on the hearts are their locks?” [47:25]
Lanes Lexicon
خَتَمَهُ, (S, Mgh, Msb, K) aor., (Msb, K) inf. N. خَتْمٌ (S, Mgh, Msb, K) and خِتَامٌ (Lh, K, TA) with kesr, (TA) [in the CK, erroneously, خَتام] i.q. طَبَعَهُ [He sealed, stamped, imprinted, or impressed, it]: (Msb, K:) or he put the خَاتَم [or signet] upon it: (Mgh:) namely, a thing, (S, Mgh) or a writing or book and the like: and خَتَمَ عَلَیْهِ signifies the same [or he put a seal, or the impression of a signet, upon it]. (Msb) Accord. To Er-Raghib, خَتْمٌ and طَبْعٌ signify The impressing a thing with the engraving of the signet and stamp*:* and the former [as is indicated, but not plainly expressed, as distinguished from the latter] is tropically used, sometimes, as meaning the securing oneself from a thing, and protecting [oneself] from it; in consideration of protection by means of sealing upon writings and doors: and sometimes as meaning the producing an impression**, or** effect, upon a thing from another thing; in consideration of the impress produced [by the signet]: and sometimes it is used as relating to the reaching the end [of a thing]: (TA:) or the primary signification of خَتْمٌ is the act of covering over [a thing]: (Az, TA:) accord. to Zj, the proper meaning of خَتْمٌ and طَبْعٌ is the covering over a thing and securing oneself from a thing’s entering it: some say that the former signifies the concealing a notification of a thing, [as] by putting one’s fingers over it, by way of guarding oneself thereby. (TA.)—Hence, خَتْمُ الشَّھَادَة [The sealing of the testimony]; which is thus described by El-Hulwanee: the witness, when he wrote his name upon a صَک [q.v.], caused his written name to be beneath a piece of lead, [i.e. covered it with a piece of lead,] and put upon it the impress of his signet, in order that there might be no falsification of it or substitution for it.
Mufradat Imam Raghib
*Al-*Khatm and al-Tab‘u are used in two ways: The first way (which is the primary [fundamental] meaning) is the infinitive form of the two words, and their meaning is the impressing of something like the impression or engraving [نقش] of a seal or a ring (that is, one thing impacts or influences another). The second meaning is the obtained impression of the stamp.
Sometimes, the derived meaning is: stopping from something. And this meaning has been given based on the fact that when books or chapters are sealed after writing, it means that their writing has ended and one has stopped writing. For example, “Allah has set a seal on their hearts” and put a seal on his hearing and his heart. Sometimes, the derived meaning, based on the act of sealing, is to create an impact (of the seal), and sometimes, the derived meaning is to bring something to an end. It is in this sense that the phrase is stated, “I reached the end of [khatam-tu] the recitation of the Quran).
[What can be concluded from the above entry in Mufradat Imam Raghib is that the words Khatm and Tab‘ fundamentally mean seal or the act of creating an impression. All other meanings are secondary or derived meanings. Hence, the meaning of bringing something to an end is a secondary meaning].
Source with original screenshots in Arabic
​
The following can be concluded from these definitions:

1. That the Holy Prophet was the Seal of the Prophets, meaning that for any Prophet, past or future, to be regarded as true, he must bear the seal of the Holy Prophet(SAW). Any claims to Prophethood must be authenticated through the revelation in the Quran and Hadith, where there is consistency than a person can be said to be a Prophet.
2. That the Holy Prophet(sa) was the best, the noblest and the most perfect of all the Prophets in that his moral qualities were the best out of all the Prophets and he (SAW) testified to the truth of all the other Prophets as a culmination of all of them.
3. That the Holy Prophet was the last of the Law-bearing Prophets, but more Prophets can appear from the Ummah of the Prophet that do not abrogate his law and are the followers of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), as we all agree that there is to be a latter day Messiah.

