I am an asexual. Means I don't feel any attraction at all to any gender and physical intercourse seems kinda gross to me :v. **Now are there any exceptions to be made in the Islamic Rules for gender interactions in my case?** To put it in **context**,I got some female 'friends' from work & study whom I talk to on a near daily basis. I never touch them(hugging, shaking hands), avoid khalwa(seclusion) as much as possible, don't talk anything vulgar/flirtatiously; basically I don't go overboard and don't even want to. But we do talk about common interests, necessary stuff and in rare cases about personal life & all. I have heard throughout Islamic history men who couldn't be attracted to women were employed in the Harem but those were mostly chastised men(not similar to me).

**Is there any specific rule in Islam which allows suicide bombing even though suicide itself is *haram* ?**

I took the clean clothes & gone for the shower after I have found impurity in the night, but I forgot to separate them from the uncleaned one, and there was no wetness in uncleaned one. So is that clean cloth still clean and for praying? Or I need another clean cloth?

أصحاب الأيكة, translated as "people of the wood" or "people of the forest", is a phrase that occurs 4 times in the Holy Quran. It refers to the people of Shuaib (as). However, there is a discrepancy in the spelling of the word "اَلْأَيْكَة". Twice it is seen as it should be (الأيكة) but twice it shows up as "لْئَيْكَة" which is still pronounced the same but it does not have the hamza wasl. 15:78,50:14 – اَلْأَيْكَةِ(with hamza wasl) 26:176 38:13 – لْئَيْكَةِ (without hamza wasl) What I've gathered from going through tafasir on the matter is that this discrepancy is due to an alternate qira'at present at those 2 places where the word is ممنوع من الصرف and is pronounced أَصْحَابُ لَيْكَةَ upon the wazn of لَيْلَةٌ. However, thus far I can't answer the following questions: 1. Why is this alternate Qirat only present at 2 of the 4 locations? 2. Why/how does removing the hamza wasl indicate the alternate Qirat even though it is still pronounced the same? 3. Why is there this middle ground between accepting the Qirat and having it pronounced as "لَيْكَةَ" at the 2 spots and keeping it normal? (Middle ground being pronouncing it normally but indicating the qirat by a slight change of spelling). This is by no means an allegation against the Quran (nauzu billah). I firmly believe in the Quran and will bear witness to its truthfulness until my last breath (Insha'Allah). But I've had this question on my mind for a long time and haven't come up with a fulfilling answer. If anyone knows anything in this regard I would much appreciate their help.

There is a narration (or text) in السيرة الحلبية in volume 3, page no.377 that states that Zainab bint Jahsh (Radhi'allahu'anha) was supposedly married to our Beloved Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu'alaihi''Wa'alahi'wassalam) without her consent. The narratuion also supposedly says that our Beloved Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu'alaihi'Wa'alahi'wassalam) also married other women without their consent. ***I would like to know what is the authenticity of this narration?*** Here is the screenshot below of the said narration:-

From this answer: https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/79270/54227 > 6. > "And him whom We grant long life — We revert him to a weak condition of creation. Will they not then understand?" (36:68). > > This is the law of nature that the longer someone lives, the more old > and frail their body becomes. So even if Jesus were to come back he > would be such a frail old man that it wouldn't matter. Where is it > said that Jesus (as) is an exception to this clear eternal law? > Likewise in other verses of the Quran this eternal law is mentioned > without exception. > > "...And there are some of you who are caused to die prematurely, and there are others among you who are driven to the worst part of life > with the result that they know nothing after having had knowledge..." > (22:5) I want to know how do Muslims who believe Jesus (as) will come back can respond to this argument. Do they believe that Jesus (as) will be a frail old man when he returns?

From this answer: https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/79270/54227 > 7. > "We granted not everlasting life to any human being before thee. If then thou shouldst die, shall they live here for ever?" (21:34). > > Everlasting life doesn't necessarily mean literally forever. It can > also refer to extraordinarily long lives otherwise impossible. Here, > the Prophet (sa) is addressed that you like every other human being > will die but no one will remain forever. Jesus (as) is in clear > violation of this rule. Compared to us a lifespan of 2000+ years is > basically forever. I want to know how do Muslims who believe Jesus (as) is alive can respond to this argument.

Why has Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan who clearly did not follow the path of Rasulullah and the 4 rightly guided Caliphs in his reign, did many Haram things openly and named his successor his son Yazid unlawfully (which later resulted in the murder of Ahl ul Bayt and the Battle of Harra in Madinah) find a high status in the Sunni school of thought. Are most people ignorant of his doings or they think that he was forgiven?

