Nelly Bis
Satanic worship has doubled in Australia
Halloween Exposed
Debate with Atheist on God allowing suffering
Updated:
14th July. 2022.
Brother Mustafa Sahins Debate with an Atheist.
Detailed response.
Muslim Vs Atheist. Topic Suffering.
Atheist posts a picture of joined twins and calls it Gods cruel act in suffering.
My Response:
That’s a strawman argument. Let’s try and undermine design by appealing to birth defect. This is the Atheist, last resort of defeat. They appeal to your emotions.
The first problem, Atheists can’t even create a birth defected living organism. With all your technological advancements you are still incapable of creating even a birth defected species, now isn’t that embaressing. God is showing you how pathetic you are, you can’t even create something still so majestic even though it’s a birth defect.
Secondly,
Birth defects can be caused by many things. Perhaps the Parents were rebellious towards God. And so God gave them a test. They can also caused by environmental factors, perhaps poor nutrition, perhaps parents being exposed to high levels of radio active material. Perhaps its the Toxins in Vaccines?
There can be many factors that could possibly cause these things, and this could be due to man’s wrong doing. But conveniently we shift the blame to God?
Thirdly:
That is so that you may show your gratitude to your Lord for what He favored you and perhaps that one would grow up into a intolerable transgressor.
“Women are raped every day, children die of cancer, and genocides occur unopposed. Child deformities, Believing in God is absurd!”
The ‘problem of evil’ has been the primary means by which atheists have historically attempted to undermine belief in God. By invoking the most grotesque incidents of human suffering imaginable they try to shock theists into emotionally submitting to their arguments. This is an appealing tactic because it gives the appearance of justifying one’s rejection of the Divine.
And although many sophisticated responses have been offered to this argument — from the fact that evil is necessary for good to be known, the value of free will, to appeals to Divine Justice and Mercy — there has been little attention paid to one of its biggest flaws: those who suffer the most tend to believe in God.
And why is this significant? Well, aside from the fact that most atheists have never experienced any of the things they complain about, they also have no valid answers to why people who go through such “gratuitous” suffering remain theists. The typical responses from them are that victims of rape, cancer, and genocide still believe in God only because they’re either a) stupid b) ignorant or c) desperate for some form of hope. However, these post hoc rationalizations reveal more about this facile argument and the crocodile tears of its supporters than of those suffering. Not only that, but it shows that many atheists are incapable of questioning their own reasoning.
Many victims of rape, cancer, and genocide, and disabilities, still believe in God not because they lack intelligence, are unaware of the constant bashing of their religious views by atheists, or because they’re desperate for hope. Most of them still believe in God, because ‘hope’ has no real meaning unless it’s grounded in the transcendent — in something ‘other’ than human existential instability and chaos.
Victims of rape, cancer, disabilities and genocide live in a reality where all their suffering is made possible. Yet, they still pray and invoke God to come to their aid, whether in this world or the next. They realize the value of that hope and aspire to it always, even in the most dreadful of circumstances; all of this because they recognize that even evil has a purpose and God will compensate them eventually.
However, in an atheistic universe, where one’s purpose and hopes are arbitrarily selected and have no intrinsic value beyond what one purports to “create” on their own, there is little to offer any these victims. You would think that individuals who go through these horrible trials and tribulations would be more likely to reject God as a result, seeing as they experienced all this immense evil first hand. But more often than not we find them rejecting the “make it up as you go along” approach and opting to put their trust in a higher power.
It seems then that the alternative that atheists offer is not really an alternative at all. Not only does their skepticism appear to be for those privileged enough not to endure such suffering, but also for those only interested in emotionally bashing others. Perhaps if atheists offered something of real existential worth, those who experience such suffering would be more likely to adopt their views. Instead, we find the opposite. People struggle to survive because they ground their hopes into something beyond themselves — their strength to move forward is something they see in the transcendent non-scientific aspects of existence. Atheists have nothing to offer in this regard, because while they recognize evil, they have no intellectual means to comfort those suffering; no means to tell them “it’s going to be okay”.
This is noteworthy considering that evolutionary theory suggests that survival is the greatest motivating factor for organisms. And from the overwhelming evidence of the aforementioned victims, it seems theism is a far stronger indicator of evolutionary ‘fitness’ than ridiculing the suffering of others by spreading memes about fairies, unicorns, and spaghetti monsters from the comfort of a computer screen.
I suppose then when discussing the practical uses of theism, all one needs to say is “humanity”.
Atheist wrote:
Why would you punish a newborn baby for something their parents did? Your copy paste is hollow and nothing but an attempt to give impression that you solved the problem of congenital birth defects and belief that they are designed by a so called “intelligent” designer!
My response:
A Newborn is not the only thing that is being punished. Every living thing, will at some stage endure punishment.
Allah says we will test you with your health, your family and your money. We don’t view punishment as an injustice. We view it as part of the everyday test, punishment is a test God inflicts on all his beings. Through punishment, we are tested. Our parents are tested, sometimes humans become sacrificial lambs. When a child drowns at sea, that maybe God punishing the parents, so God can take that child away from the parents. But God is just because He rewards that child that was sacrificed during the test. With eternal salvation.
I would rather believe in that. Then believe in your atheist worldview, where there is no justice.
For example, if a criminal decides to rape a child that is disabled. And then this evil man decides to pour petrol and burn that poor child alive. And hypothetically speaking law enforcement does not ever catch him to bring him to justice, and this evil man lives out the rest of his life, without justice served. Well according to your nonsense belief. There is no afterlife, no heaven, no hell, no punishment. No justice. This evil man turns into worms and gets away with his crime.
Despite your injustice beliefs, you dare to critique God for being unjust.
At least my God gives Justice. He rewards every child that had to endure suffering. What has your Atheist view have to offer these children?
Zero.
Atheist wrote:
Can’t he bestow them heaven without giving them congenital defects if he is “all good”! ?
My Response:
Of course, He can. But sufferings help us to appreciate our health. When we have endured suffering. For example, I’ve seen my mother go through suffering. She used to be a passive smoker. She ended having lung cancer that killed her. I take her suffering as an example, and I make sure I take care of my body. So my mums suffering, helped me to appreciate my health and well being.
I’ve lived a life where I’ve lived below the poverty level. There were times when I had to go to school without lunch because we didn’t have enough money. As I grew into my adult life, I appreciated the value of working hard and earning money, because poverty taught me a lesson on how to appreciate wealth, and not be wasteful. So I make sure I don’t waste my money and buying stupid things, that are of no benefit. So the suffering of poverty has helped me, become wiser about how I use my wealth.
Suffering in life can help turn a person into a better more productive human being. And there are many studies to show that this is the case.
So using emotional arguments of what you perceive to be an injustice works in favour of strengthening me and my relationship with God
Atheist wrote:
Suffering helps a 2 days old baby appreciate what ???
My Response:
Appreciate the fact, it will never endure that pain in the afterlife. And appreciate what it means to have eternal bliss in the afterlife. Also appreciation is not just for the child alone, but He is also a sign and a example for Us all. For example when I see, a child suffering. I actually thank god that He has given me a healthy child. So I’m more thankful when I see children that are suffering. So the suffering of children has been a means, of my own gratitude and thankfulness to my Creater. So children suffering has been a means to me getting closer to my lord.
Atheist wrote:
….A baby Doesn’t need to suffer in this world to not suffer in the hereafter if the universe is being run by a decent creator. Period!
So allah makes a child of a neighbour suffer with excruciating BONE CANCER so that You would be grateful to him? That’s the most EVIL way of making you thankful by an all-powerful and omniscient god. He can do better to make you thankful rather than making a child suffer!
My Response:
I have already answered the question. And shown how modern doctors also give excruciating pain, to infants on more than one occasion, through vaccines for the well being of that child. You inject millions and millions of babies and claim it’s morally justified. Why? Because the child will live a better life. So I ask? What is the issue then, if God allows by giving a smaller percentage of children pain? that will be compensated for eternal bliss in everlasting heaven? Also I never suggested the child “forgets” in terms it was unaware, rather the child doesn’t care and see it as a big deal, when the child sees the reward put in place of it, that being an everlasting heaven prepared for it.
Don’t forget this child all though went through temporary pain, doesn’t have to go through the trials, of the grave, the ahkira The day of Judgement that terrifying, nor ever have to face hell fire, which most adult humans who most likely face. So from that aspect the child, is being compensated heavily.
Not to mention this child, didn’t have to grow up like most adults and have to worship God tirelessly, with 5 daily prayers, fasting, and trying to withstand the temptations of life, didn’t need to work to earn a living. Didn’t have to go through poverty, and so when you look at the broader picture the child is still heavily compensated, with an imaginable eternal bliss and reward, where there is no longer suffering rather there is eternal happiness and you don’t ever have to work again everything is given to you, so how can you even possibly argue against that?
Side note: “Funny how these Atheists say, God doesn’t exist because of human suffering. But then never say, God exists because of his compassion of rewarding people with everlasting paradise. The double standards”?
Now to continue, I am shocked, that you honestly would even suggest that you can not comprehend this, despite yourself believing in an Atheist worldview that not only gives pain to children with multiple doses of immunization, you in fact believe that a child with bone cancer is irrational? What about a serial rapist, turns into worms after raping over 50 women and then murdering them. According to your logic, He goes free. No judgment, no hell fire, none of these victims get any form of compensation in the hereafter for the crimes committed against them.
To me, that’s sick. Twisted, and unjustified according to your Atheist beliefs. So like I said before what good reason do you have to convert Me from one injustice to another injustice which is your world view?