Other Verses of the Quran

Quran 4:69 – states that the blessings open to the followers of Prophet Muhammad are Prophethood, truthful, martyrdom and righteousness. These blessings are open both in status and in their actual form
Quran 72:8 - “And indeed they thought, even as you think, that Allah would never raise any Messenger.”
Quran 40:34 - “And Joseph did come to you before with clear proofs, but you ceased not to be in doubt concerning that with which he came to you till, when he died, you said: ‘Allah will never raise up a Messenger after him.’ Thus does Allah adjudge as lost those who transgress, and are doubters”
The above two verses show that whenever a Prophet is sent, people oppose him then after they accept him and he passes away, the people begin to say that there will be no more messengers after him. Due to this, the Jews and Christians have rejected true Prophets of Allah. This verse is a warning from Allah to the people in the time of the Prophet (SAW) and all those that will come after that prophethood never ceases as prophethood is a great mercy to mankind and Allah the merciful would never cease such blessings for us.
Quran 57:16-17 - “Has not the time arrived for those who believe that their hearts should feel humbled at the remembrance of Allah and at the truth which has come down to them, and that they should not become like those who were given the Book before them and the term was prolonged for them, but their hearts were hardened, and many of them are wicked? Know that Allah is now quickening the earth after its death. We have made the Signs manifest to you, that you may understand”
This verse shows that after a long duration after the death of a prophet, the people become hard hearted, wicked, and misguided, then Allah sends a prophet to correct their ways. This has been likened to the Earth quickening after its death, elsewhere in the Quran Allah gives the example of dead plants being revived after rain is sent on them, the rain being the prophets and plants being the people.
This is reinforced in:
Quran 7:35 - “O children of Adam! if Messengers come to you from among yourselves, rehearsing My Signs unto you, then whoso shall fear God and do good deeds, on them shall come no fear nor shall they grieve.”
This verse is clearly in future tense, why would Allah reveal such a verse if there were not to be anymore Messengers in the future?

Evidence From Hadith

Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (as). He will descend.(Sunan Abi Dawud 4324)
Clearly the Prophet Muhammad refers to the latter day Messiah as a Prophet.
نَبِيُّ اللَّهُ عِيسَى وَأَصْحَابُهُ حَتَّى يَكُونَ رَأْسُ الثَّوْرِ لأَحَدِهِمْ خَيْرًا مِنْ مِائَةِ دِينَارٍ لأَحَدِكُمُ الْيَوْمَ فَيَرْغَبُ نَبِيُّ اللَّهِ عِيسَى وَأَصْحَابُهُ فَيُرْسِلُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهُمُ النَّغَفَ فِي رِقَابِهِمْ فَيُصْبِحُونَ فَرْسَى كَمَوْتِ نَفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ ثُمَّ يَهْبِطُ نَبِيُّ اللَّهِ عِيسَى وَأَصْحَابُهُ إِلَى الأَرْضِ فَلاَ يَجِدُونَ فِي الأَرْضِ مَوْضِعَ شِبْرٍ إِلاَّ مَلأَهُ زَهَمُهُمْ وَنَتْنُهُمْ فَيَرْغَبُ نَبِيُّ اللَّهِ عِيسَى وَأَصْحَابُهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ فَيُرْ
“Allah’s Prophet, Jesus and his companions would then be besieged here (at Tur, and they would be so much hard pressed) that the head of the ox would be dearer to them than one hundred dinars and Allah’s Prophet, Jesus, and his companions would supplicate Allah, who would send to them insects (which would attack their necks) and in the morning they would perish like one single person. Allah’s Prophet, Jesus, and his companions would then come down to the earth and they would not find in the earth as much space as a single span which is not filled with their putrefaction and stench. Allah’s Prophet, Jesus, and his companions would then again beseech Allah” (Sahih Muslim 2937a)
Latter day Messiah referred to as “Nabi’ullah (Prophet of Allah 4 times). The full hadith states that he (ra) would get revelation from Allah.

