tintingz:
You're right I don't want to believe in something, I want to know something.

Believe - accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.

There's difference between believing and knowing.

Believe is a degree above knowing. Quran prove this saying, "let there be no force in religion (belief) for truth stands clear of error". Besides, there are some believe that are prima facie, they doesn't need proof.

Knowing itself is of two propositions:

Sensual and Intellectual. What you attach yourself to is just sensual.

tintingz:
What's the prove?

What do you believe in? Nothing. And you are adamant at it. So, don't expect me doing cycling talk with you. Besides, things seem "easy" for you. You believe in nothing so why curious to know something?

usermane:
So you're basically saying;

No such thing as absolute evil, there is good in all.

Evil is the absence of good.

Evil is relative term.

Evil and good have to exist together for the world to exist.

I think you will have a problem defending some of these under theism. I have seen your critique of my view on theism and Rh factor and I find it very one sided and unidimensional. You will have a hard time convincing atheists and even some theists, that despite all the hindrances and harms this antigen have posed in pregnancy and blood transfusion, it is definitely the product of an all Wise.

Your analogy on the good and bad of fire is agreeable. It won't fit for Rh factor though because whatever good this antigen serve, a case can be made that an all wise creator should have modified it to nullify any potential for harm. Pharmacists, Engineer etc do it all the time, they manufacture and continue to modify their products till the highest benefit to risk ratio in utility is attained.

Try and read the origin of rhesus disease itself I.e how it was first discovered via blood transfusion.

Man is a complex being. We are yet to know our reality till date. We still study. Today man has learnt we are not compatible blood-wise (as in other things too).

Before this disease can occur, certain factors have to come up. Meaning it does not exist on its own. Something brought it up. And at the end via its occurrence, we have learnt more and progress. That is life.

usermane:


The first answer I suppose in bold is not sound. We didn't get the anti-D immunoglobulin until recently. You can only imagine the babies that were lost and blood transfusion recipients that suffered before recent times.

The problem itself was first discovered in 1937 - 39. And what scientists have learnt along the line in related area has made human species more progressive. Sacrifice(s) usually pave way for a progressive future. Science is not done yet. Still progressing.

Fire in the primitive age caused a lot of damage as a result of the inability to study, control and make the best use of it. We have progressed today yet our knowledge about Fire is still very limited.

In Islam, man is created to grow and develop on the path of perfection, physically and spiritually (since he is dual in nature - body and soul). We not only believe but it is philosophically proven that life continues after death. "Sacrificial lambs" will have more perfect life out there to compensate for their pains.

usermane:


There is no answer. Not the type that will convince everyone. Remember when I told you faith is blind.

The response that OP will get here is that Allah knows best why he created Rhesus factor, and no baby dies except by His will, and He will compensate the mother and baby for any loss due to the blood incompatibility, with exception when He wills to punish the mother.

Me, I can't think of any other response in support of an all intelligent creator. But this response you will notice is only admissible on faith alone. We have to assume that Allah planned everything, all the miscarriages and failed blood transfusion common before modern medicine. By creating men of different blood antigen instead of same antigen, or by designing human cell to react to another human cell no different from a bacteria.

Stop assuming man. Islamic philosophical arguments on "evil" is enough to let you understand this perspective. Kindly read the thread provided.

Besides, argument about God is not "faith" but intellectual. Only people with low mental understanding you can subject with the above plea of yours.

For a fact, science know little about rhesus D. Tomorrow whenever man progress and discover something more interesting about it, you and I will be thrilled. If it does not exist, there won't be progress in that line.

Anyway, for now, science understand what causes rhesus factor D and how to prevent it. There is nothing like absolute evil. But there is absolute good, or more good with lack of it or certain effect of it turning "evil".

Wait for more studies on rhesus D. Man is still in the process of knowing himself. He knows nothing about himself for now despite the so called progress.

tintingz:
Because the Quran said something does not mean it's logical.

God doing whatever he wills or wishes on his creation is like doing meaningless or unreasonable things and we should just accept it. It's like a tyrant leader doing meaningless things.

