Aslem walkuim ​​​​​ I married a girl about 3 years ago the marriage lasted for about a year then we had a lot of arguments so we separated (we never got divorced we both went our separate ways) after 2 years off no communication me and her started back talking! My question is are we still married as far as deen? If not what are the requirements for us to get back together?

Is it alright to buy a deck of tarot cards for someone else? I do not believe in them, so is it okay if I bought it for a friend that would like them for their birthday? Or am I encouraging something haram, even if they don't share my beliefs?

Is it permissible to continue fasting and praying after spotting a small drop of blood caused by contraceptive medicine, considering that this is not menstruation but rather irregular bleeding that occurs intermittently over several days and stops after the initial drop? I understand I can complete ghusl and pray, but I am confused about whether this bleeding can affect my fast.

Translation of Quran 5:45 by "Sahih International" trio (Emily Assami, Amatullah Bantley, Mary Kennedy): > And We ordained for them therein 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 is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] > charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by > what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers. "for them" - this is about Jews. As i know, this rule also applies to Muslims. (for example, in https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/45944 you can see that). But how do I know that this indeed applies also to Muslims? maybe there are hadith which clearly say that?

The Quran says > O YOU who have attained to faith! Just retribution is ordained for you > in cases of killing: the free for the free, and the slave for the > slave, and the woman for the woman (Baqarah 178) Does it mean that if a slave is killed, another slave (irrespective of the murderer) is to be killed, and if a woman is killed, then another woman has to be killed in compensation. This is not applied in any Islamic country, so I am sure that I am misreading it. Kindly explain.

According the hadith below prophet Musa A.S is given the ability to talk directly with Allah A.Z.W. > حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، قَالَ حَفِظْنَاهُ مِنْ عَمْرٍو عَنْ طَاوُسٍ، سَمِعْتُ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ احْتَجَّ آدَمُ وَمُوسَى، فَقَالَ لَهُ مُوسَى يَا آدَمُ أَنْتَ أَبُونَا خَيَّبْتَنَا وَأَخْرَجْتَنَا مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ‏.‏ قَالَ لَهُ آدَمُ يَا مُوسَى اصْطَفَاكَ اللَّهُ بِكَلاَمِهِ، وَخَطَّ لَكَ بِيَدِهِ، أَتَلُومُنِي عَلَى أَمْرٍ قَدَّرَ اللَّهُ عَلَىَّ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَخْلُقَنِي بِأَرْبَعِينَ سَنَةً‏.‏ فَحَجَّ آدَمُ مُوسَى، فَحَجَّ آدَمُ مُوسَى ‏"‏ ثَلاَثًا‏.‏ قَالَ سُفْيَانُ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الزِّنَادِ، عَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِثْلَهُ‏.‏ > > Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. 'O Adam! You are our father who disappointed us and turned us out of Paradise.' Then Adam said to him, 'O Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His Own Hand. Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?' So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses," the Prophet (ﷺ) added, repeating the Statement three times. > > - [Sahih al Bukhari 6614](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6614) Did the Prophet Musa A.S talk with Allah A.Z.W while on earth or by mean of angel-messengers? Also in the story of Mi‘raaj night journey Allah A.Z.W talk directly with Prophet S.A.W. While on earth, does Prophet S.A.W talk with Allah A.Z.W directly or by mean of angel-messengers?

Salam Aalaykom brothers, I have a question for all of you which I can’t seem to get my head around. I try my best not to harm others in the sight of Allah and whenever I get a new job which I am skeptical about I make dua to Allah to block it for me if it’ll harm anyone and subhan Allah it gets cut out of nowhere alHamdulIAllah. I have been doing assignments and projects for university students for the past three years in exchange for money and all was well. Then my friend told me that it’s haram and it should stop. Here was his argument: That I am harming their integrity and blocking their learning by giving them this favor. However my counter argument: isn’t it the same as doing freelance work for let’s say a company who wants a project. It is not willing to get an employee however they get an employee online to do their task for a sum of money which could be cheaper. A normal employee would be expected to learn from his work and projects.