And since you have refused to answer my questions.
I’m now terminating and ending this debate. And I’ll be sharing this exchange God willing to others who will god willing benefit.
Atheist wrote:
Modern doctors give injections to babies to prevent sufferings
Allah gives cancer to babies to increase suffering.
#Apples&Oranges.
My response:
I was waiting for you to make that argument. Just goes to show I’m already thinking one step ahead of you.
You have shifted the goalposts with that argument. The premise was, why does God cause suffering in children.
We showed that temporary suffering was both ethnically accepted, for the greater good. And so now the Atheist has resorted to what we call “bait and switch”. Change the premise. Claiming that. Unlike Doctors God gives cancer to increase suffering.
The simple response no he doesn’t. No child lives eternally. This world is a very short stay the suffering in this world is insignificant if we compare, something finite to that which is eternal. So if we measured the suffering in this world how a doctor gives an injection. And then suffering is increased the child starts feeling even the pains of being injected and discomfort. Perhaps let’s say, it is no longer than a couple of minutes. Now a couple of minutes is not that very long of being suffered when compared to say, a child left expectancy which around says 75 to 80 years.
Now if we then compared that to God allowing suffering through illness of a child. Suppose He God inflicted suffering forget few minutes but puts a child in terminally illness and made the child suffer for the rest of his life on earth, it’s still insignificant when we compare this life which is generally 75 to 80 years to that of the next world where you can’t even put a number on it since its a eternal bliss. So it may seem as though terminal illness is a very long time on this earth, but when we compare it to the hereafter it then becomes so insignificant to the point of almost non-existence to the pleasure that awaits that child. Well for children with bone cancer, the procedure is not even 70 to 85 years, within 3 to 6 months to about 1 year. It’s pretty much over. Now compare that period, to everlasting joy, can one even compare those numbers? 6 months to 1 year VS Eternity?
You need to think more deeply about the arguments you make, with all due respect, even a lame man won’t be shaken by this very old argument based on Emotions.
Atheist wrote:
If I see a child being raped, a women being abused, an animal being tortured and if it is in my power to prevent it – I will prevent it and if it is in my power to give justice to the victim I will give it there and then.
That’s the difference between me and your god.
Your idea of justice after death is flawed and your idea of eternal heal fire for limited life time sins is injustice.
Response:
Also
The problem of Evil, and suffering and injustice.
Agnostic and Atheist say, they refuse to believe in a Theology that teaches “injustice” that being if there was a God why would He allow “Eternal Hell, or why would He allow a child to suffer or die from illness. So basically Atheist’s or agnostics dismiss to believe in a concept that believes in such a doctrine. Why? Because they argue it preachers injustice.
However, if we look at the Atheist or agnostics world view, atheist or agnostics tell us, that in their world view, there is no good evidence for God, nor is there heaven or hell, nor is their judgement day, where criminals like serial murderers, Terrorist’s, pedophiles, serial rapists, people who do all sorts of horrible crimes, will NOT get raised and judged for crimes, there victims however will live the rest of their lives having nightmares about the atrocities committed against them, but their perpetrator’s, will live the rest of their lives without facing no consequence, and when they die, that’s it. No judgement no nothing, zilch, end of story, they will simply die, turn into worm food and that’s it.
So basically when, Atheists and agnostics turn away from religious theology because they say it preacher’s “injustice” such as a belief in a ETERNAL HELL, yet they instead turn to a world view, that also believes in the “injustices”. And yet they have the audacity to sit there and claim their world view is more “rational” then those religious beliefs, that are just too irrational to accept apparently!
This is how foolish they are;
This is how ” Religion” has to be if an Atheist believed in God. Religion or God will only make sense in the Atheist world view if:
1- If God exists and he wants to take us to heaven. Then there must be no ” Test” that includes any pain or suffering.
2- If God did Exist, then there cannot be Super natural events like miracles because God performing miracles is illogical.
3- If God Existed, it is illogical God would Create a place of Punishment for Criminals.
4- God can create the World but it is illogical for him to interfere into our affairs.
5- If God exists then there can’t be any Rules.
6- If God exists, we shouldn’t be able to speak to him unless we can see him. (But we Atheist can speak on mobile phones.)
7- Atheist want God to be like a Genie in a lamp. Fullfill their Wishes then Go away. Not to interfere in their Daily Routines.
8- If God exists, then Babies should not die from Bone cancer. I guess they shouldn’t die in a car accident either? LoL
9-If God exists, then he ought to tell us about all the Science. It shouldn’t be left to us to find out.
10- If this World is Created as a testing ground, it must be Perfect; no Earth Quakes, no famine, no diesease.
11: God must intervene and stop all crime. Despite this place being a test?
These are the absurdity in their arguements
🤗
Athiest wrote;
God’s logic…
Let the child get raped, Pandemics, infections, drought, tsunamis, wars, poverty, climate change play havoc with millions of humans but I can’t do anything cz I am busy writing a chapter on a Meccan man called Abu Lahab & his wife😂🙈
My response:
He stupid. How will God send people to heaven and hell? If he doesn’t give the free will for them to commit sins to do good rewards to either attain heaven or hell.
Or is it more justifiable to just put people in heaven or hell based on his omminicent knowledge.
But if He did that, wouldn’t it be injust for sending people to hell or heaven without first establishing those facts first in a reality. Otherwise would not humans then argue and say you didn’t allow me to prove it?
So either way, you will argue. It’s like a double edged sword with this silly argument. Damn if you do, and damn if you don’t
And your logic. Is more absurd, for example Hitler kills 6 millions Jews. And the justice according to Atheist logic. He will turn into worms. And get away with all the crimes, yes all the 6 million people he gassed and burnt in the ovens, all the pain He caused. No Judgement for Hitler! No price to pay for the 6 million He murdered
Yeh, will rather believe in that, then God allowing a child get raped?
Post this meme:
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1799739180054605/permalink/2472517272776789/
God is Cruel bone Cancer in Children. But Abortion is Fine?
Atheists tend to play the emotional game, to suggest God is cruel due to the arguement of God allowing suffering in Children. But what about for example; Around 862,320 babies are Aborted annually in the United States. Science now tells us these defenceless babies could feel pain as low as 12 weeks, where at times anesthesia, is advised [1,2].
In these killings, these babies have to endure these cruel procedures having no decision of their own. About 1.2 to 1.4% of these procedures are performed in the second trimester and these babies are cut into pieces limb by limb. That’s about 14,659 babies. That’s an average of 28 per day, or more than one every hour. There are also pills given to kill these babies slowly by starving them of nutrients.
I see Atheists who condone this behaviour under the slogan; “my body, my choice”. Despite All of this. Atheists play the emotional game, to suggest how cruel God is for allowing bone cancer in children. Now the point I’m making is that we can justify Mothers killing their own due to the child having a deformity, or the Mothers life is at risk. We even justify the killing of babies even earlier, based on the mere “choice of the parent”. In the earlier parts of the pregnancy.
Despite all of this leniency, and how we rationalise and make exceptions, we dare to question God if He chooses to take life away by permitting the child to have a severe sickness. But in doing so He promises to place that child in Heaven out of his own will. For reasons, like testing the parent’s patience through loss of life. Since God is testing our patience and gratitude.
If He gives us the life we are thankful if He takes it away even using suffering, to see if we are still thankful, despite our gains and our losses. We are tested in seeing the child suffer before our eyes, that’s what a test is. A real test to test the bounds of our patience. I mean where would the real test be, if the child was born, and then with an instant, it died right away. All though that happens and that too is a test. But then there are other much bigger tests where there is a stronger emotional connection to the child. Where you had to sit by the side of that child every day through its terminally ill process, you build more of a bond, and so the stronger the bond becomes thus, the harder the test becomes. Will you rebel against God, or be patient every day, during these difficult times. That’s how some people are tested. Others are Tested differently. But the harder the test the greater the reward, so it’s not always an evil thing, because we may no99t understand the greater reward God had planned for those that succeed in patience. But because Atheists are so shallow they can’t see the bigger plan.
So it astonishes Me how Atheists depict God as a cruel God, who has a bigger plan, for that child. Despite atheists justifying cruelty at the expense of the mother’s choices, either because she chooses to terminate the life of a child for whatever reason, by putting your life wishes first. Despite the child has a right to live, but instead, we give preference to the Mother through the Abortion process.
But Gods wishes and preferences, “oh no that’s just cruel”! The Atheist argues. Despite! God wishing to put in place, a mechanism that may seem cruel at first, but He has a bigger plan for those who are successful through gratitude. We are told in scripture, for example that God gives glad tidings to those who are patient with whatever hardship God tests them with. Because He wishes for you a better place, a place that you earned through your suffering and thankfulness. Just as we give Vaccines to babies, that give pain and seem to be cruel at first, the bigger picture is, it’s for the health of the child. The cruelty that God allows, is for the success of the child and the parents in the hereafter. To see if parents will turn to God in these difficult times, to live an everlasting life in Heaven. Or perhaps rebel against God. And we have seen instances where people at times disbelieve based on their losses and hardships. And there are many instances where humans draw closer to God during a calamity. Which is another point of how some pass and fail these tests. This is just another testament to the tests we live by every day of our lives, but unfortunately, Atheists who disbelieve can not understand this, because they disbelieve in a God, and so when one disbelieves in God, then He assumes we are not part of any test, therefore it’s difficult for them to rationalize a child being put through sickness or that an earthquake happens and it wipes out a city.