Views of Scholars

Many people today say that the Ahmadiyyat viewpoint is out of the fold of Islam and that we are clearly kafirs, well here are a whole lot of scholars throughout history that held the same views as us on prophethood including many sunni scholars, mujadids, shia imams and more compiled in this book. There are many more that I am not including for the sake of the word count.
Hazrat Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Ali Hussain Al Hakim Al Tirmidhi states:
“According to us, it means that prophethood manifested itself in its full and complete manner in the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him . His heart became a vessel for the complete perfection of prophethood and then his heart was sealed. How can the glory and superiority of Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, be manifested if we claim that he was the last to appear in the world? This is, no doubt, an interpretation of the foolish and the ignorant.” (Kitab Khatamul Auliya, Page 341)
Imam al Razi states: Intellect is the Khatam (culmination) of everything (arabic proverb). Therefore, it is necessary for khatam to mean the best. Don’t you realise that when our Prophet was declared the seal of the Prophets, he was declared the best of the Prophets.” (Tafsir e Kabeer, under 20:26)
‘Allama ‘Abdur Rahman bin Khaldun(rh) (died 808 A.H.)
Saintliness is analogous to prophethood; just as there are various ranks in prophethood, there are similar ranks in sainthood. One who possesses the best of the saintly qualities is called Khatamul-Auliya’, just as the one who possesses the best of the qualities of prophethood is known as Khatamul-Anbiya’ (al-Muqaddimah ibn-e-Khaldun, vol. 1, p. 271)
Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanotawi, founder of the Deobandi sect writes:
Prophets are similar to governors as they are charged with the duty of delivering divine commandments to the people. They are God’s vicegerents. Therefore, it is necessary for them to hold positions of authority. The office of a governor or minister is considered the highest in a chain of subordinate officers. A governor or a minister has the authority to set aside the orders or directives of his subordinates. His orders, on the other hand, cannot be set aside by subordinate officers. The final authority rests with the governor. Similarly, there is no one above the ranks or with more authority than the ‘Khatamun-Nabiyyin.’ All others are subordinate to him. (Collection of Rare Periodicals and Addresses— Mubahathah Shahjahanpur, 1914, p. 25)
Maulana Muhammad Qasim of Nanauta states:
According to the layman the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings on him, being the KHATAM (seal), is supposed to have appeared after all the previous prophets. But men of understanding and the wise know it very well that being the first or the last, chronologically, does not carry any weight. How could, therefore, the words of the Holy Qura’n: “But he is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets” (33:41) glorify him? But I know very well that none from among the Muslims would be prepared to agree with the common men.
[Tahzir ul Naas, Page 4-5]
He states further: If we accept this view, it shall not at all contravene his finality, even though someone in the future does rise to the high status of prophethood.
[Tahzir ul Naas, Page 34]
Hazrat Imam Abu Ja’far Sadiq (descendant of Hazrat Hussain (ra)):
‘Hazrat Abu Ja’far, while discussing the Quranic verse: “For verily We granted the Book to the children of Abraham…,” said that God vouchsafed to the children of Abraham, Messengers, Prophets and Imams. But what is ironical is that people believe in what God blessed the children of Abraham with and yet they deny this blessing for the progeny of Muhammad.’
[Al-Saafi Sharah Asool Al-Kaafi, Part 3, Pg. 119]
The famous and well-known religious leader of the Ahl-e-Hadith, Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan says:
“The Hadith ‘There is no revelation after my demise’ has no foundation, although LA NABIYYA BA’DEE is quite correct, which, according to the men of letters, means that ‘There shall be no prophet after me who shall be raised with a new code of Law which abrogates my Law.’
[Iqtrab ul Saat, Page 162]
Imam Sayyuti writes:
“Abu Na`eem related in “Hulya” from Anas(ra) that the Holy Prophet(sa) said that Allāh revealed to Prophet Moses(as) that I shall throw all those in hell who come to me in a state that they rejected Ahmad(sa). Prophet Moses(as) asked, O God, who is Ahmad? Allāh said that he is the best amongst all the creatures and I wrote his name on the throne before the creation of heaven and earth and none of my creatures can enter Paradise unless they become a member of his Ummah. Prophet Moses(as) requested that O God, appoint me a Prophet of this Ummah. Allāh said that their Prophet shall be from amongst them. Prophet Moses(as) again requested that then make me a member of this Ummah. Allāh said that you are before them and they shall be after you, but I shall join you in the House of My Majesty.``
(Al-Khasaisul Kubrā by Allamā Jalāluddin Al-Sayyūtī; & Nashr-ut-Tīb Fī Zikr-un-Nabī Alhabīb, by Ashraf Alī Thanvī)
Hazrat Shah Waliullah Muhaddith of Delhi who is known to be the mujadid of the 12th century states:
“The closing of prophethood with the Holy Prophet (SAW) means that there can be no divinely inspired reformer after him who would be commissioned with a new law by Allah”(Tafheemat-e-Ilahiyya Part 2 Pagee 85)
