I suffer from allergies and a runny nose often, and when I’m fasting, I sometimes sniff when I feel it (nasal drainage) coming down my nose, or I just blow my nose. Other times, I feel it go down to my throat from my nose by itself and I have no choice but to swallow it sometimes and coughing to spit it out can be difficult. Does this break my fast

There are many cases, specially for the Muslims living in non-Muslim countries, that a non-Muslim woman draws her hand towards a Muslim man to greet him with shaking hands, or a non-Muslim man tries to shake hand with a Muslim woman. What to do in this situation?

I have just recently heard about Zoroastrianism. I was curious to see what it was and surprised because a lot of the beliefs are similar to Islam for example monotheism, heaven/hell, prayer in a certain direction, originating from the Middle East, 5 times a day prayer, good vs evil, judgment after death, etc. A savior figure is also believed to come towards the end of times. It came before Islam where Zoroaster claimed he had a divine vision and therefore he began teaching others of monotheism. I have never heard of him before and I don’t think he’s mentioned anywhere in the Quran, but I’m not sure. Is it possible he was a prophet from Allah?

Does the Quran have divine protection from transmission errors or does it just happen to be error free because of the Muslim's diligence in copying it and checking it from master copies? Did Allah make any promises that the Quran could not develop an error?

It’s well known in the time of the Prophet(ﷺ), Zoroastrians made up the Majority of Bahrain which is Morden day eastern Arabia. We have Hadiths of the Prophet ordering the expulsion of Jews and Christians and Polytheists. It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim. The Prophet (ﷺ) on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula” But with the Magians/Zoroatrians there are no such Hadiths expect to the contrary. We have Hadiths where the Prophet collects Jizya from Bahrain and they stay there until Umar and he lets them stay and pay Jizya. Narrated `Amr bin Dinar: I was sitting with Jabir bin Zaid and Amr bin Aus, and Bjalla was narrating to them in 70 A.H. the year when Musab bin Az-Zubair was the leader of the pilgrims of Basra. We were sitting at the steps of Zamzam well and Bajala said, "I was the clerk of Juz bin Muawiya, Al-Ahnaf's paternal uncle. A letter came from Umar bin Al-Khattab one year before his death; and it was read:-- "Cancel every marriage contracted among the Magians between relatives of close kinship (marriages that are regarded illegal in Islam: a relative of this sort being called Dhu-Mahram.)" Umar did not take the Jizya from the Magian infidels till Abdur-Rahman bin Auf testified that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) had taken the Jizya from the Magians of Hajar. So how do the scholars explain this? Are Magians the only ones among the religions allowed to reside in Arabia?

Salam, in Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawood the author provids some variant quotes of the Mushaf of ibn Mas'ud. I also heard that we have some (other) quotes in tafsir books. Can we make the whole Mushaf of ibn Mas'ud today or are there some missing parts and that's why everyone claims it's lost? or maybe we have conflicting hadeeth about the same verse. I dont understand. Thanks you