[1] https://www.bioedge.org/mobile/view/can-a-foetus-feel-pain-as-early-as-12-weeks/13302
[2]https://evolutionnews.org/2020/09/at-what-point-in-its-development-can-a-human-being-feel-pain/
Furthermore:
Ali bana says cancer is a gift frlm God
https://youtu.be/dzL6BLPAFBo
Atheist: If there is a God, I blame Him for all the human suffering.
The same Atheist: Like seriously, how pathetic We are as a human race, we are able to raise a billion dollars in just two days, to rebuild the Notre-Dame Cathedral. How about We first feed the poor, and house the homeless, should that not be on the priority list, before We start blowing money on something that worships a mythical God?
Me: 🙄
PleaseReflect
😝
AtheistLogic
Atheist wrote:
Also, the doctor vs god argument is a faulty analogy (false equivalence fallacy). The doctor is fallible and limited by available choices whereas a supposedly omnipotent diety is infallible. Fallibility is demonstrable but infallibility/omnipotence is not.
My Response:
We haven’t just used the doctor analogy. But also from an abortion perspective, where we show that Atheists can sympathise with alternative measures for the greater good. See here:
https://mustafamuhammedsahin.wordpress.com/2021/06/11/god-is-cruel-bone-cancer-in-children/
Also, the Atheist claim is it’s a false equivocation? But do you complain that it’s a false equivocaion when crueility doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist. Because that’s the made argument. His a Myth, because how can any God be like that right? But one can argue, God can still exist and have attributes of inflicting cruelty even to the most vulnerable and innocent. For example, He can create, lions to eat a baby gazelle. One can say that is cruel, but at the same time, say that’s just “nature” meaning they can rationalize with cruelty. One can also say, I chose to eat animals as a human being. Now you could be a vegan, but not all atheists and humanists are vegans, they kill and eat innocent animals and rationalize and say that’s just part of nature. No one’s forcing you to eat animals but you chose to inflict suffering, and justify it. So one can argue, why then an objection if God inflicts suffering? Why not just call that, PART OF Gods nature?
See I can show, double standards. And I don’t care how you want to justify it and say, well you kill animals humanely and ethically, with not much suffering and consume them. But at end of the day, you’re killing a living being without its will. Which would still be a form of cruelty as argued by vegans. So then if you want to attack God for cruelty, you would now have to become a vegan, because if you don’t your just as bad as God for inflicting cruelty when you could instead eat Carrots and Broccoli for the rest of your life. Now even if as an Atheist you wish to convert to Veganism, your actions are only deemed subjective since most agnostics or Atheists have no issue about killing animals as they believe in the principle of survival of the fittest, and how their actions are justified as being part of nature and the cycle of life. Now interesting that these Atheists eat animals, not because they’re going into starvation living in the modern Western world, but usually out of a lifestyle choice. Their killing these animals so they can then consume whatever minerals out of it, and to satisfy those taste buds and then the beast is stardust. Now this is ethically justifiable but God allowing a child to be, inflicted with suffering, to display lessons for the rest of mankind, and there is no stardust, instead, he places that child to an everlasting Heaven. Now that’s Irrational they argue?
Atheist wrote:
Allah, the most merciful, is “testing” this mother and the kid so that the selfish neighbour whose kid isn’t going through this “test” will be thankful to Allah!
It’s like a robber robs a neighbour and k!lls all his kids and spares me and my kids and I praise the robber for his “love” & “mercy” on me!
My Response:
Clutching at straws?
The companions of the Prophet would complain to Allah, when their lives were getting to comfortable. They thought it was a sign God abandoned them. Because every time, your tested and you pass, and Allah wishes for you to get to a higher ranking in Paradise since their are seven levels. The true believers would ask Allah to be tested, so that their ranks in paradise go beyond others who have asked to be tested less serverely.
So as Muslims we praise Allah, for all the trials we have overcome. And we praise him even when we fail. So the more difficult your life is the higher the ranking. That’s why the Prophet said, most of the people of heaven are from the poor.
Furthermore:
The following is a transcription of a notably controversial passage of dialogue from Gay Byrne’s interview on Irish TV, specifically from an episode of a ‘The Meaning of Life’ series, where Stephen Fry was the guest of the day.
It was uploaded to Youtube by the Irish public service televion RTÉ, and received more than two million on-line viewings, prior to actual broadcasting on Sunday, 1 February 2015.
Gay Byrne:
… suppose it’s all true and you walk up to the pearly gates and you are confronted by God. What would Stephen Fry say to him, her or it?
Stephen Fry:
I will basically (it’s known as theodicy I think) I’ll say, “Bone cancer in children? What’s that about? How dare you! How dare you create a world where there is such misery that is not our fault! It’s not right. It is utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That’s what I’d say
My Response would be?
……suppose it’s all true and you walk up to the pearly gates and you are confronted by Stephen Fry. What would a Holocaust victim say to him?
Holocaust victim:
I will basically (it’s known as theodicy I think) I’ll say, “No Judgment Day for Hitler for killing 6 million of us? What’s that about? How dare you! How dare you claim a world where there is such Tyranny that is not our fault! It’s not right. It is utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid ideology of Atheism who sees a world that is so full of injustice and pain. And claim their is no God and no justice for victims of the holocaust?
😆
Atheists wrote:
Holocaust was also god’s failure. Any justice (in the hereafter) would just be driven by revenge but won’t do any benefit to the victims. The spooky and incompetent god could have done better by NOT letting the Holocaust happen or better yet NOT creating Hitler in the first place knowing fully well that he will maim and torture millions of innocent people. God’s hand aren’t clean in this mess either.
My response:
That’s the most incompetent arguement to make. If God is testing people. Why would he stop Hitler? Secondly even if there was divine intervention. You still would have said, that’s no proof of god. That was just Hitler changing his mind 🤗
Silly atheist. This world isn’t designed to be without evil. It isn’t supposed to be Paradise. If there was no evil on this planet, why would God create heaven and hell? Why would there be judgement? Why would there be sin and good work, reward and punishment? Why would there be free will?
You then said, judgment day won’t benefit the victims. Excuse me?
It’s clear you are totally incompetent and have no idea what you are talking about. Are you in grade 3?
In our theology we believe even the victims of the holocaust will be compensated on the day of judgment. If they are unbelievers perhaps the severity of their punishment will be lightened like Abu Talip the Prophets uncle.
And more importantly Hitler himself will be in hell for eternity being punished most probably the most severest.
But what has your Atheist world view do to compensate for Hitler’s crimes:
Zero
Debate can be found here:
My response to Amara
Brother if you became or were a millionaire, perhaps you would have started forgetting about Allah. There is a reason why you are not, perhaps Allah wants to keep you under his Metaphorical wing). And sometimes we try our best to take people out of poverty, despite the Prophet statement:
“The Prophet said, most of the people of paradise are those from the poor”.
So these poor people you are trying to take out of poverty, you are in away trying to remove them from Jennah.
Their test is poverty, their reward comes from poverty. So we shouldn’t look at this as some sort of wrath from Allah, it’s in fact a reward, but you don’t see it, because you don’t see what’s awaiting for them on the other side. In fact if you witnessed the reward of what’s awaiting them, you would probably wish you were poor in their place. Those who have a comfortable life in this world, usually will face an uncomfortable life in the hereafter and those who suffer the most in this Worldd, will have a comfortable life in the hereafter. This World is a test, and people forget that Allah is testing those who he loves the most, Allah tests those who He loves with Poverty, loss of wealth, loss of children or families, or the loss of health or whatever you can think of.
Again, I’m not saying we shouldn’t assist their pain and suffering, of course we should help and be charitable because their poverty is also our test, Allah wants to see if we are charitable because Allah is also testing to see if we are willing to help or are we greedy, because Allah does not love those who are greedy, what I’m saying is, don’t go into depression or start losing yourself over this, or don’t question why Allah is allowing suffering, because you only have a limited scope, and Allah sees the bigger picture that you cannot grasp with your limited scope.
This is just an advise to those, who question why Allah allows things to happen such as the suffering of believers when it comes to poverty.
And Allah knows best.
Defending the Legacy of the Ottoman Empire from the Enemies of Islam
Did YouKnow that the first person in the history to impose tax on the US was a Muslim? His name was Ghāzī Ḥassan Paşa of Algiers (1714-1790) also known as ‘Paşa with Lion’.
Outside the Ottoman Empire he accomplished:
⚫️ Captured a Spanish warship when he was just a young janissary.
⚫️ Owned that Spanish ship which led to the foundation of his legendary story
⚫️ Captured and sunk many US warships in the Mediterranean.
⚫️ IMPOSED A TAX on the US. (The Ottomans were the first and the only Empire which imposed a tax on the US after their Independence).
⚫️ His actions caused the foundation of the treaty of Tripoli (in Turkish language) with the US which is also the first and the only treaty written in a foreign language in the US history.
⚫️ The US paid 642,000 Ottoman golds for once and 12,000 golds per year.
⚫️ Domesticated a Lion in Algiers and used to board the enemy ships with his Lion he captured.
Within the Ottoman Empire he accomplished:
🔴 Built a new and modern Ottoman fleet within 3 years with his own coins.
🔴 Became a grand vizier just before he passed away.
🔴 Laid the foundations of today’s naval academies in Turkey.
🔴 Had many Mosques and schools built.
Ḥassan Paşa left this temporarily world leaving no children. May Allāh Ta’āla have mercy on him.
Refuting this video:
Muslim Response video:
Also view:
Moon Splitting Miracle?