You are not reading to understand. You simply want to argue. I have stated clearly that Quran itself submits, "God is wise" meaning He does not do thing but with wisdom. He never engage in meaningless work. Such is an attribute of ignorant not wise one.

tintingz:

Allah is actually an anthropomorphic deity, he get angry, happy, sad, disappointed, sit, talk, think, plan, emotional etc.

The Quran mention "Wrath of Allah" what does that mean?

Allah who's able to see the future and outcome of everything, why didn't he stop evil from onset?

You're not answering the main question here.

Did Allah also destined man's life?

If Allah can know my end before creation, is that not my destiny, did I choose it?

Allah already gave his own applications of what evil is so let's work with that or better still let's work with general definition of evil?

I stated it earlier that good and evil makes life meaningful, is paradise meaningful?



You don't have to insult to prove a point.

# Allah is not anthropomorphic. Quran says, "There is nothing like Him".

If certain anthropomorphic attributes are used to depict Him, obviously those attributes are metaphorical not literal. Even in all languages metaphor are used for more understanding but that will never make it real.

# Why didn't Allah stops evil? Again, don't be lazy and stubborn. Concise answer with philosophical arguments have been given at the OP. Either you read or you keep on going in circle for argument sake.

# Destiny are of two kind: changeable and unchangeable. God will never ask or punishment you on unchangeable kind of Destiny. The changeable, you write it yourself. You design it. Whatever comes out of it is your responsibility. Yet, He is merciful providing all things for you to choose wisely.

# Is paradise meaningful? It's like asking is salary meaningful for a wage earner or harvest meaningful for farmers.

Abeg, it's not agidi. If you don't have something reasonable to say, let rational people contribute.

tintingz:
First of all the statement "Allah do whatever he wishes" is like saying Allah do meaningless and unreasonable things but then he's expecting humans to understand him for his meaningless doing.

Yes, Quran says, "Allah do whatever He wills" because He has power to do so? No, because, Quran says, "He is Wise". He exercise His works with wisdom. He doesn't partake in futile or oppressive work.

tintingz:

There's paradox when God is said to have created evil or allow evil to exist but he's still a good God. Through out the Quran we can read how Allah hate evil and will punish anyone for it, but let look at it this way, why is he angry when he knows these things will happen? You know evil will exist before creation and will punish anyone for it, you planned everything, you later made evil exist and then get angry for what you already know and responsible of, is God angry for his mistakes or his incapability to stop evil?

God, angry? He does not have human features. Anger is only a feature of created beings. What is used is "God does not love evil doers". Why?

1. Evil doers drag themselves to animal level while He has given them intellect. Yet, they let their base desires over took them instead of using their intellect.

2. They cause injuries to others.

# Man is given freedom to choose between right and wrong, good and evil. He is not force to choose a path. This is one of the grace of God. What will he choose might be known to God but that does not meant He forced him. If he is forced, then power and ability to choose given to him becomes useless. Having full knowledge about something doesn't mean you cause or force it to happen.

tintingz:

If God is capable of stopping evil, he should have done that from onset since he hate evil and doesn't want it but then he's not willing to stop evil, he must be malevolent!

Good and evil makes life more meaningful, that will make paradise meaningless, God initial plan is to put humans in a world where there's no evil, a perfect world but something led to another thing evil exist and God got angry(funny) and sent humans to another world where evil exist. The question is did God before creation knew all this will happen? Is it part of his plan? If yes, why is he cursing Satan here and there and want to punish his creation?

Evil is not created? Is this an apology for God and an excuse for God? So when it comes to evil, it's not created because of some meaningless and illogical reasons. If evil is not created then where did it come from? If evil is not created then God is not the creator of all?

I suggest you read the op submission well. Evil is relative. It does not exist on its own. On the other hand, without what you call "evil", there can be no progress.

Stop been pigheaded. Read the op with intellectual understanding.

Rashduct4luv:


We don't just think in Islam. There are set rules to be followed. And once again surrogacy is Haram in Islam. It involves placing the sex cells of a couple into that of a strange woman which is akin to zina.

# For a fact, Zina in shari'i understanding involves "dukhul" (physical sexu.al inter.course) whereby peniis of a man enters vagiinal of a woman who are not legally married.