As the title says; **Which scholars argue that mentioning Gods name while slaughtering is not obligatory?** Of course it doesn't have to be a list with all scholars ever holding that opinion, but as many as possible without making it to hard. ---------- **Some background (Maybe not relevant to the question itself):** Now, there are a few I know of like Ibn Rushd and Chams Ad-din Ar-ramli. *(I guess most of the Shafi'i scholars do too, but I am not sure about that, so correct me if I am wrong.)* > 6:121 **And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned**, for indeed, it is grave disobedience. And indeed do the devils inspire their allies [among men] to dispute with you. And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be associators [of others with Him]. Basically Ibn Rushds argument is that this verse ain't talking about mentioning Allahs name, but rather that we should not eat dead animals (mayta), which if we read the reason for this revelation (asbab nuzul), we might find that conclusion more logical: > قال المشركون : يا محمد أخبرنا عن الشاة إذا ماتت من قتلها ؟ قال الله قتلها " ، قالوا : فتزعم أن ما قتلت أنت وأصحابك حلال ، وما قتل الكلاب والصقر حلال ، وما قتله الله حرام ، فأنزل الله تعالى هذه الآية . > The polytheists said: O Muhammed! Tell us about the sheep, who is the one killing it when it dies? He said: Allah killed it. They said: So you claim that what you and your companions kills, is halal and what dogs and birds kills is halal and (then you claim) that what God kills is haram? Then the verse was reveled by God: "And do not eat of that which the name of Allah has not been mentioned" > > References in Arabic from Tabari Tafsir Also found in Asbab Nozol (english translation here ) Therefore his conclusion is that the verse is about prohibition of dead animals. Also this famous hadith is used to prove that mentioning Allahs name is not a condition for the meat to be lawful when slaughtering: > Narrated Aisha: The people said to the Prophet (ﷺ) , "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Here are people who have recently embraced Islam and they bring meat, and we do not know whether they had mentioned Allah's Name while slaughtering the animals or not." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "You should mention Allah's Name and eat." Chams Ad-din Ar-ramlis understanding of that verse is that it rather means "Do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been metioned (i.e other names, like Hubal, Allat, other "god" names, meaning Allahs name wasn't mentioned) You find this mentioned in page 211 and 212 in this PDF (أثر الإختلاف في القواعد الأصولية في إختلاف الفقهاء) So, basically, I wonder how many other (and which) scholars follow these opinions.

Well, Sunni Muslims believe in four Califs after the holy prophet S.A the fourth of which being the first Imam of Shia Muslims. However, they respect all The Fourteen Infallibles (not sure about how they believe in Imam Mahdi Aj. though) in Shia Islam according to both Quran (verses about Ahl-ol-Beit A.S.) and Hadith from the holy Prophet S.A. . Now the question is if Sunni Muslims agree on that the holy Prophet of Islam has given the title of Sadiq (honest and truthful) to the sixth Imam of Shia Muslims, Imam Ja'far Sadiq A.S., why they do not follow the teaching of him, being introduced as truthful by the holy prophet, instead of e.g. his students not being nominated to any attribute by the holy prophet S.A if I am right? To me, if the holy prophet has accepted such a position for 13 people after him among all his companion and children (children of Fatimah S.A. to be more explicit), God being talked about them as them being infallible (Al-Ahzab:33) then why a Muslim may follow others talking different than those holy and innocent people? I mean if they were wrong they were not of such a position in the eyes of prophet and for Allah, were they? And if they are not wrong why to follow others giving Fatwa sometimes in complete different ways? Hope that the question is clear enough for the answers also to be clear. --- **Edit**. To emphasize the point in question let put the matter as follows: If I was a non-Muslim and I was to become a Muslim, just after confessing in uniqueness of Allah Azza-va-Jalla and that Muhammad --peace be upon him-- is his prophet I required first to know which school in Islam to obey. If I have no precise knowledge of Quran and Hadith, when all Muslim brothers know their own school to be the right one, how can I decide which one to follow? Maybe there should be a hint for me to decide, based on Quran or/and Hadith equally accepted by all different schools of Muslims. If it is a relevant expectation, then does there exist any hint in Quran or/and Hadith accepted by all Muslim brothers? Shia claims there are some, and maybe many, one of them is asked about here, that Sadiq (truthful) is an attribute (and not a forename) accepted by all Muslim brothers to be given to Imam Ja'far-ibn-Muhammad Sadiq by the holy prophet --peace be upon him-- around a century before Imam's birth date, and that Imam Sadiq --peace be upon him-- is one from whom the majority of Shia's Fiqh is derived. That is Shia Muslims believe majority of their Fiqh is already approved by the holy prophet --peace be upon him-- when he called his son "Al-Sadiq". Is this hint acceptable by Sunni brothers? And if not, do they have their own hints to override this and the other hints used by Shia brothers? Do such hints exist for all the branches of the Sunni's, Hanbali, Shaafe'ee, Maaleki, and etc.? That is, if it is proved to someone that Shia Islam is not the one which should be followed, does exist a hint that explain which Sunni school should he follow then? In other words, the questioner tries to understand why Sunni brothers don't agree upon the Shia's hints, and that do they have their own hints then or not? **NOTE**: *I am trying to ask the question as neutral, I really want to know if these reasoning by Shia Brothers are considered as reasonable or unreasonable by other Muslims, and if not reasonable then why? And that if the answer to the previous question is no then what is their own reasonable hints (based on Quran and Hadith accepted by all the Muslims) to prefer their own school over the Shi'ite's based on them? This is a general question with a general scope but at the same time I have specified its scope to one single question about Imam Sadiq --peace be upon him-- for the question to meet the conditions of an acceptable question to Islam.SE.*