And
“The meaning of the Holy Prophet being the Khataman Nabiyyin is that there shall not now appear a person whom God may appoint with a new Law for mankind, that is to say, there shall be no prophet who shall come with a new Law(Tafhimate Ilahiyya Volume II, page 53, 72-73)
The people generally believe that when he (Messiah) would descend on earth, he would only be an ‘Ummati.’ Certainly, it is not correct. He would be an embodiment of the spirit which enkindled the soul of the Holy Prophet (saw) would be his faithful replica”… “There cannot be an independent prophet after the Holy Prophet (saw) who is not his follower and his adherent” … “The end of prophethood with the Holy Prophet (saw) only means that there can be no law bearing prophet or a prophet from outside the Ummah (Al Khairul Kathir, page 111)
Regarding the hadith of Ba’di he states:
It must be clearly understood that the object of this hadith is to highlight the appointment of Hazrat ‘Ali (Allah be pleased with him) to act in the place of the Holy Prophet(sa) when he was to be absent from Madinah during his expedition to Tabuk. Also, it highlights Hazrat Ali’s resemblance to Hazrat Harun(as) when Hazrat Musa(as) had journeyed to the Mount. It is to be noted that the word ba‘di here means ‘ghairi’ “beside me”. It does not mean “after me” in time. As we read in the Holy Qur’an:1 In this verse ba‘dillah means other than Allah. (Qurratul-‘Ainain fi Tafdilish-Shaikhain, by Waliyyullah Dehlavi, p. 206)
Hazrat Mohyuddin Ibn Arabi states: ““The prophethood has terminated with the person of the Prophet of Allah(saw), and his blessings, was no other than the law-bearing prophethood not prophethood itself and this is the meaning of his “verily apostleship and prophethood ceased with me therefore there shall be after me neither an apostle nor a prophet i.e. there shall not be after me a prophet with a law other than mine but that he shall be subject to my law”(Al Fatuhat ul Makiyya Volume 2 page 3)
He also states:
“From the study and contemplation of the Darud we have arrived at the definite conclusion that there shall, from among the Muslims, certainly be persons whose status, in the matter of prophethood, shall advance to the level of prophets, if Allah pleases. But they shall not be given any book of law”…“It is the height of excellence in the Holy Prophet (saw) that through the prayer in ‘Darud Sharif’ he placed his progeny at par with the prophets, and his surpassing eminence over Hazrat Ibrahim lies in the fact that his Sharia can never be repealed (Fatuhati Makiyyah Volume 1, Chapter 73, Page 545)
In fine, we have learnt for certain (from Darud Sharif) that this ‘Ummah’ is destined to have amongst it such personages as would be ranked with the prophets in the eyes of Allah, but they shall not be law-bearers(Fatuhati Makiyyah Volume 1, Chapter 73, Page 545)
“Jesus (as) shall descend amongst the Muslim Ummah as an arbitrator without a new law. Most surely, he will be a prophet. There is no doubt about it.”(Fatuhati Makiyyah Volume 1, Chapter 73, Page 570)
“In so far as the law-bearing prophethood is concerned, it verily ceased and terminated in Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and therefore has there is no law-giving prophet after him…. but Allah has in His graciousness to His servants, continued general prophethood without the law-bearing elements.” (Fusus ul Hikam, Page 134-135)
Hazrat Aisha (ra) said:
“Say he is the Seal of the Prophets, But do not say that there is no no prophet after him”(Durr-e-Manthoor, Under 33:40)
Al Imam ibn Qutaybah ad-Dinwari who passed away in 267 After Hijri stated:
“So far as it concerns the statement of ‘Ā’ishahra: ‘Call the Apostle of Allāh (saw): The Seal of the Prophets and do not say: There will be no prophet after him’; it is directed to the descent of ‘Īsāas and this statement of her does not contradict the statement of the Prophetsaw ‘There will be no prophet after me’, because he meant: ‘There will be not prophet after me who will abrogate that with which I came.” (Dar al-Kitaab Al Arabi, Beirut)
A famous scholar named Shaykh Muhammad Tahir stated:
“And it is narrated from ‘Ā’ishah: ‘Say that he is the Seal of the Prophets and do not say: There will be no prophet after him’. This aims at the decent ‘Īsā, and this also does not contradict the ḥadīth ‘There will be no prophet after me’, because he meant that no prophet will abrogate his sharī‘ah.” (Takmilah Majmaʻ biḥār al-anwār fī gharāʼib at-tanzīl wa-laṭāʼif al-akhbār)
Hazrat Maulana Rum(rh) (died 672 A.H.) writes:
The Holy Prophet(sa) is khatam because there neither was nor will be any equal to him in generosity, that is, spreading the blessings… (Miftahul-‘Ulum, by Maulavi Muhammad Nadhir ‘Arshi (Sharah Mathnawi Jalal-ud-Din ar-Rumi(rh), vol. 15, Book 6, part 1, p. 56–57)
Conclusion
All this evidence should make it clear that the whole Muslim Ummah does not disagree on whether prophethood has ended, we all agree that there will be prophethood after Muhammad (SAW), just not any law bearing ones. What we disagree on is on the identity of the latter day Messiah, where many Muslims believe Jesus will literally descend, but we believe that Jesus has passed away and the latter day Messiah will be in the spirit of Jesus in the sense of similarities. Would be interested to hear your arguments.