# This is the reason why Islam is so strict in the conditions to call a sex.ual relation "Zina". Here, four witnesses MUST see with their eyes the "dukhul".

In the case of IVF, such a thing is not involved. Therefore, there is no Zina here. Permissiblility or not (of IVF) is a different issue entirely.

ANOTHER OPINION

This beautiful piece is from an abstract:

"Most Sunni scholars do not permit surrogate motherhood, since it involves introducing the sperm of a man into the uterus of a woman to whom he is not married. Most Shiite scholars, however, have issued jurisprudential decrees (fatwas) that allow surrogate motherhood as a treatment for infertility, albeit only for legal couples. They regard this practice as transferring an embryo or fetus from one womb to another, which is not forbidden in Shiite jurisprudence."


Artificial Insemination and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)

Ayatullah Sayyed Ali Khamenai:

Q1264: 1. Is IVF or test-tube baby permissible, when the sperm and the egg belong to a lawfully wedded couple?

2. Assuming it is permissible; can the couple go ahead with the procedure if a non-maḥram doctor carries it out? And does the born child belong to the same couple?

3. Assuming that it is not permissible in itself; would the ruling be different if the continuity of the marriage was dependent on it?

A: 1. There is no objection to carrying out the procedure in itself. However, it is obligatory to keep away from any preliminary step that might involve committing a ḥarām act like prohibited looking and touching.
2. The child born by way of this procedure belongs to the couple from whom the sperm and the egg were taken.

3. It is mentioned that carrying out the procedure, in itself, is permissible.

Q1267: Is it permissible for a woman, whose husband is sterile, to be artificially inseminated with sperm from a non-maḥram man (other than her husband), i.e., through placing the sperm in her womb?

A: In itself there is no legal impediment to inseminating a woman with the sperm of a non-maḥram man. However, it is obligatory to avoid the preliminary steps which are ḥarām, such as looking and touching. However, the born child in this way does not belong to the husband of the woman, rather to the person who donated the sperm and the woman whose egg and womb were used in the process.
http://www.leader.ir/langs/EN/tree/23/index.php

Continue...

Evil and deficiencies play a very important a role in driving things to move forward towards perfection. According to traditional philosophers, natural movements are motivated by forceful ones. Unless an opposing force drives an object far from its natural locus, it will not have a tendency to move back naturally to its locus. Calamities, difficulties, pain, and suffering prepare for maturity, strength, genius, and purification. Without hunger and thirst, satiation is meaningless. Where no sins and indulgence are possible, piety makes no sense. No rivalry, no movement and competition. Without wars, progress and civilization would not have flourished. If not for political suppression, liberating movements, as the manifestations of humanity, would not emerge. Where injustice rules, justice and sacrifice for it shine. Want is the mother of movement and endeavor.

Keep in mind that the world of nature gradually moves to perfection and develops constantly as one of its essential features and recalling that development and movement take place only due to what we call evil, we can understand the important functions of evil. In other words, looking at defects microscopically, they are evil and looking at them macroscopically, they are grounds for all we know as good.

Continuation...

Another reading is this: evil is not created. But, why did the perfect wisdom, assumed to have created the world, not create it in a manner that nonbeings and side effects of beings that we consider evil, disappear? Why did God not fill in all the gaps we count as evil? Why is life not permanent, wealth widespread and stable, power replaced for impotency, ugliness exchanged with beauty, pleasure instead of pain, happiness instead of calamities, and equality in place of discrimination?
As omnipotent and benevolent, why God not do this? Apparently we cannot answer these questions simply by invoking the idea that evil is not an existential entity. We need to rely on another analysis.


GOOD AND EVIL: INSEPARABLE

In another analysis of evil, we focus on why it is inevitable. The source of gaps in existence that we call evil, is one of two things. One, the limited capacity of matter for developing perfection that an object might have, but actually does not, is responsible for the emergence of evil. Two, the capacity of matter to receive either of the opposing forms, constitutes the other source of evil. Both these states are essential features of this world. The forms making up this world are contraries. This is essential for this level of being. Therefore, at every moment, every creature actually lacks some perfection. It is an illusion that matter stops receiving contrary forms through time. Also it is an illusion that matter can receive all forms at once. Forms are contraries, hence they cannot be received simultaneously by one matter. When one of the contraries is realized, the other is pending. This originates the gap. So, gaps in the natural world are essential features inseparable from this world. This is how this level of being is. Therefore, we have to choose one horn or the other, of a dilemma: either evil must exist, or the world must not exist.

