I hope to gain some insight into istikhara signs after dua. I made an istikhara last night on something this morning something happened to make my goals for the thing I prayed iatikhara for easier. Can one interpret that as a positive sign?

My work usually pays for my accommodation as I travel. Ordinarily, I stay in the cheapest possible place (e.g. backpackers), but sometimes I stay in more expensive places even though it's not strictly necessary. There'll be some justifications, e.g. the conference will be more convenient to get to; I didn't have time to optimize my bookings; I don't want to make my lab look like it's "cheap"; to avoid staying in mixed-gender accommodation. **Question**: Is unnecessarily staying in a more expensive hotel and charging it to my employer a sin? Depending on how you look at it, this resembles "theft"---I could send a smaller bill to my employer by staying at lower quality accommodation. My employer is not going to get grumpy at me (usually others stay in nicer accommodation than I require).

For context, I hold no religious stance as of now. The intention is to genuinely understand, not meant in any other way - I feel if revealed theology tries to accommodate new scientific consensus in its revelations (while revelations proclaim falsified scientific claims), then the revelation loses its explanatory power and objectivity because the extent to which ideas can be retrofitted and “verified” by reinterpreting something in the revelation is massive. Further, a confirmation bias comes into play. So, unequivocal religious claims made over the scientific domain are to be taken literally, not metaphorically. In that case, assuming that metaphysical claims cannot be proven, then those which are tethered to empirically falsified claims (like creationism) should be discounted altogether. This provides a filter into which metaphysical systems are worth contemplating about and believing in, i.e. which may have some resemblance to the human-perceived truth. For instance, consider this claim: the earth's core is the source of all consciousness, and this radiance of consciousness is a unique substrate that can't be observed empirically (hard problem etc). My justification: before the earth's existence, there was no consciousness, outside of the earth there is no consciousness. This is claim is intentionally arbitrary, but prove me wrong. I can make a case for astronauts too: I can say they are still within the radius of the earth's consciousness. I can keep redefining the radius of consciousness ad-hoc. But obviously I made this claim up right now. Since this example does not make a scientifically falsified claim, a more apt example for revealed theology would be the claim of me being the source of consciousness, which is again intentionally arbitrary (no prizes to point out this claim's falsity; I myself vouch against it). This is empirically falsifiable, since people were very much alive and conscious even before I was born. Yet, for those who believe the central tenet of me being the source of consciousness, I can create an irrefutable and complete philosophical system by claiming that I made those who claim to have been born before me hallucinate about their existence before me, to create doubt in their own minds and the minds of others about me being the source of consciousness, thus serving as a test for people to believe in the “truth” or to not believe in it. This test is what determines if people go to heaven or hell, as I get to know whether people with free will would choose to believe in me despite my claim being scientifically proven. I don't need to clarify on this ludicrous claim's falsity, but yet it appears complete if you believe in the central tenet. Using this nonsense example as a cue, I feel it is better to look at metaphysics that is built on empirically falsified claims with greater skepticism, and I consider creationism to be falsified on modern analytical grounds. Unless one's faith in revelations supersedes one's belief in what one can perceive of course. This I feel cannot rationally be justified, since we perceive revelation (it doesn't appear to us from within, we aren't prophets), and so we wouldn't know whether our perception of the revelation is true if our perception isn't our paramount source of truth (resulting in a contradiction). If perception of revelation is provided an exception under theism (i.e. whoever opens the revelation perfectly perceives its message), then each revelation would have 1 unambiguously true interpretation of every single detail. But this is not true. For instance, in Christianity, there are Gnostic, Catholic, Protestant interpretations; in Islam also there are different schools of thought, different Sharia interpretations. Also, there would be only 1 surviving revelation, since every Christian who picked up the Quran would necessarily know it to be true for instance. Moreover, the very claim that "honest interpretation of the revelation is by nature not distorted" itself may be wrongly perceived as perception isn't perfect, and "honest interpretation" can only be defined after the interpretation corresponds with consensus meaning. One reason why I feel revealed theologies’ historical/scientific claims may not be taken metaphorically is explained below. If the historical accounts of the biblical narrative are to be taken metaphorically, then it implies that at least a part of it is a story/myth/analogy used to explain a moral value. That renders the prophets to be characters in the story, and God as the supreme being of that story; but it still remains a "story". For instance, if creationism is a metaphor, then Adam is a character in the metaphor and not a historical being. Thus, respecting Adam is akin to respecting a character in a non-literal, and thus, a mythological story. This makes the biblical narrative very similar to say the Mahabharata in structure, wherein, too, the story is admitted to be a myth but with historical anchoring, intended to serve a moral/philosophical purpose. However, I do not feel this is the perspective held and recognised by theists when they think of their religion in general.

So Dhul-Qarnayn was the righteous king who blocked Yajuj and Majuj, and is it true that he lived in the time of Ibrahim? There are also some people who say Yajuj and Majuj were around at the time of Musa, but that wouldn't make sense since Dhul-Qarnayn lived a long time before Musa (I think). Could someone please clear this up for me?

> And if a man's discharge proceeded that of the woman, then the child > resembles the father, and if the woman's discharge proceeded that of > the man, then the child resembles the mother." Okay, isn't the above hadith totally unscientific? Because we know that resemblance is actually implemented by DNAs and genes, not due to the fact who has orgasm first.