Assalamualaikum my question is about Quotex platform that it is haram aur haram i have research about it many time but couldn't found the relevent answer many of them are saying it is haram because it involves the mechanism of beting

Are the Hadiths that say that Aisha (RA), along with the other woman, started hitting her face in grief when Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) passed away authentic? > مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بين سحري، ونحري وفي دولتي، لم أظلم فيه أحدا، فمن سفهي وحداثة سني أن رسول الله قبض وهو في حجري، ثم وضعت رأسه على وسادة، وقمت ألتدم مع النساء، وأضرب وجهي > >They have recounted that ‘A’ishah said, > >The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and give him peace) passed away leaning against my chest. I did not wrong anyone regarding him. It was from my weakness and the youth of my age that the Messenger of Allah was taken whilst in my lap, then I placed his head on a pillow and stood hitting myself along with the women and hitting my face. > > — [Musnad Ahmad](https://shamela.ws/book/25794/22057) - (translation from [seekersguidance.org](https://seekersguidance.org/answers/adab/how-do-we-understand-the-reaction-of-our-mother-aisha-when-the-prophet-may-allah-bless-him-and-give-him-peace-passed-away/)) and if so, how should we interpret these narrations, given that Islam prohibits such displays of mourning? I have also heard that the prohibition applies to making such actions a habitual or deliberate practice, while instinctive reactions due to overwhelming grief may not be considered sinful. Is this true?

> Once Abu Bakr and some companions went on a trading expedition to > Busra. Various people on the trip were given fixed duties. Suwaybit > ibn Harmalah was made responsible for food and provisions. An-Nuayman > was among the group and on the way he became hungry and asked Suwaybit > for some food. Suwaybit refused and an-Nuayman said to him: “Do you > know what I would yet do with you?” and went on to warn and threaten > him but still Suwaybit refused. An-Nuayman then went to a group of > Arabs in the market and said to them: “Would you like to have a strong > and sturdy slave whom I can sell to you.” They said “of Course and > An-Nuayman went on: “He has a swift tongue and is very articulate. He > will resist you and say: ‘I am free.’ But don’t listen to him” The men > paid the price of the slave – ten pieces of gold and An-Nuayman > accepted it and appeared to complete the transaction with > business-like efficiency. The buyers accompanied him to fetch theft > purchase. > > Pointing to Suwaybit, he said: “This is the slave whom I sold to you.” > The men took hold of Suwaybit and he shouted for dear life and > freedom. “I am free”. I am Suwaybit ibn Harmalah…” But they paid no > attention to him and dragged him off by the neck in shackles as they > would have done with any slave. > > All the while, an-Nuayman did not laugh or batter an eyelid. He > remained completely calm and serious while Suwaybit continued to > protest bitterly. Suwaybit’s fellow travelers, realizing what was > happening, rushed to fetch Abu Bakr, the leader of the caravan, who > came running as fast as he could. He explained to the purchasers what > had happened and so they released Suwaybit and had their money > returned. Abu Bakr then laughed heartily and so did Suwaybit and > an-Nuayman. Back in Madinah, when the episode was recounted to the > Prophet and his companions, they all laughed even more. The above can be found online on; 1. An-Nuayman ibn Amr: The Companion Who Made the Prophet Laugh by Yusuf Abdul-Alim | Dec 21, 2018 | Islamic History, The Faith; Link: https://intellectinislam.com/category/the-faith/islamic-history/ 2. Al-Nuayman ibn Amr - Wikipedia

Non Muslims say that 18:86 is in error. How do we refute this? > Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people. Allah said, "O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish [them] or else adopt among them [a way of] goodness." -- Qur'an 18:86