Surprisingly a Muslim wrote:
Muslim – Response
Züleyha Avcı that is an incorrect understanding on your part and not the methodology that classical scholars followed in understanding the Quran. Infact, Everything is taken literally unless there is strong evidence for it to be taken figuratively.
If all the miracles were figurative, they would serve no purpose coz the purpose of a miracle is to be a real event for the people present at the time to prove to them that this person is a real prophet of Allah.
The moon was split in reality and this was even documented in non Muslims sources. For example, a King in India, who was not Muslim, witnessed the moon splitting and documented it. This document still exists in a museum in India.
I would suggest watching this video by Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq on the moon splitting topic https://youtu.be/bJEaAinrccg
Furthermore;
So the moon splitting is figurative? What exactly is the figurative explanation. Because saying it’s figurative still, requires an explanation what was the Prophet trying to explain here in a figurative manner?
You see you dig a deeper hole for yourself. Why can’t you just accept it was a miracle? Why do you have to submit to Western criticism of proof? Will you also say, that Meryem giving birth to a child without a man is also figurative? When an angel (Jibreel) came to deliver the Quran to the Prophet from heaven, was that to none literal and just fugitive? The miracle in raising back to life on the day of judgement, is that also a miracle that’s just figurative and non-literal?
You see, the problem with especially Muslims in the West, they can’t just accept Miracles unless there is 100% scientific confirmation, otherwise, they will deem anything as being figurative.
This is the way of trying to silence western critics, but this line of reasoning doesn’t help and raises even more questions. So you can’t just say everything is non-literal just because you can not scientifically validate it.
Our religion does not require scientific validation for miracles to exist nor do we need scientific validation of God’s existence, because Science is limited to only human observation.
Besides the miracle of the moon splitting, if you read the hadith properly was not for the show for the entire humanity. It was only for a specific group of companions who asked for a sign to be shown to them.
So it’s not as though Muslims are trying to convince people about the truth of Islam through this miracle when this miracle was only specified for a completely different demographic.
That said, learn to put your faith in God. And listen to the advice of the Quran and hadith: “We hear and We obey”.
And stop being like those people, who try and distort the scripture to silence criticism. When all you are doing is making it worse for yourself and making the religion look more of a mockery.
Stand your ground and dont be swayed by peer pressure.
Allah says, in the Quran. If you followed most on the earth, you will go far astray.
#PleaseReflect
Another critic wrote;
Critc wrote:
Muslim Response:
My response:
So God can not momentarily breach the laws of nature? What did you think God is limited and confined to the laws of nature? I think in your head you have humanised the nature of God to one that is limited in powers.
The nature of the law of the land also suggests, that something that does such as a human being, can not be raised to life again.
Are you now suggesting because these laws exist within nature, God is unable to create you again?
If you think He can not, then you haven’t understood his ability and attributes. But then again you are probably an Atheist who doesn’t believe in God anyway.
So how can we convince you of his powers and attributes, when you don’t believe in God, to begin with.
So it’s useless discussing these issues with an Atheist when your whole premise about God is in doubt
😆
Receb Tayyip Erdogan waging War on Australia?
Did the Turkish President advocate War towards Australia, or towards White Terrorists? This is the question we will answer.
The words of the Turkish president regarding sending Australian back home in body bags?
Australian right wing politican Fraser anning, is at it again. Misqouting The President of Turkey out of context, who only specified a threat towards Far-right Supremacists. And not every Australian as Anning falsely accused him of. Anning trying to point a finger at someone else to cover up his own shameful comments, such as blaming the NZ Christchurch Mosque attack, on Muslim immigration.
In no way was Receb tayyip Erdogan advocating violence towards every Australian, rather He specified a WARNING to White Supremacists wanting to repeat a New Zealand (Christchurch) Massacre to be done in Turkey. Of course Fraser Anning purpose is to use this opportunity to revive his Crusader wars, after all isn’t this there plan? The Right, heavily are trying to flare up a War, and not the other way round, Wouldn’t surprise Me, if anning said, there are Turkish submarines in Sydney harbour, the dumb nutter.
And interesting how the Right think, Erdogans Words are so wrong, Yet the Right praise, Senator Fraser annings insensitive comments blaming Muslims for what had happened in Christchurch.
Furthermore it is being broadly mentioned in the Media, that President Erdogan said, that anyone who makes; Anti Muslim sentiments, would face the fate of Anzacs. The Media or some Islamophobes, assumed that President Erdogan wished to kill anyone criticizing Islam. However this is not at all the case and this is another grossly misinterpreted statement. The anti Islam sentiment, that Erdogan referenced; He was referring to the specific quote, about taking; “back Constantinople” (i.e) advocating War, was the anti Islam sentiment President Tayip Erdogan was referring too, not a mere person going to Turkey and criticizing the Qur’an or Islam. The Media, criticise Erdogan for insensitive comments, while playing the devils advocate, and assuming things President Erdogan didn’t intend or say. Erdogan was merely expressing a response to NZ ChristChurchs manifesto, in which the Terrorist named Brenton Tarrent requested white supremacist around the World to capture and invade Constantinople as known as today’s (Istanbul), So Erdogan warned those specific people wanting to invade Turk, as (the Anti Muslim sentiment).
Islamophobes and Critics of Erdogan then use the next prase:
Erdoğan, trying to rally support for his AK party in the 31 March local elections, said: “They are testing us from 16,500km away, from New Zealand, with the messages they are giving from there. This isn’t an individual act, this is organised.”
Here Erdogan is not at all claiming the New Zealand government or Australia was behind the conspiracy to attack Turkey, what Erdogan is rather saying is, that the gunman is not acting alone (Lone Wolf) rather there is a White Supremacists hidden network, that could be a whole range of people. And We know, that Tarrent is not acting alone, He had his own team, such as his secret network: look at the screen shots of his messages, found here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/116129512444016/permalink/377653559624942/
Also here:
In the above, screen shots in the provided link, we see Brenton Tarrent talking to a secret group of people, before carrying out his attack. This is the organized group, in which Erdogan is referring to, it is the underground network of White Supremacy.
Not at all did Erdogan suggest this organized group was Australia or NZ Government rather people who may live under ground in Australia or NZ. What Erdogan was referring to, is the hidden white supremacist terror cells, embedded in Australian or perhaps the NZ community, similar to how we may find Muslim secret terror cells in U.K or Pakistan or Indonesia. There is much evidence, that there are far Right, Terror cells, take for example these cases: https://www.facebook.com/groups/716906148419089/permalink/1947219015387790/
You will see right after the NZ Christchurch Massacre, copy cat attacks started to follow suit, by Brentan Tarrent followers. There have been arrests made.
So let us now be fair, and first understand what Erdogan is saying here, instead of assuming things He didn’t intend to say. It is quite now clear, that Erdogan was not threatening the Australian or NZ constitution rather the hidden Terror cells that exist within it’s borders.
People say, that President Erdogan was being insensitive, because He made, comments referencing the Anzacs as follows:
“We have been here for 1,000 years and will be here until the apocalypse, God willing,” Erdogan told an annual rally on Monday commemorating the 1915 Gallipoli campaign during the first world war, when Ottoman soldiers defeated British-led forces including Australian and New Zealand troops trying to seize the peninsula, a gateway to Istanbul.
“You will not turn Istanbul into Constantinople,” he added, referring to the city’s name under its Christian Byzantine rulers before it was conquered by Muslim Ottomans in 1453.“Your grandparents came here … and they returned in caskets,” he said. “Have no doubt we will send you back like your grandfathers.”
The suspect in the Christchurch shootings is reported to have visited Turkey twice, but the purpose of his visits is not known.
Referring to the gunman’s manifesto, Erdoğan told a rally in Gaziantep: “What does it say? That we shouldn’t go west of the Bosphorus, meaning Europe. Otherwise he would come to Istanbul, kill us all, drive us out of our land. End Qoute.
I don’t believe He certainly was not being insensitive towards the fallen diggers, Mr Erdogan was addressing specifically the manifesto, in which the Gun man was praising the fight to take back Constantinople through another Gallipoli War, in fact the NZ shooter referenced Antonio bragadin on his Weapon. See here:
https://m.facebook.com/groups/716906148419089?view=permalink&id=1955217357921289
The same weapon used in the NZ Massacre, the name that appears Antonio bragadin is the Officer lutenent that, killed Turks during the Ottoman period the same period in which the West was at War with the Turks.
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Antonio_Bragadin
So it is now, clear that Erdogan was reminding the White Supremacists, that if they wish, to carry out another Gallipoli, then there fate will be like their Western ancestors that tried the same back in history. So I don’t see, how given the context, Erdogan was not to the least being disrespectful to fallen diggers, rather reminding those who wish to do Turkey harm will see that very same fate, Erdogan was in no way, comparing Terrorists to the Diggers in aspects of moral values, rather He was comparing the fate of the Anzacs to the fate of White Supremacists if they wish to do harm towards Turkey.
President Erdogan, welcomes all Australians to Turkey to visit there fallen dead, but not the Terrorists who wish to do his country harm. Yes, this is a critical point. If Turkey had any intention of doing harm to ANZACs without being triggered, they would have already desecrated the memorial grounds at Gallipoli. But they haven’t. Erdogan’s recent comments were hurtful to many (though he was referring to white supremacists) and it would have been better of course for him to have shown a little more solidarity with NZ and the global Muslim community, as well as calling out politicians globally for their right-wing rhetoric that has enabled a culture of Islamophobia to fester around the world (leading to attacks like Christchurch).