Here, we face another question: does evil surpass good or vice versa? Fire burns. In certain circumstances, where fire exists, it does a great job. At other times it causes harm... Now, the question is this: is fire, subsequently, more beneficial or more harmful? If it is more beneficial, for instance, because the whole of civilization depends on it, then we should opt either to have fire and civilization or to stay immune from harm and give up civilized life. Which choice is rational, opting for more benefits blended with some evil or sacrificing more benefits in order to avoid the lesser evil?

Philosophers (e.g Aristotle) say we can hypothetically divide objects into five groups: objects that are pure good, objects that are pure evil, objects that are half good and half evil, objects that are more good and less evil and finally, objects that are more evil and less good. Then, they say: in the real world, there is no object belonging to second, third or fifth group. All that exists is either entirely good or more good than bad. This analysis shows that we cannot get rid of evil in this world. So, a better design for the world is not possible.


FUNCTIONS OF EVIL

Not only is evil inseparable and eliminable from this world, but it also has important functions. Some evil helps in the spiritual development of man. Death is the transition to the next life. A walnut is first a combination of shell and nut. Gradually,  the plant grows and the nut separates from the shell more and more. It reaches a point when the shell is no longer needed. It must be broken for the nut to emerge. The body to the soul is like the shell to the nut.

Clashes and contraries allow for progress. If a form received by matter is permanent, the object cannot change. It remains fixed forever. This hinders progress. Development in this world passes through deconstruction and reconstruction. Therefore, philosophers say: if not for contraries, the origin of being would not constantly expand His bounty, in spite of His generosity (lawla al-taddad lama dawam al-fayd 'an al-mabda al-jawad).

Abdulbasit9:
The rhesus factor D(Rhd) is an antigen in human blood. It has been discovered to cause birth defect and stillborn of new born babies if the mother is negative Rhd and the father is positive.

Why did Allah create an antigen that is dangerous to human babies? How are you as a Muslim able to renconcile Rhd factor with an all knowing, perfect God?

Thank you.

NB: I converted to Islam late 2014. I've learnt a lot about Islam from this section but I am beggining to have second thoughts.

First, below is so far what science knows about rhesus disease:

Rhesus disease is caused by a specific mix of blood types between a pregnant mother and her unborn baby.

Rhesus disease can only occur in cases where all of the following happen:

* the mother has a rhesus negative (RhD negative) blood type

* the baby has a rhesus positive (RhD positive) blood type

* the mother has previously been exposed to RhD positive blood and has developed an immune response to it (known as sensitisation)


# How does sensitisation occur?

During pregnancy, sensitisation can happen if:
small numbers of foetal blood cells cross into the mother's blood

* the mother is exposed to her baby's blood during delivery

* there's been bleeding during the pregnancy
an invasive procedure has been necessary during pregnancy – such as amniocentesis, or chorionic villus sampling (CVS)

* the mother injures her abdomen (tummy)
Sensitisation can also occur after a previous miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, or if a RhD negative woman has received a transfusion of RhD positive blood by mistake (although this is extremely rare).

How sensitisation leads to rhesus disease
If sensitisation occurs, the next time the woman is exposed to RhD positive blood her body will produce antibodies immediately.
If she's pregnant with an RhD positive baby, the antibodies can lead to rhesus disease when they cross the placenta and start attacking the baby's red blood cells.
 https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/rhesus-disease/causes/

Rhesus disease can largely be prevented by having an injection of a medication called anti-D immunoglobulin.

Second, answer to your question lies in the Islamic philosophy of Evil. Rhesus D is just one example of "evil". Understanding this subject will help answer your micro question. Kindly read on this thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/5158036/evil-important-subject-islamic-philosophy

EVIL (Curled from the book: An Introduction to Islamic philosophy, based on the works of Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahari)


INTRODUCTION

The problem of evil is an important one for philosophy. Evil that we see and experience, such as death, disease, calamities, pain, ugliness, injustice ...., satan, and evil-promoting self, are taken as evidence to show that the order of the world is not of the best design and Divine wisdom is not perfect. Were the world designed in the best possible manner and governed by the absolute wisdom of God, as religions claim, there should be nothing redundant, let alone harmful.