The evil God hypothesis posits the existence of, instead of an all-good creator deity, an all-evil creator deity. This is mostly done to point out that a creator being all-good does not need to “logically follow” from being a “maximally great being”. The argument comes from Anselm of Canterbury, who saw the Christian God as a "maximally great being" with all “great making” positive attributes "maxed out". Key examples include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and of course necessary existence. The argument have a lot of potential problems, one being what “great” means and why it would be “better (greater) for things to exist in reality than not”. In this context, the evil God hypothesis (EGH) is usually raised: the existence of a maximally great being whose moral character is maximally evil rather than maximally good. The EGH states that morally relevant great-making property is instantiated at its “worst” (maximally malevolent) level rather than its “best” (maximally benevolent) level. It is powerful because it forces symmetric thinking, nothing is changed except for the “direction” of maximality. Now, I would admit, the EGH is not without its problems either. Academic criticism usually takes the angle of breaking the symmetry between the EGH and the GGH in some way. For example, some have argued that abundant suffering would be better evidence for an evil creator (thus breaking the symmetry, and making the EGH less of a challenge). Others have pointed out that humans have moral intuitions that generally treat goodness as *prima facie* value. When I have brought up the argument to Christians, many believers have a hard time even entertaining the idea of God being evil. In many denominations, God being all-good is a fundamental dogma to the faith. Maximal or infinite goodness is built into the core theological picture of God in virtually every major Christian tradition. In such a framework, any evil per dogma cannot be the fault of or due to God. Evil is either solely to blame on humans (and other spiritual beings), or viewed as the lack of the presence of God. Thus, I wonder about how the Islamic response differs from the Christian one. As I understand Islamic theology, Allah is not universally or unconditionally loving to all (as in most Christian theology). Allah’s love is instead related to qualities such as obedience, repentance and justice. There are multiple suras proclaiming that Allah does not love the transgressors (*al-Baqarah* 2:190), the disbelievers (*Ali ʿImrān* 3:32), the wrongdoers (*Ali ʿImrān* 3:57), the deceitful, sinful (*An-Nisāʼ* 4:10) or the corrupt (*al-Māʾidah* 5:64). In this context, **would a Muslim theologian be more sympathetic or more willing to entertain the EGH? Is the Islamic response, in essence, different to a Christian one? Would the EGH approached differently by Muslim thinkers than by Christian theologians?** Does the EGH even make sense in an Islamic framework? I would imagine that differences in how the attributes of God/Allah is conceived and conceptualized between the Christian and Islamic traditions would hypostatize into different approaches. **The question is therefore about how fitting the EGH is in an Islamic framework and how a muslim theologian would respond (in contrast with a Christian theologian).** I must admit that I am not well-versed on the metaphysical and ontological status of Allah (and the divine attributes of Allah), especially not between Islamic denominations. Hence this question.

Assalamu Alaykum, I have Jummah prayer in my school alhamdulillah but Dhuhr is at 1pm right now and we do the prayer during lunch at 12:00-12:45 pm. The prayer plus the khutbah takes 30 minutes. If we were to do the Jummah at its proper time, we would miss almost half of the lesson (for reference, a period is 75 minutes). My school had already asked a local Sheikh and he said it would be permissible to pray earlier. My friends are concerned about the source. Would it be permissible to pray Jummah earlier due to our circumstance?

Salam. I am very sleepy. I prayed zuhr, made sajda sahw since i forgot what rakat i was on, then started reciting tashahud (maybe 3 or 4 words before I remembered that I was suppose to end the prayer) and then immediately made salam when I remember Did I do the right thing? I follow the salafi medhab

During sujood in the second rakat, I said Subhaana robbiyal-a'alaa, Subhaana robbiyal-a'alaa, and then in the third time of saying it I said Subhaana robbiyal-a'alaam by accident. Does that invalidate my prayer? I also did sujood sahw for that mistake.