In conclusion, Western Right Wing Media & Right wing Personalities are going after Erdogan, in order to lift focus of Annings comments. That’s what we call as a logical fallacy of “scapegoating” which means: Unfairly blaming an unpopular person or group of people for a problem or a person or group that is an easy target for such blame.
And that’s exactly that!
Now what is even more peculiar is that just recently, a ex- football AFL coach known as Mick Malthouse made controversial statements. During his speech of encouragement towards players, he brought up the Anzac and how they should play the game, and best the opposition like the way the Aussies killed the Turks at Gallipoli:
Video of the speech:
What is so interesting Western Media and the Australian public did not say a word to condemn this type of divisive speech.
The words:
“Don’t disgrace yourself… that opportunity, when it comes, you jump on that horse and you fire from the hip and you just take those Turks right out cuz they’re coming at ya”.
Poor choice of words. Could have said: “Fire at the enemy”. Would have been more appropriate. Why the need to add the word Turk?
Football is supposed to Unite and not divide. These words are divisive. I understand Mick is old school, but He should know better.
So why didn’t Western Media attack Mick Malthouse as they did with President Erdogan?
If Erdogan’s words are divisive and insensitive for bringing up the fate of the Anzacs as an example, well what about Malthouse’s words that alienate the Turkish race as the enemy by bringing up the Anzac, and killing Turks as a motivational speech expectable in this day and age, despite growing Islamaphobia?
The hypocrisy and silence are deafening when white people are allowed to make Turks look like the enemy. But when Erdogan references the Anzacs they all lose their minds.
Foretold Prophecy – imitating the Kufar
Last updated:
30th April. 2022
(This page is ongoing project) Info will continuously be added in the coming days……
It was narrated that Ibn ‘Umar said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Whoever imitates a people is one of them.’” (Narrated by Abu Dawood, al-Libaas, 3512. Al-Albaani said in Saheeh Abi Dawood, (it is) hasan saheeh. No. 3401).
Christmas Trees
Kufar:
Muslims:
More coming soon…
…..
Rapist and Serial killer in Islam goes Heaven? Muslim -Response
Last updated: 25th April, 2022
A Critic wrote:
Muslim – Response:
No where in Islam does it necessarily teach, that a Serial killer or a Child rapist goes to Jennah directly if He did those crimes while being a Muslim.
Depending on the circumstance, Allah may forgive All sins, especially if you were a non-Muslim criminal and converted to Islam.
This requires repentance and acceptance of the Religion where All your previous sins are wiped clean no matter how small or how large, or how insignificant or how large brutal and evil. This is because you were in a state of misguidence. Think about how the legal system may excempt certain crimes based on someones mental health. In a criminal court people who suffer from mental illness could get off a crime because they are non functional. Islam sees non Muslims the same way, if you don’t have Islam then in a way you are non functional without guidence, therefore once you accept Islam your given a second chance to prove yourself. This actually reflects on Gods mercy, which I think no critic could really argue against. Most critics would argue for a second chance.
That said, how about if you were a Muslim at the time of doing such awful abhorrent crimes?
this doesn’t mean you go to Jennah without facing a punishment first.
In Islamic theology, those who do evil crimes, need to get purified. So either they will get their purification through the torment of punishment in the Barzak (Grave) or Hell-Fire. They can be burnt there for thousands to millions of years. After they do their time, then God’s mercy can be upon them after they did their time, because they had an atoms worth of belief.
You also said, a good person from another religion.
Excuse me, who defines good? They maybe good to you or others. But this doesn’t mean they’re good to God if they reject the one that gave them life. Therefore in Gods eyes, they are the worst of the worse, even worse then Serial killers or Rapists, because even the lowest forms of human beings that being rapists or serial murderers are still able to recognise God.
One needs to ask, how bad must you get, that even a deranged rapist or a serial killer can believe in Allah and ask for repentance?
But these so called good people can not recognise God or be humble enough to ask for repentance.
Now ask yourself how low must you be, that even a deranged rapist or a serial killer can humble themselves to the truth and accept Allah, but you with all your goodness can not?
Now ask yourself who is really the worse?
🤙😆
Now watch a detailed video explained by Bassam Zawadi on the Problem of Hell Questions.
Related video:
Does Allah show Kindness and Mercy towards Unbelievers?
One critic doesn’t think so, and requests evidence.
Let’s respond.
Muslim – Response:
Here is the mercy of Allah to the unbelievers in the Islamic sources
Sahl ibn Sa’d reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If the world were as worthy to Allah as the wing of a mosquito, an unbeliever would not even be given a sip of water.”
Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 2320
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani
So here we are taught, that Allah shows compassion and mercy to unbelievers, and gives them rain and water, even though they reject Allah (SWT), but Allah (SWT) out of His mercy and compassion still sends them rain so they can drink from it’s pure water, because this world means nothing to Allah, as its temporary but the unbelievers will get nothing in the hereafter, there reward is only in this life.
If Allah (SWT) didn’t show mercy or compassion, then he wouldn’t have sent them a drop of rain even in this world. Instead, He would have left them to be like thirsty dogs, and let them rot in their own misery.
Allah (SWT) does not have to specifically say He has mercy upon unbelievers, his actions are sufficient enough for us to determine who benefits from his mercy, from the believers to the unbelievers and the animals of all living kinds.
And Allah knows best.
Following the Consenus rule of Scholars is not always the correct way.
Some Muslims think that if the Majority of the Scholars agree on a particular explanation of the Deen, then this must be true. And that Majority of the Scholar’s intentions are not to deliberately misguide us, rather guide us. And so some of these Muslims take truth only if it comes from a majority view, and they blindly assume that if the knowledge comes from a Scholar or a majority of Scholars then whatever they say, must be the truth, or more accurate. They will continue to proclaim that, Scholars are more educated than us, so we must put our trust in them.
All though Islam requires us to take our deen from those who are most knowledgable and it’s preferably a safer option to go for a majority view, we need to also keep in mind, that following the majority view isn’t always the correct view. You could still be a minority view among scholars and have a more accurate opinion against majority view scholars.
Let’s read what Quran and Hadith say regarding this matter:
And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying.
-Quran 6:116.
Shaykh as-Sa‘di said: This verse indicates that the number of followers is no indicator of truth, and that scarcity of followers does not signal that something is not truth. Rather reality is something other than that, for the people of truth are the fewest in number, but are the greatest in esteem and reward before Allah. Rather we must determine what is true and what is false on the basis of proof and evidence.
End quote from Tafseer as-Sa‘di (1/270)
So what is true and right is known from its being in accordance with the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and with what the early generations of this ummah were agreed upon, not from large numbers of those who say it.
Al-Fudayl ibn ‘Iyaad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Adhere to the path of guidance, and do not be affected by the small numbers of those who follow the path. Beware of the paths of misguidance, and do not be deceived by the large numbers of those who are doomed (by following them).
End quote. See: al-Adhkaar by an-Nawawi (p. 221); al-I‘tisaam by ash-Shaatibi (1/83)
Read the following narrations, as the Quranic text in question is not just about random people but also about people of knowledge who will deviate the masses.
Abu Dhar said, “I was with the Prophet (Sallal Lahu aliwasalam) one day and I heard him saying: “There is something I fear for my Ummah more than the Dajjal.” It was then that I became afraid, so I said: “Oh Rasool Allah! Which thing is that?” He (SAW) said; “Misguided and astray scholars.”
(Reference:-Recorded in Musnad Imam Ahmad (no.20335, 21334 and no.21335). Sheikh Shu’ayb al Arna’ut graded it sahih li Shayari (authentic due to corroborating narrations) in his tahqiq of the Musnad (1999 ed., 35:21,296-97)
Abu Huraira reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Men will appear near the end of time who deceive the world with religion, confusing the people. Their skin is as soft as sheep, their words are sweeter than sugar, yet their hearts are like the hearts of wolves.”
Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 2404
Testing a Muslim if they are a Feminist
Last update: 11.02.2024
By: Mustafa Sahin
How to test if a Muslim is suffering from Feminism. These questions are directed towards Muslim women who claim despite claiming to be a Sunni Muslim, they usually pretend they are not feminists, but these questions are put forward to test them to see how much they have been influenced by Feminism despite how much they deny being feminists.
Let’s begin!
Go ahead and answer these questions, I would like to see what your Aqeeda is? How you respond will determine if indeed you are suffering from Western Feminism.
Question 1: Obeying the Husband.
Do you agree that women in Islam must obey Her husband?
The Prophet said,
“If a woman prays her five prayers, fasts her month of Ramadan, guards her chastity, and OBEYS her husband, she will enter Paradise from any gate she wishes.” [Hadith Mishkaat Masaabih]
“Two persons whose prayers will not rise above their heads: A runaway slave till he returns to his master and a woman who disobeys her husband till she obeys”. [Al-Tabarani narrated it with a good chain of transmission and Al-Hakim].
In another report:
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If a woman prays her five prayers, fasts her month of Ramadan, guards her chastity, and obeys her husband, she will enter Paradise from any gate she wishes.”
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān 4252
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani
Notice, no where in the Quran or the Hadith, do we find Men told to “obey their wives”, however we only find Women having to obey men, as being the divine instruction.
Will now our Muslim sisters now make excuses, such as this doesn’t mean obey? Or will they submit and surrender to gender roles as prescribed in Islam, or will they ditch all of these Islamic teachings, and lie to themselves about complete equality between Men and women in order to serve their Feminist agenda?
Remember sisters, when Allah (SWT) commanded Iblis (Satan) to bow down to Prophet Adam to test the obedience of Iblis. Iblis refused because He wanted some sort of equality with Adam, in fact He even said He was better than Adam Aleyselam. So Sisters, when you reject Allah’s commandments when He tells you to obey your husbands, that is the same as being like Iblis and forcing yourself to be co-equal to your husbands something Iblis tried to do with Prophet Adam Aleyselam.