The concept of evil has pushed some to duality. They believe there are good things and bad things in the world. Bad and good are contraries. They cannot stem from a single source. So there are two origins: one originates evil and the other originates good. Obviously, duality can only be regarded as a solution, provided that we think of the origin of the world as an intelligent being enjoying will. If one does not believe in an origin for the world or believes that the origin of the world is not intelligent or does not possess will, one cannot opt for duality to solve the problem of evil. Hence, proponents of dual origin believe that a benevolent God, who can do what He wishes, must not create evil. Since evil exists, a malevolent origin always opting for evil has created it. So, the world has two origins.

The concept of evil has also given rise to criticisms of divine justice. Unfairness and discrimination in nature and in society are seen as counter evidence for Divine justice. Philosophies based on pessimism are fed by the observation of evil.

In dealing with the problem of evil, theist philosophers have focused on three questions inter alia:

1. What is the nature and source of evil?

2. Are good and evil separable in reality or equal in weight?

3. Are there any conceivable benefits in evil?


THE NATURE OF EVIL

Conceptual analysis reveals that evil stems from nonbeing. Whatever we consider evil is either nonbeing such as blindness, poverty, impotence, inequality...., death or else is the source of some nonbeing. Examples of the latter are obscene acts, robbery, violence of people's rights, tyranny, calamities, disasters, harmful insects, and immoral characteristics like arrogance ....

Death is lack of life, poverty is lack of wealth, decrepitude is lack of vitality of youth, impotence is lack of power, ugliness is lack of beauty. Harmful insects, pestilence, and disaster are bad, because they destroy life or other valuable worthy things. So, existence as such is not bad. Nonexistence as such is bad.

It is worth noting that nonbeing in general is not evil. If we imagine an entity that can potentially have perfection, but actually lacks it; then we consider the lack of that perfection as evil.

This analysis shows that dualism is no solution. Things are not really divided into good and bad. What we consider evil should not be classified amongst things that exist. They are either nonbeing or cause nonbeing; so, as beings they are good. Thus, we need not assume two origins. Objects we consider bad, are bad only in relation to the nonbeing they cause, not in themselves. So, their being evil is a relational property, rather than a genuine one. We can assume that one agent has created everything; what we call evil s either not created or if created, it is good in itself and involves specific nonbeing as a side effect.

Reacting to the criticisms levelled against perfect wisdom and the best design of the world ....

One reading says that, had there been a perfect wisdom who created and designed the universe, He should not have created evil. But evil is created. So, there is no perfect wisdom such as creator. Replying to this criticism is easy. Evil is not created.

emekaRaj:
Salamun aleikum brothers, it's been a while, like Hausa ppl will say knwana biyu (2days) I haven't totally forgotten d thread , it's been busy filled yrs, got married, first baby twins (all tnx 2 Allah) so it's been struggle, hustle and dis Buhari administration no be here oo.

Ma sha Allah. May Allah bless and guide your new home. You've seen a blessing from Him (your twins) and I say Alhamdulillah on your behalf. May Allah bless the children and make them His lover. And May He bless your struggles bi jahi sayyidil wujud, Habibina Muhammad, salallahu alayhi wa ahlihi.

Congratulations dear brother

DamolaIbrahim:
This our Muslim religion sef. I still dey look am with one kain eye.

I go soon change my name to Demola Abraham.

That's ignorance at its peak. Study Islam and not Muslim and do not be away by the media propaganda.

najib632:
I did not say any lie it is you who tried to fabricate nonsense with only one hadith that is not clear that is lying, I only made a wrong statement, and ignorance is not a characteristic of shaytan if he was a Jaheel he wouldn't have succeeded

First, you LIED against Shia ulama and attributed to them what is not theirs. You need to render your apology. Here's Quran :

Surah Al-Maeda, Verse 8:

O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and he careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Aware of what you do."