Khaled Abou El Fadl, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Mufti Abu Layth, Shabir Ally say that hijab is not mandatory. They seem to be very popular in this subreddit and are considered to be trusted scholars here. My questions are→

✪FIRST QUESTION✪

Are these people really scholars? Has any of them studied in renowned Islamic institutions like Medina University, Al Azhar, Darul Uloom Deoband, Zaytuna University etc? Here's what Wikipedia said about their educational backgrounds:
Khaled Abou El Fadl:

Abou El Fadl holds a B.A. in Political Science from Yale University, a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Islamic law from Princeton University. Abou El Fadl also has 13 years of instruction in Islamic jurisprudence, grammar and rhetoric in Egypt and Kuwait. After law school, he clerked for Arizona Supreme Court Justice James Moeller, and practiced immigration and investment law in the U.S. and the Middle East. He previously taught Islamic law at the University of Texas School of Law at Austin, Yale Law School and Princeton University.

⊕My Question⊕
•So, can Khaled Abou El Fadl really be considered a scholar? He received 13 years of Islamic instructions somewhere in Egypt & Kuwait. Was it a renowned Islamic Institution like Al Azhar? Or did he just receive private education from someone, or only work with some scholar for 13 years, & then declare himself a scholar?
•You can't become a doctor just by working with a trained doctor for a few years, or just by receiving tutelage privately from a doctor. To become a doctor, you must study in a medical school. You have to graduate from the medical school, only then you can call yourself a doctor. Otherwise you can't. Similarly, if someone wants to become an Islamic scholar, then they need to study in Islamic school & Islamic University. After graduating from there, they become scholars. If Khaled Abou El Fadl didn’t study in any Islamic University (like Al Azhar) & only study under some individual scholar privately, then can he really be considered a scholar? & if he studied in an Islamic institution, what's the name of that institution?
•Also the article says that after law school, he clerked at Arizona Supreme court & practiced immigration and investment laws. Why would an Islamic scholar do this? Why would an Islamic scholar study law & clerk at supreme court? The place of an Islamic scholar is in the mosque, not in the court or lawyer's office. It really makes me suspicious, is he really an Islamic scholar? Why would an Islamic scholar work as a lawyer in Supreme court instead of teaching in mosques & Islamic seminars?
•Another important question, does he have an Izajah? If yes, then from where did he receive it?
•And also, why does he give fatwas on his website? As far as I know, only Muftis have the permission to give fatwas. He is not a Mufti, so where did he get the authority to issue fatwas?
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi:

Ghamidi and his two elder sisters grew up in a Sufi household. His early education included a modern path (matriculating from Islamia High School, Pakpattan), as well as a traditional path (Arabic and Persian languages, and the Qur'an with Nur Ahmad of Nang Pal).[7] His father wanted him to have both traditional and modern education, splitting his time between school and learning Arabic and Persian.[citation needed]
His first exposure to traditional Islamic studies was in the Sufi tradition. After matriculating, he came to Lahore in 1967 where he is settled ever since. Initially, he was more interested in Literature and Philosophy. He later graduated from Government College, Lahore, with a BA Honours in English Literature & Philosophy in 1972.[11]
During his excursions to the library he stumbled on the works of Hamiduddin Farahi, a scholar of Quran. In this work he found a mention of Amin Ahsan Islahi, the torchbearer of Farahi's thought. Knowing that Amin Ahsan Islahi was resident in Lahore during those days, he set out to meet him the very day he had first read his mention. The meeting changed Ghamidi from a man of philosophy and literature to a man of religion.[12] In 1973, he came under the tutelage of Amin Ahsan Islahi (d. 1997), who was destined to who have a deep impact on him. He was also associated with scholar and revivalist Abu al-A‘la Mawdudi (d. 1979) for several years. He started working with them on various Islamic disciplines particularly exegesis and Islamic law.[4]