Scholars of Islam generally claim that it is not permissible for a woman to demand alimony from her ex-Husband except in instances of child support. However, I came across this Ayah in Quran 2:241 that states: > وَلِلْمُطَلَّقَاتِ مَتَاعٌۢ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ ۖ حَقًّا عَلَى ٱلْمُتَّقِينَ > > Reasonable provisions must be made for divorced women—a duty on those > mindful ˹of Allah˺. > > Surah Al-Baqarah (2:241) The vast majority of jurists interpret this as a Mahr given to women whose dower was not specified during the time of consumation of the marriage. However, according to IslamQA , it is the opinion of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya and Sheikh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymin that this must be given to all divorced women, even if the marriage has been consumated and the Mahr has been given. > Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Maintenance must be given to every divorced women, even after consummation. What is the opinion of the four schools of thought and other classical Islamic scholars on this topic. Is this a one time payment or regular monthly payments akin to alimony in the West.

As you know the age to legally marry in the US is 18, and to my parents the age at which we decide my wife is 25 or later. So basically as a teenager I can't have a wife and dating is of course not allowed, so no romance with a girl at all. But, what if I had a female friend that is also a Muslim, and what if I like her, think she has a good personality, and is my type so I intend to marry her later. She knows this and also thinks I'm good partner material and wants to marry me too and openly stated so. The relationship between us would still be platonic but of course its hard to say "I wanna marry you when I can" without stepping over the line sometimes with some flirting or affection. It isn't as much affection or flirting as a couple but it is still present. Is this relationship haram?

Wikipedia states: "Muslim jurists (fuqaha) believe that adult male apostates must unequivocally be executed. Female apostates must either be imprisoned and compelled to accept Islam, or, like men, be executed. Before execution, the apostate is offered the chance to return to Islam, and if they return, the person is released from custody. If they refuse, they may be given 3 to 10 days (depending on the madhhab) to reflect on the decision and repent." Is this true, and if it is true, why is it just, given that the Quran (Surah 2:256) states: "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion" so, doesn't a person have the right to leave Islam and adopt any religion?

I have done my research on the topic of Isbal (where the lower garments cover the ankles), and I would like to prevent this from happening by folding my trousers up to not cover my ankles. But here's the issue, I have read that folding your garments during Salah is totally prohibited, meanwhile if I do not fold them they will cover the ankles. What do I do in this situation? I do not have alternative garments that are not too short or too long.

There's a range of translations of Quran 54:17 ; here are some examples: > And in truth We have made the Qur'an easy to remember; but is there any that remembereth? -- M. M. Pickthall > We have made it easy to learn lessons from the Quran. Is there anyone who would receive admonition? -- Wahiduddin Khan > And indeed, We have made the Qur'an easy for direction and guidance, but is there anyone who will take advice? -- Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri > We have really made this Qur'an easy (to understand)! Is anyone there to heed? -- Dr. Munir Munshey It seems there's two major interpretations of this ayat: - The Qur'an is easy to understand. This could be in order to help everyone, despite their level of education. I've also seen it argued that the repetitive nature of the Qur'an is evidence to support this interpretation. > The Qur'an's guidance for man’s conduct are plain and easy to understand and act upon... > ...Masha Allah, how easy Allah has made it for us to memorise the Qur’an and increase our rewards. -- Productive Muslim - Admonishion in the Qur'an is easy to understand. "Do good and get closer to paradise. Do bad and get closer to punishment". > Some people have misconstrued the words yassarnal- Quran to mean that the Quran is an easy Book; no knowledge is required to understand it so much so that a person even without the knowledge of the Arabic language, can write a commentary on it, and can deduce any injunctions he likes from its verses independent of the Hadith and Islamic Law, whereas the context in which these words occur, indicates that they are meant to make the people realize this: One means of the admonition are the dreadful torments that descended upon the rebellious nations, and the other means is this Quran, which guides you to the right path by argument and instruction. -- Islamic Studies It's unclear which is correct. (And I cannot exclude the possibility that both of these interpretations are simultaneously correct.) **Question**: Should Qur'an 54:17 be interpreted as meaning the Qur'an is intended to be simple to understand? Answering this is probably going to require familiarity with the Arabic: > وَلَقَدْ يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ فَهَلْ مِن مُّدَّكِرٍ