Second, where and how did I fabricate nonsense? Most of your ulama might have unanimously agree that anal sex is haram but fact remains few of them allowed it. The chief of them was Sahabi Abdullah ibn Umar who based his evidence on his interpretation of that verse of the Quran. Imam Malik also allowed it though many people have tried to defend his point.

Third, Satan was an ignorant fellow. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have thought being created from fire is superior to being created from clay. He only uses deceit to lure people in, not knowledge.

I'm done with you anyway.qqqq?qqqqq

bastardmod:
Cc Itsmeaboki, fulanmafia, buhariadvocate please help me mention other Muslims here...they must take a stand and condemn this lunatic or side with him and his satanic ideology. Time to know what nairaland Muslims think of the satanic injunction to kill people who convert from islam
Cc... Maclatunji, tatabu , lukgaf, abuubayy1, albaqir

First, the guy is on his own. He is no scholar or an official representative of Islam or Muslim worldwide. So I wonder why his foolish comment will be taken upon Nigerian Muslims at large. Kadiria is free to choose whatever religion she feels okay with.

Second, it is no doubt issue of apostasy is a serious and dangerous religious controversy and misunderstanding. Many people have been put to death as a result of faith switch due to various scholars declaration.

In general, Quran strongly declares, "No compulsion in religion" (Q. 2 verse 256) and there is a clear fact that the Prophet of Islam NEVER EVER killed anyone for switching faith. For a fact, one or two of his companions converted to Christianity in Abyssinian.

On the other hand, Islam allows punishment for apostatsy: The unanimous agreement of Muslim scholars is punishment (ranging from exile to killing) of an apostate who continue to destrupt and harm the peace of his original faith. Note: Not just any apostate.

If this is weird in anybody's view, then, I ask:

1. What's the western world's punishment for treason? It is death.

2. Here's bible: Chronicles 15:13 "All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman."


# Interestingly, only Islam preaches religious pluralism. I say it again, only Islam preaches Religious Pluralism. No other religion does. Neither Jewish nor Christianity.

Here's Quran:

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 62:

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve."

Which other religion preach this in the world?


Bottom line, Islam did not order or command that people should be killed for being apostate.

najib632:

A man(Muslim or not) who dies having sex with his wife through the back passage and a man who is a homosexual will not be looked at by Allah on the day of Judgement. You talk as if you don't know humans, how many people do you think will fear Allah and not partake in this act if it is declared makrooh?

Will you say this website link is fake too:
https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-marriage-handbook-syed-athar-husayn-sh-rizvi/sexual-techniques#anal-intercourse

# When will people like you learn?

First, you lied. You refused to humbled yourself after being corrected.

Second, you continue to meddle two different things together due to your ignorance and arrogance: two fundamental characteristics of shaitan. Are you one of his fans?

Third, anal sex is not haram as far as Shia fiqh is concerned. It is makrooh (undesirable act). Sunni ahadith is not in anyway an hujjah against Shia, and vice versa.

Sunni ulama have differences of opinion regarding anal sex: to some it is haram, to some it is makrooh and some even allowed it. Each of the three categories has its proofs. I have given you hadith of Ibn Umar.

Kindly get all these into your skull.

Lastly, Empiree continues to correct you that there is a difference between homosexuality and anal sex. Unfortunately you continue to be defiant, arrogant and fanatical. I feel sorry for your life man.

Empiree:
Just accept your guilty or remain silent bro. You are mixing stuff up

That's what fanatical hatred does to the heart. Leave the guy abeg.

Empiree:
Toor, I can understand that Islamic jurisprudence comes from a multitude of sources, including Quran, Hadith, Sunnah, etc. and not only Quran. So this is figh issue.

Soundest opinion is, it is not permissible. Even the practice being makhruh is very close to forbidden. But definitely anal is not tantamount to homosexual. The brother needs to make tawbah for his wrong accusation.

That's just the conclusion. You've nailed it.

Empiree:
It is hard to believe positive news from nigerians. Their image is badly crooked

Hmmmm

Empiree:
Toor, I can understand that Islamic jurisprudence comes from a multitude of sources, including Quran, Hadith, Sunnah, etc. and not only Quran. So this is figh issue.