I know a female doctor, a muslim doctor,she so kind and good doctor. If I got any sexual and my male organs matter. Some time I consult her. She is so preffesional and I didn't consult any other doctor for this matter. She only know my confidential matters in private area. She is aged. Above 55. Am 32. Any serious haram in this case? Because, lot of male doctors are there. But am a person who know very common in my area. Other male doctors know me. In social activities they also seeing regularly. So am shy to consult them. What they think of me and if they see my organs etc..Discomfort with their treatment and exam. but this female doctor already know about my medical background . Is it allowed? I searched same in chatgpt, i got +ve ans.

I read ,or let's say I write stories about two men loving each other. These stories do not contain any explicit scenes and the focus is not at all on sexual points and in reality I myself am not at all attracted to the same gender but I am really really addicted to writing and imagining these stories without sharing them with others. Is the sheer topic of them being the same gender haram? Is reading/writing these stories considered Zina of heart/eyes?

Why do some Muslims fold the top right of their prayer mats? I asked a few who said that we should either remove the prayer mats or fold a portion of it else Shayatin will pray on it!!! IMO (atleast) Iblees is aware of Allah and perhaps Iblees is more knowledgeable about Allah than many of the Muslims alive today. The other beings who do decide to pray on those mats may actually be believing jinns. So, what is the fiqh between the folding of mats? Or is it a bid'ah?

I've read that imam Rafi, a great shafi'i scholar allowed the reed flute whilst imam Nawawi disagreed with him. What evidence did imam Rafi'i use to justify his ruling?

As we know Salah is a daily act for us muslims. But why is it that it is prayed differently though it was an extremely common daily act for the Prophetﷺ. For example: i) Why is there a difference of opinion of wether we should raise our hands (Takbeer) for ruku3 , coming up from ruku3 etc? ii) Again why is binding your hands or not getting up from ruku3 a matter of dispute ? iii)The dispute of wether we should raise and point with out finger while sitting the whole way through, only during the tashahud or only during the shahadah. These were extremely common practices but why are there differences in opinions about them. Please provide your proof using Ahadeeth or trustable sources aswell. Thank you.

I try to boycott most of the products that support israel but not all, am i sinful for not boycotting and what kind of haram is it, do i take the rights of the palestinian people?

In 2015, there was an Islamic Declaration on Climate Change which was organised by a number of Islamic organisations including Islamic Relief Worldwide, Greenfaith and others. This was presented to the UN and to carry on this work, the organisation Global Muslim Climate Network was set up. Nana Firman, the then co-chair of this organisation said at the time: >Islam teaches us that 'man is simply a steward whilst holding whatever is on earth in trust.' I've read this before - elsewhere. Q. Why is this, is it justified by reference to the Hadith or Qu'ran or both?

I would like to ask can man wear women underwear if they don't don't specifically highlight traits of ladies like ( thong; bikini etc) Those who just resemble with men underwear.I know man are not allowed to use women clothing and women are not allowed to use men clothing . Those who in the end of are decided by company that they are man or woman underwear If they are like not that clearly made for women . I am asking that as they are more comfortable and and some fit better each other at end of day they are underwear. Secondly can women wear man underwear if they don't have any element of man in them as some may be more suitable for women then traditional ones Some man and woman are labeled as unisex by companies but they are either man or woman underwear so can we say that if the company doesn't label them as any gender and they don't show clearly made for specific gender then we can wear any as they are just for covering and hygiene of body

I want to seek counseling for a serious issue which is destroying my peace and ibadah I am facing extreme waswasa I often feel like hitting myself not intense but to distract its destroying my mental health and I watched multiple islamic videos to help cope with it but I am is still not able to fight it completely and I also get waswas for my family astaghfirullah like hope they die but than I cry coz I dont want anything to happen to them

In my very possibly mistaken belief, there is a thin line between religion and superstition that we should not cross. > I want to know whether the activity of dream interpretation is haram according to Quran and sahih al-hadith. There are many ways to do dream interpretation, in particular I'm talking about the type that [this website](http://www.myislamicdream.com/) provides, for example [like this entry about horse](http://www.myislamicdream.com/search.html?txtSearch=horse&cmdSearch=Search) . It cites people's words about the dreams. But people must not make things up, what is their basis to talk about all these dreams? Only what God revealed through Quran and through Muhammad (PBUH) can be a reference, all the rest can only be hearsay, which is a sin. Does that mean such activities should be haram?

In the times when confusion comes in my salah, sometimes there is doubt that I have left a rakat and sometimes I am sure that I have left a rakat. I have to do sajdah sahu in second case but, what about the first case ? I have to do sajda sahu in first case also ?

I was with my friend in our schools assembly the national anthem started playing and he jokingly said I am American so I can't sing this national anthem who ch was playing(it was Pakistani national anthem) so I with a serious face and joking manner said this is haram I never mean to insult elements of islam please help

Assalamu alaikum, My question is as in the subject, is hair transplant allowed in islam? Can we go through the process of adding new hair from other area of the head where there is more growth of hair. **No artificial hair**

In YouTube their was a Hindu lady who read cards but I just wanted to know my personality she didn't read any cards for me just told what type of person I am I didn't asked her any of my future is it shrik I only knew that knowing about future is shrik so have I don't shirk?

I have read that a Muslim is prohibited from swearing an oath of allegiance to a secular power, e.g., the government of the United States, by specific language in the Quran. On-line references which I have checked seem to be silent on this issue. Is there a definitive answer?