Question 2: Women must refuse anyone Her husband dislikes to enter His House.
Can a wife under womens empowerment refuse her husband’s order not to allow anyone He dislikes to enter his house?
It was narrated from Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said in the Farewell Khutbah:
“Fear Allah with regard to women, for you have taken them as a trust from Allah, and intimacy with them has become permissible to you by the word of Allah. Your rights over them are that they should not allow anyone whom you dislike to sit on your furniture. If they do that, then hit them, but in a manner that does not cause injury or leave a mark. Their rights over you are that you should provide for them and clothe them in a reasonable manner.” Narrated by Muslim (1218).
Also note there is NO narration that says, a man must refuse anyone His wife dislike to enter the house.
Question 3: Female travelling alone.
Can female travel alone without a Mahrem (Male guardian)?
It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allaah and the Last Day to travel for the distance of one day and one night except with her mahram.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (1038) and Muslim (133). According to al-Bukhaari (1139) and Muslim (827), from the hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed: “The distance of two days.”
Now answer for Us? can a man travel alone unlike a women. Why does He not require a guardian if we happen to be co-equal under Islam? And only women require a guardianship? Where is the equality here?
Question 4: A Second Wife.
Is a Husband allowed to take a second wife, in special circumstances according to the Feminist Muslim view. For example they will argue, how Muslim men were only allowed a second wife, because of war and the shortage of women, or when widowed women needed to be taken care of. Of course this is nonsense and Islamic text does not just outline to Marry women for these purposes but also recommends single women. The Prophet himself married even a slave women that was gifted to him.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/257509/number-of-huris-a-muslim-will-get-in-jannah
So now then what about woman? Are women allowed to take a second husband under women empowerment in Islam? If their was a shortage of women or men who were poor and needed taken care of?
After all women can be caretakers like men can they not? After all these Feminists claim they can do what Men can do.
Question 5: Beating Wife
Can the husband discipline His wife, like Surah 4:34, and hit her using a (Miswak) such as a light beating that does not cause bodily harm or leave a mark on her, as described by Ibn Abbas (see Tefsir ibn Kathir) Also if Men and women are equal, why doesn’t the Quran says, women can beat Men lightly?
Also if these Feminists wish to insist that this word “Darabah” (Hit) means only to abandon Her, how come we don’t find a verse, telling women to “Darabah” abandon their abusive husbands using the same word “Darabah” if indeed it does not mean to “smack her”.
It’s clear darabah never refers to disciplining men but only discipling women.
The correct interpretation: is how the earliest Muslim Scholar ibn Abbas interpreted ” a beating that is NOT VIOLENT.
Ask your self now the question what type of beating is non-violent?
Source: from Tefsir ibn Kathir:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=672&Itemid=59
For further explaination detail for Sureh 4:34 refer to my video on this subject:
https://youtu.be/40KAJ6Jgu_0
Also keep in mind, these secularised Muslim Feminist have no problem in the state government laws that use Police officers to use extreme measures like hand Battons, capsicum spray and electric stun guns even dogs! for purposes in order to discipline those who don’t adhere to public order. No one calls that abuse, or patriarchy. But a husband mildly smacking his wife in a non violent way where it’s not allowed to leave a mark or a bruise, Oh Patriarchy!
In Islam according to Islamic sources you’re not even allowed to smack her on sensitive areas like on the face.
Unlike Westerners, when He cheats on her with another women. She slaps him on the face.
https://fb.watch/luaLux6A0G/?mibextid=Nif5oz
Question 6: Muslim women being a leader of a Nation.
Can a Muslim women be a leader of a nation? Like a Khilafa, King, President, Etc.
If you believe they can, than answer the question regarding the Hadith found in Sahi Bukhari, that says; A nation that elects there leader to be a women will not be successful.
You can read about it here:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/3285/ruling-on-appointing-women-to-positions-of-high-public-office
How does the Hadith, where it says a nation who picks a woman as its leader will never prospher? How does this Hadith fit in line with your Muslim women empowerment narrative?
There are Feminists who bring up, the Queen of Sheeba, in the Quran being a great nation lead by a women, and so they try to counter this hadith by suggesting the hadith in question contradicts the Quranic text regarding women in a position of power.
However this can be easily dismissed. The Quran does not say, Her nation was great because of Her doings. Rather being great here could mean the greatness of her people in popularity. For example the West is also a great nation but it doesn’t mean they are morally great and up right nation. You can still be a great nation in you’re power and advancements but still be morally bankrupt and corrupted at the same time.
Question 7: Taking concubines (Right hand possessions).
During War, does Islam allow men to take right-hand possession, war captives concubines where they are free to have intercourse with them.
Since these Feminists like to say, Islamic women can be a warrior on the battlefield. Does Islam allow then Muslim military women to take Men concubines for themselves? I mean you’re preaching equality aren’t you?
What are right hand possessions?
Interesting that these feminist Muslim women have a problem with Andrew Tate for saying women are the property of Men, but they don’t have a issue with the Quran for allowing Men to own slaves like concubines.
Also note, when you look at it from a holistic view we are all owned by someone, such as the Government, see what happens when you break Covid19 pandemic Rules, like not wearing a face mask, you’re master the government will force you to obey the law, and you will see how much ownership you have of youre own life, if you don’t obey the master.
So no matter how liberal and free these Secular liberal Feminist Muslims feel living in the West, that all comes crashing down when shit hits the fan like when their is a crises situation, then you all become slaves and servants to the system.
Question 8: Talak Divorce
If husband and His wife are co- equal, Why when a woman has her menses and the husband gives Talaq divorce. The divorce isn’t accepted according to Islam? Also a women can not give Talaq, like a man. For her to seek divorce she must seek by going to a third person like a Imam but a husband does not need to do that, He can directly do the Talaq himself.
Question 9: Can she disobey him on quieting employment?
If a Husband is earning enough money, and providing everything for his wife. And the husband demands his educated wife, no longer to attend work. Can she Disobey him?
If so, then how do you respond to Islamic traditions that commands women to obey their husbands.
Question 10: Being advised to Dress modestly
If your husband, brother or father, tells you, to dress more modestly and more loose clothing and not to wear make-up, and perfume in public, in front of non mahrem men, what would be your response Islamically?
Would the answer be, “men should mind their own business and just lower their gaze”, or would you also need to take responsibility yourself like avoiding things that try and beautify you, which kinda defeats the purpose of Hijab which is to conceal one’s beauty.
وندِي زَانتْمَان
Also I find it comical, that most Muslim women will say, we shouldn’t judge others and only Allah can judge Us, when it comes to who is a good Muslim and who is a bad Muslim. And no one has a right to be a Haram Police, nor should any Muslim judge other Muslims because only Allah knows who is a good Muslim and that no Muslim is without Sin. But then on the flip side you have this Lady judging Andrew for being as a bad Muslim 😆👍
Hypocrisy much!
Question 11: The Greatest Sin
Which Sin is greater in sin in the sight of Allah.
“Rape or Dying as an Unbeliever”?
Also which Sin is worse in the sight of Allah.
“Raping a child or abandoning the (Salah)”?
Just a reminder their are many hadits that say that intentionally abandoning the selah for good is considered Kufur unbelief. But I have never heard rape constitutes kufur, unless of course you claim Rape is considered Helal, which I’m sure no Muslim considers it as being helal.
We are asking these Questions because Feminists seem to think that Rape is as great of a sin as unbelief. In fact rape is seen as much worse according to the view of these Feminist. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying sexual assault isn’t bad. Of course it’s a great crime, but Feminist make it sound so bad that they make it sound worser then unbelief or shirk, as you are aware commiting shirk is actually considered an unforgivable sin, if one dies without repenting. But we have never heard rape being unforgivable if one dies upon it.
See for yourself here how Feminists attack a sheik for saying abandoning the selah is worse then raping a child.
So Feminists consider Rape the same as Shirk or Disbelief.
We responded to a Islamic critic:
Question 12: A Womens testimony.
In the Quran it say’s the testimony of two females is equal to the testimony of one man. Of course these are based on biological reasons, we have outlined this at the following article:
but are Muslim women content with this, or will they openly deny the verse which says, that a women testimony is half of that of a Man?
Question 13: Refusing Sexual intimacy
Is refusing sexual intercourse with your husband a sin. If not, how do you respond to the hadith in which it says, women who refuse this, the angels curse them? How does this curse fit with Women’s empowerment in Islam? Notice also no where does it say, that if a man refuses his wife intercourse His also to be cursed by the Angels.
Question 14: Marrying a Non-Muslim
Under Islamic Jurisprudence, a Muslim man can marry a chaste Christian woman, however, a Muslim woman is forbidden to marry a non-Muslim Man. How does that teaching of Islam fit with your definition of women empowerment and freedom and equal rights in Islam? How do these Feminist Sunni Muslims claim Islam is the most Feminist religion?
Question 15: Three daughters being a Sheild
There is an Authentic Hadith in Sahi Al-Bukhari that states, that if a man has three daughters and He looks after them. They will be a shield for him from Jehenem (Hell Fire).
However, the Hadith does not mention three sons. Do you reject this hadith, because it displays gender biases? Only girls are protective shields and not boys.
Interesting that Feminist Muslim Hijabi sisters don’t complain about the Hadith here why is that?
Question 16: Staying in your homes.