Soundest opinion is, it is not permissible. Even the practice being makhruh is very close to forbidden. But definitely anal is not tantamount to homosexual. The brother needs to make tawbah for his wrong accusation.

HADITH OF NAFI’: APPROACH HER “IN...” WHAT?

Imam Bukhari

Narrated Nafi`:

Whenever Ibn `Umar recited the Qur’an, he would not speak to anyone till he had finished his recitation. Once I held the Qur’an and he recited Surat-al-Baqara from his memory and then stopped at a certain Verse and said, "Do you know in what connection this Verse was revealed? " I replied, "No." He said, "It was revealed in such-and-such connection." Ibn `Umar then resumed his recitation. Nafi` added regarding the Verse:--"So go to your tilth when or how you will" Ibn `Umar said, "It means one should approach his wife in .."

Source: Sahih Bukhari USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 50; Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4526
https://sunnah.com/urn/42050




This hadith has been distortedly documented with a vital information missing. Why did Imam al-Bukhari (or whoever documents the Sahih Bukhari) erased “anus” to complete the sentence “Ibn Umar said: one should approach her (his wife) in anus”?

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani writes in his Fath al-Barr fi sharh sahih al-bukhari:


Abi Bakr bin Al-Arabi in his Siraj Al-Mureedeen; has said: "Al-Bukhari has narrated this Hadeeth in his Tafsir; and said: {He approaches her in the ...} and he left it blank." And the issue is well-known. Muhammad bin Sahnoon wrote a part about it, and Muhammad bin Shibaan wrote a book and explained that the Hadeeth of ibn Umar is about having sexual intercourse IN the posterior of a woman.”

Source: Ali ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Fath al-Bari sharh sahih al-bukhari (Dar al-Rayan li tarasa; 1407 A.H); bab Tafsir al-Quran; vol. 9, pg. 682
http://islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=8145&idto=8148&bk_no=52&ID=2319



# Also, with  respect to the verse (223 of sura al-baqara) quoted in the hadith, another hadith revealed from Imam Tirmidhi documents:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

"Umar came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: O Messenger of Allah! I am ruined! He said: Why are you ruined? He said: I turned my mount during the night (meaning that he went into his wife from behind)." He said: "So the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did not say anything in reply to him. Then Allah revealed this Ayah to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him): Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will (2:223). From the front, the back, avoiding the anus, and menstruation."


Grade: Hasan (Darussalam)

Source: Sunan Tirmidhi
English reference : Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 2980
Arabic reference : Book 47, Hadith 3247
https://sunnah.com/urn/639730


It seems there is a need to “bring” another hadith to stand against the hadith of Imam Tirmidhi (above) which Imam al-Bukhari might have seen and decided not to record.



Imam Bukhari documents:

Narrated Jabir:

Jews used to say: "If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from the back, then she will deliver a squint-eyed child." So this Verse was revealed:-- "Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when or how you will." (2.223)”

 Source: Sahih al-Bukhari
 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 51
Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4528
https://sunnah.com/urn/42060



Obviously there is a contradiction in the “sabab al-nuzul (reason of revelation)” of the ayah 223 of sura al-baqarah following the two ahadith (above). And it is not known anywhere that the ayah was revealed twice to address two different scenarios of the same context at different time. Besides, going by the matn (content) of Bukhari ‘s version, an impression is being created that the phrase “from the back”  means having sexual intercourse via the vaginal (and not via anus) but coming from the back side. This is because from the matn, the so-called Jews alleged that it can result to pregnancy of a squint eye child. Of course sex via anus cannot result to pregnancy. This Bukhari’s hadith compare to Tirmidhi’s version where the same verse with its interpretation (from the Prophet or Ibn Abbas) condemned the act of having sexual intercourse “from the back – anus” are in serious conflict.  Why we suspect Bukhari’s version greatly is the fact that in connection with the same ayah, he distorted the last piece of information in Nafi’s hadith about Ibn Umar’s interpretation (by ending a sentence with harf “fi – IN’) which most Salaf of the Ahlu Sunnah in ahadith confirmed to be “in anus”.

najib632:
Brother anal sex with male or female is what?