Is it permissible to give or receive oral sex after breaking fast for the day during Ramadan?

This is one of the proofs Ahmadis use to show Jesus (as) is dead, taken from: https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/79269/how-do-ahmadis-justify-their-belief-that-jesus-as-is-dead > "The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; surely, Messengers like unto him had indeed passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We explain the Signs for their good, and see how they are turned away." (5:75). In this verse Allah is refuting Jesus's (as) divinity by saying that Messengers like him passed away. But what's the point of mentioning this if Jesus (as) is the only exception to this rule and he is still alive?

From this answer: https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/79270/54227 > 10. >​ "And those on whom they call beside Allah create not anything, but they are themselves created. They are dead, not living; and they > know not when they will be raised." (16:20-21) > > Since Jesus (as) is worshipped besides Allah, he is included in this > verse. He is but a created being, and he is dead, not living. I find > this verse especially interesting, as if it were untrue then > Christians would be praying to a being besides Allah who is alive and > might actually hear their cries and intercede for them. But no, this > verse disproves that idea very clearly. I want to know how do Muslims who believe Jesus (as) is alive can respond to this argument.

I want reference of the following Qunoot Nazila of Umar (RA). The reference to the image is : https://central-mosque.com/index.php/Acts-of-Worship/qunut-nazilah-special-collective-supplication-at-the-time-of-extreme-need.html The following youtube video just says it is narrated in Al-Bayhaqi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh67pWYpeyQ

Can a girl(bride) give gifts to boy's family with her own money during rukhsati(when bride leaves her home after marriage) because all the stuffs at that time the girl brings with her(that is not for her use) is dowry.so I have to know,will this gift be dowry?

I am an Ahmadi Muslim and I have a hard time understanding why Sunni Muslims believe Jesus (as) to be alive when in my research I have found that Quran and Ahadith make it clear that he is dead. I find the proofs presented by the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) to be very powerful and I cannot refute them to the best of my ability. One of 23 Arguments I found is the following: > "The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; surely, Messengers like unto him had indeed passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman. **They both used to eat food.** See how We explain the Signs for their good, and see how they are turned away." (5:75). And one cannot say that Jesus (as) does not require food. Because the Quran clearly says that every prophet does: > "And We did not give them bodies that ate no food, nor were they to live for ever." (21:8) > "And We never sent any Messengers before thee but surely they ate food and walked in the streets. And We make some of you a trial for others. Will you then be steadfast? And thy Lord is All-Seeing." (25:20) Jesus is not special, and he must be eating food. So, while he awaits his descent in the heavens, he must be eating food. So there is a kitchen for him in the heavens that he eats from. And there is a bathroom that he goes to relieve himself. But last time I heard there are no bathrooms or kitchens in heaven. I would like to know how do Sunni Muslims counter this argument?

I've read this verse several times that dreams are 1/46 part of Prophethood. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6614, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2263 What exactly does this mean in relation to the number 46, or more precisely, what is the remaining 45/46?

Can someone tell me which scholars are of the view that - imitating the kuffar is kufr And which scholars are of the view that - imitating the kuffar is not kufr

If I do I'tikaf and during I'tikaf, an emergency situation arises at my work which can not be resolved without me doing some worldly work, will working (like software development) for a couple of hours **remotely from my computer, without leaving my quarters** invalidate my I'tikaf? Currently, there is no replacement available at my work to do the work I'll be required to do, and I'll only get leave from work on the condition that I agree to do the required work for a few hours during those days, if a work-emergency situation arises. There are like 20% to 30% chances that such an emergency situation will arise. But I really want to do I'tikaf? Is there any related or similar example from the time of Holy Prophet (peace be upon him)?

Can a wife refuses her husband sex because she is the breadwinner of the family,

I was told that playing games such as Ludo or Snakes and Ladders is haraam as you use a die / dice. What is the correct opinion on this.

Unlike a personal loan, which is typically taken and used in need, business loans are often taken with the express intent of profiting therefrom. Often, a business may choose to go in debt not because it is unable to afford a particular undertaking, rather because the cost and/or risks of taking a loan end up being more profitable than those of reallocating existing assets. Given that a lender doesn't accept interest on the loan, and under the general principle of "Any loan which brings benefit is *riba*", **is it permissible for the debtor to actually (try to) *profit* from his use of this money while the actual owner of the property gets nothing of it?** I know that it would be possible to work the transaction such that both parties can share the profit and risk thereof (e.g. *musharakah*); that's not what the question is about. I am only concerned about the situation where the capital is explicitly a *loan*. I am particularly seeking a Hanafi position on this matter, ideally one in which full evidences are presented.