The Quran tells Women to stay in their houses, it is better for them. Why does the Quran not say the same for men, if the Quran agrees to your version of equality? Surah Al Azab 33-33.
In fact, in Abu Dawood Hadith, We find a question that was asked to the Prophet about women going to the Masjid which is a holy place, the Prophet responded; Their houses are better for them. Where is this language uttered towards Men, their houses are better for them?
Also if a Muslim Sheik uttered the same words of the Prophet, He would be labelled as a Mysogenist and a women hater and opressor by the same Feminists!
Question 17: Mandated Hijab
Under women empowerment, according to your beliefs, a Muslim Women under your Islamic interpretation, is she disobeying Allah and sinful for deciding not to wear the Hijab? Since you think the Hijab is just a choice. Are you’re choices then acceptable, or are they un-acceptable under Gods commandments?
If you claim you’re choice are acceptable then how do you explain God commanding the Hijab? Isn’t refusing to obey his command a sin? So again how do you reconcile this with your claim its a just a choice as though, it’s just sunnah and not an obligation?
Furthermore do you agree the Hijab should be mandated in public for women in a Islamic nation?
If you believe in Freedom of choice when it comes to clothing. Then will you also accept public nudity as being part of freedom of choice? Similarly will you also accept that people can show up to work, wearing a bikini instead of modest work uniform? And if you were the boss of the company would you allow these freedom of choices to wear what you want or would you mandate a specific dress code for you’re employees, if so then why do you object to the Iranian government for example mandating a dress code such as the Hijab? If you still insist that, people such as believers should be able to freely wear anything they please under free choice, then how do you coincidence that belief with the sayings of the Prophet that instructed Muslims to stop the evil and do the good.
Read:
Whoever among you sees evil, let him change it with his hand. If he is unable to do so, then with his tongue. If he is unable to do so, then with his heart, and that is the weakest level of faith.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 49,
Question 18: Men are described as Protectors and Maintainers.
The Quran says; Men are maintainers and protectors of women.
Surely if Islam teaches your version of equality, then the Quran would also teach, women are also protectors, and maintainers of men, right? It is thus clear that the obligation of protecting and paying for women’s maintenance falls on the responsibility of the men and not the women. So how does this verse even coincide with your view that the Quran teaches equality? Yes, women could as an option maintain men, if his temporarily going through hardship, but she’s not compelled or obligated to provide this service, she can stop providing if she likes, but a man can never stop providing and must pursue to provide and maintain her, so we ask how does this verse fit in with being equal with Men?
Since these Feminists claim there is complete equality between Men and Women in Islam.
Question 19: Gender Roles
If Muslim women don’t believe in Gender roles, why do they always insist, that Muslim women also need to join the workforce and become Female medical practitioners, as they say because, if you’re wife falls pregnant and about to give birth, then what will you do if there’s only male doctors?
Feminists say “There’s no gender roles in Islam”.
I say, I think there is, women should stay home and look after the household as a number one priority.
Feminist say, How about if your rushing your wife to the hospital emergency and request for female practioner, and they tell you sorry we only have male doctor.
I say, but I thought Feminist were against Gender Roles?
Oh so now you believe in gender roles? 😂
In addition We can see the importance of a Father figure in the house hold.
One comment wrote:
My response:
No matter how religious a women is she is still built different both physically and emotionally. Therefore she’s more vulnerable to compromising to Dunya. Or even applying the hooded, because they are emotionally more sensitive. That’s why even in Islam women are forbidden from being judges or statemens, and being a khalif. Because their emotions may make them sway away from applying the laws of Allah because their built to care and nurture. It’s just the way Allah created them to balance it out between Men and Women. In fact there are Hadiths that say, most of Dajjals followers will be of the women, the reason for this is because they again think about secuirty, and so they fall more towards temptation, in fact the Prophet said most of the dwellers of Hell fire are of the women. And the Prophet gave the reason, and said, it’s because they give very little when it comes to charity, they curse often and they are ungrateful.
Both men and women have unique role in Islam, and there are gender differences, men are there to protect the flock, women are the nurtures that’s just the way it is.
Also answering the question women are the Property of Men?
Question 20: Why are All Prophets and messengers Men?
Why are ALL Prophets and messengers of Allah, Men and not women? Surely if Islam believed in women empowerment and equality then we would expect one Prophet out of many hundreds that’s female correct? But the answer is none, not one zilch!
Here is a Liar who actually shamelessly tried to lie about the Quran they wrote;
My Response:
This is how desperate these people are that they even create their own lies. The fact is there is not a single Prophet or Messenger that is a female in Islam.
Question 21: Judging a Sister
Do you believe in Islam we are allowed to Judge a sister, if she’s not wearing the Hijab properly and she promotes beautifying the Hijab on Instagram such as wearing the Hijab with tight clothing, plucking the eye brows, wearing make up, and getting her lips done to upload this all on Tiktok for the public to see, which include non-mahrem men?
If you believe we should not judge her for her deviance. Do answer the following from Umar Ibn Khattab;
Abdullah ibn ‘Utbah reported: Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “Verily, people were judged by revelation in the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and the revelation has ceased. We only judge now what is manifested outwardly of your deeds. Whoever shows us good, we will trust him and bring him close. It is not for us to judge anything of his inner secrets. Allah will hold him accountable for his inner secrets. Whoever shows us evil, we will never trust him or believe him even if it is said his intentions are good.”
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 2641
Will now these same Feminist accuse Umar the rightly guided Khalif of being a Haram morality Police?
Question 22: Men have a special right.
The Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh), in the bellow hadith suggests that, Men have a “special right” over women.
We read
Narrated Qays ibn Sa’d:
I went to al-Hirah and saw them (the people) prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, so I said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) has most right to have prostration made before him. When I came to the Prophet (ﷺ), I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you have most right, Messenger of Allah, to have (people) prostrating themselves before you. He said: Tell me , if you were to pass my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said: No. He then said: Do not do so. If I were to command anyone to make prostration before another I would command women to prostrate themselves before their husbands, because of the special right over them given to husbands by Allah.
Source: Sunan Abi Dawud 2140
So if these Feminist Muslims wish to talk about complete equal rights with men? How do they deal with the Prophetic statement suggesting women to be a less degree so much so that they are compared to worshiping a husband of course in a metaphorical sense. But we don’t see the Prophet ever say, Men to worship women even in a metaphorical sense, Why is that?
Question 23: Most Of the Followers of Dajjal are Women, and most women are in Hell.
Hadith narrations say, that most of the followers of Dajjal will be of the women. And more women will be in hell then Men.
Ibn Umar reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The False Messiah will come upon this marsh of Marriqanat. Most of those who go out to him will be women, until a man goes back to his wife, his mother, his daughter, his sister, and his aunt to shackle them tightly, fearing they would go out to him.”
Source: Musnad Aḥmad 5353
Why doesn’t it say most of the followers or equal portion of the followers of Dajjal are also Men?
Same goes for the Hadith where the Prophet said most of the dwellers of Jehennem are from the women and not the Men?
So what will be you’re response, will you accept these gender differences? And say well it’s unfortunate women are more prone to evil and take less controll in falling into temptation, or will you just dismiss all of this and say, all the Islamic sources are false in order to up hold you’re feminist values of so called equality?
There are feminists who claim, that the hadith regarding more women in hell, was only a warning to tell women to stop sinning, and that women are not innately evil. Of course the response to this is, no one is suggesting that men are perfect or angels, and men also sin, no one is suggesting women are innately evil, as this would be a offense as the Prophets wives were among the best women, however what the hadith is showing more women are ending up in hell compared to men, because they have a higher ratio of sin, again no one is suggesting there more evil, what we are showing is that it’s ok to have more women in hell, because you can’t expect both men and women to sin at the exact same ratio, that’s impossible. The point here is that feminist want everything to be balanced and equal because they have a inferiority complex, and they can’t accept anything negative, they either always want to beat men in everything or to the least be co-equal to the minimum. This is the disease that’s in their heart. Remember what I said about Adam and Iblis at the beginning of these questions.
The other claim they would say is, Women outnumber men based on population into the future, therefore that’s the reason why there will be more women in hell than men. However this argument does not hold up, because the Prophet said the reason, and it wasn’t based on population rather He said, it’s because they give less charity compared to Men, and they are un- thankful towards their husbands. This debunks the claim that women outnumber men, as the sole reason to why, women outnumber men in hell fire. This is clearly not the case, and if it were the Prophet would have said it, in fact He gave the reasons why, and population difference clearly wasn’t one of those.
When we look closer to the Hadith we see another inconsistency, from the Feminist narrative.
Ibn Abbas reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I had a chance to look into the Paradise and I found that majority of the people were poor and I looked into the Fire and there I found the majority constituted by women
Sahi Muslim Book 36, Number 6597.
Another strong point to consider when we read the above narration, the hadith also suggests that not only did the Prophet Pbuh, see that the majority of the dwellers of hell fire are women, but He also said the majority of those who are in heaven are from the poor.
So the question remains will the Feminist Muslim sisters, also now argue that it’s not true that most of the dwellers of heaven are poor? And that the Prophet only had a vision of heaven based on seeing heaven 1400 years ago, and was shown heaven as in into the future just as they make the excuse for more women in hell fire? I mean you can’t selectively just make an interpretation up for your convenience and say, well one part of the hadith regarding poor people being the majority in heaven is accurate but when it comes to more women in hell, you then suddenly want to say, well that doesn’t mean overall more women than men in hell and the Prophet was only shown Heaven during his time and not heaven towards end times after all the feminists have no issue accepting more poor people in heaven compared to rich in heaven, so then to be consistent one would need to also accept more women in hell fire.