While you have lied against Shia ulama and their rulings, your lies even took a step forward when you posted 2 links to support your lies. Unfortunately, those links ended exposing your lies the more. And mind you, none of those links are official website of those Shia maraji. Those are secondary links to their fiqh explanation.

Alas, from lying, you switch to stupidity and desperation. All because of your hatred to Shia? O ga o.

Empiree:
Anal sex is simply Haram even with your wife. That's not definition of homosexual. But you accused their fuqaha of supporting homosexual. You are yet to provide evidence for that.

Anal sex is not Haram but makrooh (undesirable act). And you are absolutely right, homosexuality is haram and no school of thought welcomes it. In fact punishment for it is severe.

omoolababs:
Astagafirulah!!! I know all Mosques are Allah's place of worship but what I mean is Mosque that they normally organize weekly halqo classes for learning more about Islam.

Try to be more explanatory next time. May Allah forgive us all.

Which one is Ahlu Sunnah wa al-Jamah mosque o?

 # Surah Al-Jinn, Verse 18:

And that the mosques are Allah's, therefore call not upon any one with Allah

 
# Surah At-Taubah, Verse 18:

Only he shall visit the mosques of Allah who believes in Allah and the latter day, and keeps up prayer and pays the poor-rate and fears none but Allah; so (as for) these, it may be that they are of the followers of the right course.

Rashduct4luv:


How you accepting everything the Imam has ever said or only just "his saying Shiites are no more heretics"?

Why seek relevance from the Imam?

His statement never change Shia from being Shia likewise his former satanic declaration of Shia as "heretic". His statement is only meant for his salafi fellows like you. This is how we treat your daeef Bukhari and other hadith books too. We quote them for you, not for us. Wake up man

Rashduct4luv:
Accept whatever satisfy you and reject whatever doesn't.

Shiites are never free from heresies!


Who abuses and curses the wife of the Prophet?

Who abuses and curses the companions?

I have never heard of Christian sect abuse and curse most of the disciple of Jesus Christ.

In conclusion Shiites are largely heretic....

Here comes the old salafi insane propaganda from none other than one of their footsoldiers.

So how's "abusing and cursing" FAKE sahabah make Shia Muslims "heretics" when Allah and his prophet "abused and cursed" FAKE sahabahs?

Even your Salafi Imam has rescinded from declaring Shia "heretics", how come you are defiantly stubborn and chose to die with hatred of those who believe in Usul deen?

You better don't get hypertension

MAbdulsamod:


WHY DID THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) PRAY IN SHOES?

The Prophet (peace be upon him) prayed in shoes because it is the way of Jews who do not pray in their shoes on.

“Be different from the Jews, who do not pray in their shoes or in their leather slippers (khufoof).” (Abu Dawood, 652; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 607).

Source: https://www.muslimhowto.com/2019/02/putting-on-shoes-while-praying-in-Islam.html

So for a Muslim to act differently from the Jews, he needs to pray with his shoes

For a fact, Muslims and Jews do not have the same form of prayer or timing or qiblah. You can only make difference where two things seem to have loads of commonalities.

Besides, Jews pray with their shoes and sometimes not with their shoes. Muslims pray often without shoes. Does that make us the same with the Jews?

The above hadith might be "sahih" on the basis of its sanad (chain) in regard with the requirements of Sunni scholars of ahadith, but I'm afraid it's matn (content) does not make any sense.

This was never ever a repetitive Sunnah of the Prophet (if at all it was ever a sunnah). Perhaps on one occasion or two throughout his 23 years of Dawah and practising Islam publicly, Prophet was seen with his shoes while praying. This is an indication that something might have happened for him to put on his shoe during salat. Interestingly, those Sahabah that claimed to have seen him with shoes during salat never cared to ask why?

Imagine yourself with shoes in mosque during salat. Even it is not morally okay to wear shoes into Muslim or sensible non-muslim homes. How long will you continue to check your shoes if they are free from minor to major impurities/dirts etc? Five times you wanna go to mosque? That's practically insane.

Shia are no longer "heretic" - Ex Saudi Imam of Makkah
https://www.nairaland.com/5099167/shia-no-longer-heretic-ex-saudi