⊕My Question⊕
•So he didn’t study in any Islamic schools or Universities. He studied in a secular University & graduated in English Literature & Philosophy. He didn’t go to Darul Uloom Deoband Madrasa or any Islamic University. He came under the tutelage of Amin Ahsan Islahi, & worked with another Islamic scholar Abu Ala Mawdudi. But he did not study in any Islamic institution. So I'm just going to copy the example of the doctor again→ "You can't become a doctor just by working with a trained doctor for a few years, or just by receiving tutelage privately from a doctor. To become a doctor, you must study in a medical school. You have to graduate from the medical school, only then you can call yourself a doctor. Otherwise you can't. Similarly, if someone wants to become an Islamic scholar, then they need to study in Islamic school & Islamic University. After graduating from there, they become scholars. If Khaled Abou El Fadl Javed Ahmad Ghamidi didn’t study in any Islamic University & only studied under some individual scholar privately, then can he really be considered a scholar?"
•Also, does he have an ijazah? If yes, then where did he receive it from?
Dr Shabir Ally:

He received his B.A. in Religious Studies from Laurentian University and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Toronto.[8] His PhD thesis was on the exegesis of the Qur'an (Tafsir).

⊕My Question⊕
•These are secular Universities, not Islamic universities. So can it really be considered as proper Islamic education? Thus, can he be really considered a real Islamic scholar? Besides, his PhD is in the tafsir of Quran. Which means he only gets to explain the tafsir of the famous tafsir writers to the people of the mosque, am I right? So why does he talk about fiqh issues like whether hijab is mandatory or not? A cardiologist has no right to perform brain surgery, his field is around the heart. Similarly, a neurosurgeon will not perform open heart surgery, because it's not his field, his field is around the brain. So shouldn’t Shabir Ally stick to teaching tafsir instead of declaring hijab as optional?
•Also, does he have an izajah? If yes, then where did he receive it?
Mufti Abu Layth:

Ajmal studied Islamic theology first in Damascus and then in Karachi, where he memorised the Qur'an.[5] He speaks five languages, including Urdu and Arabic.
Although he is classically trained in the Maliki tradition, Ajmal does not subscribe to any particular school of thought nor identifies with any particular Islamic denomination.[8] Despite his education, he prefers to disregard many of the more traditional codes by which Muftis are expected to abide by

⊕My Question⊕
•So what were these institutions where he received his education? The Wikipedia article provides no mention of the names. But although he is a Mufti, he seems to be a very controversial person. Is he a scholar though? Because a Mufti is not a scholar, a Mufti is only allowed to issue fatwas. According to wikipedia, "A fatwā is a nonbinding legal opinion on a point of Islamic law (sharia) given by a qualified jurist in response to a question posed by a private individual, judge or government". He can only give fatwa if someone asks questions like "if a muslim woman in a western country faces violent threat, then can she remove hijab?". But whether hijab itself is mandatory or not must be decided by the scholars. A Mufti can't pass a fatwa like " hijab isn't mandatory", but he can issue a fatwa like this "when there is violent threat, muslim women are allowed to take off their headscarf" (at least that's what I'm aware of). So, unless he is trained in this side, he can't declare hijab to be not mandatory.
•Besides, does he have an ijazah? If yes, then from where did he receive it?

✪SECOND QUESTION✪

Do their opinions really have any weight? Because there is Ijma of overwhelming Majority scholars that hijab is mandatory. So when there is Ijma on something, then nobody has the right to argue against it as far as I'm aware of. So their opinions automatically get rejected, am I right? So why would you follow their minority opinion, but reject the opinions of majority of the scholars? (& yeah, I know majority of the scholars also declared that slave women are not required to cover their hair, but today there are no more slave women, so all Muslim women are considered free women. Therefore this argument of slave women is irrelevant today. But the argument on the awrah of free women is still relevant, because all are free women today)
That's all I wanted to ask. Waiting for your replies. Thank you