Detailed response:
Second video on the same topic, women in Hell.
Question 24: Who’s virginity is more Sacred?
Is a Mans virginity just as sacred as a women virginity? Also why does Islam encourage specifically men to pick a virgin, but the same isn’t said for women choosing virgins among men?
There are no Islamic sources that specifically tell women to prefer a virgin man over a non virgin man. However there are Islamic sources that encourage Muslim men to chose a virgin over a non virgin women.
Read:
Marry virgins because their mouths are sweeter and they can give birth more easily.’ “Give birth more easily”.
(Ibn Majah; Sharh Tulathiyyat al-Imam Ahmad, Safarini)
Also read:
It was narrated that Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah (may Allaah be pleased with them both) said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) asked me, ‘Have you got married?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘A virgin or a previously-married woman?’ I said, ‘A previously-married woman.’ He said, ‘Why not a young girl, whom you could play with and she could play with you?’ I said, ‘I have sisters and I wanted to marry a woman who could gather them together and comb their hair and take care of them.’ He said: ‘You will reach, so when you have arrived (at home), I advise you to associate with your wife (that you may have an intelligent son).’”
(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1991; Muslim, 715)
All though their is a hadith that tells women to marry their equal, these Hadiths don’t specially mention marry men for their virginity. But there are Hadiths as shown that specify marrying women for their virginity. This clearly proves Men’s virginity are less sacred then women’s virginities.
Previous studies found that women getting married today have more sexual experience prior to marriage than their counterparts had in previous decades. For example, 21% of women were likely to marry as virgins in the 1970s, compared with just 5% in the last decade.
The highest 5-year divorce rate in the research—33% during the 2000s—was associated with women having more than 10 sexual partners, and perhaps that’s not unexpected. But Wolfinger points out that the bigger surprise is that prior to recent years, women who had only two partners prior to marriage actually had the highest rate of divorce. (The study didn’t assess the number of men’s premarital sexual partners or link that number to divorce rates, but this should be studied as well.)
Source:
https://fb.watch/kTpHurjOVZ/?mibextid=Nif5oz
Question 25. All Male Panel
Are Muslim men who organise a only men panel, misogynist?
Let’s start with a meme:
If so then answer the following questions:
Pro-Tip: When you organize a panel where all the speakers are men or you are part of a panel where all the speakers are men and some feminist protests, “Where are the women?!”…
Don’t say this: “Well, if there were qualified women available, we would have definitely included them. I’m so sorry, please forgive me.”
Instead, say this: “Why does every panel have to include women? What in Islam requires such a thing? Please explain to me why my panel is illegitimate just because there isn’t a female body on it.”
Guess what?
The Rightly Guided Caliphs were an all-male panel.
The Founders of the Four Schools of Thought were an all-male panel.
The Transmitters of the Quranic Modes of Recitation were an all-male panel.
The Compilers of the Six Sahih Books of Hadith were an all-male panel.
The Founders of the Schools of Kalam were an all-male panel.
The Founders of the Schools of Arabic Grammar were an all-male panel.
And so on…
By asking these questions and making these points, you reorient the conversation to the ethical standards of Islam, instead of the ethical standards of the batil ideology of feminism.
You can read more here:
https://muslimskeptic.com/2019/01/28/more-all-male-panels-please/
To be continued…….
Question 26. Can woman lead Men in Prayer?
According to your Women empowerment, under Islam. Can a women be a imam and lead men in prayer?
If so, please answer the following Narration:
Muslim (440) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The best rows for men are those are the front and the worst are those at the back, and the best rows for women are those at the back and the worst are those at the front.”
How does this Hadith reflect on equality? Best row for women are the back rows?
Al-Nawawi said:
The phrase “the rows for men” is to be understood in general terms as meaning that the best of them are those that are at the front, and the worst are those at the back, and that is always the case. As for the rows for women, what is meant in this hadeeth is the rows of women who are praying with men. But if women are praying on their own and not with men, then they are like men and the best rows are those at the front and the worst are those at the back. What is meant by the worst rows for both men and women is that they bring less reward, are lower in status and are further removed from what is required by sharee’ah. And the best rows are the opposite of that. The virtue of the last row for women who are praying with men is that they are farther away from mixing with men or seeing them or becoming attracted to them when seeing their movements or hearing their words and so on. The first rows are condemned for the opposite of that. And Allaah knows best. End quote.
If a woman is enjoined to pray in her house and keep away from men, and the worst rows for women are the front rows, because they are closer to the men, then how can it be befitting for Islam to allow a woman to pray as an imam, leading men in prayer, when it enjoins her to keep away from men?
Islamic Scholarly unanimous consensus reveal, that Men can lead women in prayer, but women can not lead men in prayer, that said women can lead women in prayer when they are praying at home for example only among women.
For further details and evidences about women leading men in prayer being forbidden please visit:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/39188/ruling-on-a-woman-leading-men-in-prayer
Question
In conclusion:
Gender roles clearly exist, within the Islamic sources, so no matter how much feminist distort the text, it is clear they can not get away from the truth. Their only option now is to either submit and surrender to Gods laws, or as some do, apostate themselves from the religion. Which I call, the cleansing or filtering process where those who have a disease in their hearts are replaced with sincere Muslims who put their trust and decree in God, of course the staunch feminist Muslims who still insist to claim to remain as Muslims are the ones who twist the text to try and reform Islam, which is in most cases what Feminists Muslims attempt to do, but they are only fooling themselves as the commandments are clear, and there is no real escape for them, so they will keep pretending Islam is a feminist religion, but they are only fooling themselves.
Finaly a critique wrote:
My Response:
This liar wrote that; Shariah law was created by Men to control women and so they can do things like honour killings. This is clearly false and a lie. Honore killings has nothing to do with Islam. All though Shariah law has legal proceedings that punish those who commit Adultery and those who fornicate. These types of punishments are not just for women who cheat in relationships but the (hooded corporal punishment ) also applies for Men.
But let us now examine the claim that:
Shariah law is written and created by men?
Under Islamic jurisprudence these are the things that are forbidden for men:
1: Men are required to provide all the living expenses for their wives. Women don’t have to provide.
2: Only Men are required to go to War, for women it’s optional. So men are required to risk their lives, while women don’t have to.
3: Men are required to go (Friday congregational prayer) for women this is not an obligation.
4: Men are required to pray their 5 daily prayers at the Mosque, this means women are not required, they can pray in the comfort of their home, it’s only optional they go to a Mosque.
5: Men, are required to cover their naval. So men can not wear anything that exposes their thighs.
6: Men are not allowed to Wear, Gold and Silk. Only women are allowed to wear these things.
7: Women can keep their own money, but Men can not. He must use that money to pay all living expenses, while shegets to have her own money.
8: Only men, are required to pay the dowry( bridal gift). Women on the other hand are not required to pay. So if a bride asks for $100,000, He must give her that gift he has no option otherwise the marriage contract becomes void.
9: Women are not required to praye or fast during their menstrual cycle period. So if the Quran was written by Men and for Men, why is it than thinking about the wellbeing of women?
10: According to Hadith’s narrations Paradise lays underneath the feet of the mother. Surely now, if Islam was a misogynist and aAll about Men, it would have stated that Paradise lays at the feet of the Father no?10:
11: According to Hadith’s narrations, if a man has three daughters, and raises them on Islam. Those three daughters will be a shield for him on the day of judgment, meaning they will protect the father from hellfire. Though the same isn’t said about having three sons.
Surelly if Men and Women were co-equal the same would have been said, about raising boy children.
Jabir ibn Abdullah reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Whoever has three daughters and he cares for them, he is merciful to them, and he clothes them, then Paradise is certainly required for him.” It was said, “O Messenger of Allah, what if he has only two?” The Prophet said, “Even two.” Some people thought that if they had said to him one, the Prophet would have said even one.
Source: Musnad Aḥmad 14247
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Arna’ut
“Whoever has three daughters and is patient towards them, and feeds them, gives them to drink, and clothes them from his wealth; they will be a shield for him from the Fire on the Day of Resurrection.”[Grade: Sahih. Sunan Ibn Majah]
12: Men are obligated to perform Hajj, but if women don’t have a mahrem to perform Hajj, they can be exempted from performing the Hajj service.
13: The Mother has more rights over the child then the Father.
Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “A man came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, who among the people is most deserving of my good companionship?’ He said, ‘Your mother.’ The man asked, ‘Then who?’ He said, ‘Your mother.’ He asked, then who?’ He said, ‘Your mother.’ He asked, ‘Then who?’ He said, ‘Your father.
You can read more about it here:
Those who accuse chaste women ˹of adultery˺ and fail to produce four witnesses, give them eighty lashes ˹each˺. And do not ever accept any testimony from them—for they are indeed the rebellious—
So one needs to ask, how is it possible that the Quran was written by men, to serve Men. When it clearly favours women when it comes to rights over children.
I can go on and on about how although Islam believes in gender roles, when it gives certain rights to Men and not women, Islam also gives certain rights and privileges to women, and does not give those same rights to Men.
So now tell Me again? If Islam was created by men to serve men, why do we see things in favour of women and not men?
This debunks the claim that Shariah, or Islam was created by men to serve Men. Yes gender roles do exist, and it’s not men who outline what Men and women can and cannot do, rather it’s God the highest Judge who dictates our affairs.
I wrote this over 5 years ago: https://muslimskeptic.com/2017/09/19/grave-implications-feminist-islam/
mustafamuhammedsahin 