Assalamu Alaikum Brothers in Islam, Regarding etiquettes of eating : > It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “When one of you eats food, let him not wipe his hand until he has licked it or has someone else to lick it.”(ibn Majah ) What does the part "or has someone else to lick it" mean? In what context can this be understood? How can it be lawful to lick another person's finger? Please clarify this.

Me and my family are shifting to a new place in 2 weeks Inshallah. But unfortunately that apartment has only 2 bedrooms. I only have 1 sister and we have love for each other. I and 15 and she is 17. We used to sleep together in same bed till I was 12 but then our parents transferred me to the 3rd bedroom. We both have our own single bed but my question is that can we sleep in the same room?

I'm currently a teen Sunni Muslim who wants to become a Shia. I have researched myself and found that my heart is on the Shia side of Islam and I agree with more of the Shia side. Although is there a process of becoming a Shia Muslim? My family is Sunni although I do not want to tell them yet. But I want to start living my life as a Shia Muslim e.g. Praying, Reading The Quran, etc.

Does it break my wudu if: 1. I use a towel and change my clothes? 2. I become completely naked and then wear the fresh clothes?

Hello I just have one question I'm an american who grew up not knowing any other language except for english is it okay if I read the english Quran I would like to know if I can read the english version of the Quran since I don't know much arabic

It is found in https://quran.com/en/al-hajj/46 : >Have they not travelled throughout the land so their hearts may reason, and their ears may listen? Indeed, it is not the eyes that are blind, but it is the hearts in the chests that grow blind. From the explanations I've seen online, the idea of a heart thinking is meant to be considered metaphorically, however, I find this argument to not be plausible. Firstly, in Q22:46, it mentions the physical location of the heart here: **the hearts in the chests**. If such a notion was to be taken metaphorically, why is the location of the heart mentioned? Secondly, the idea of the heart being the center of thought was a notion commonly found during that time and place. Why would the Quran use what would be considered faulty terminology?

Why did Allah send more than one book to mankind.Explain your Answer. Please consider adding references from the quran and sunnah to your answer.

What exactly is meant by the bold part in the below verse: > O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you > have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses > from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of > your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the > daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal > aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives > herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, > __[this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers.__ We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their > wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in > order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah > Forgiving and Merciful. I guess the specialty exists in this part since it is the last thing that is said: > a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the > Prophet wishes to marry her Is that correct? And if so please explain how this is different for other believers.

Usually when we keep neeyath to offer qurban as men we don't shave or cut our hair from the 1st of dul haj till the qurban is offered, does the same apply when we perform haj ? The confusion was as we will go for umra 1st and we need to trim the hair after we completed the umrah then after few days we prepare for haj

Sparked by [this question](https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/39146/how-do-we-know-that-marriage-age-is-determined-by-puberty) I did some reading up on marrying off young girls. I'm posting unabridged sections from [Reliance of the Traveler](http://www.mediafire.com/file/8hofja243dhb2g1/The_Reliance_complete_full_scan.pdf) to give the full context of my question. My question is at the end of the post and concerns what comparable rulings, if any, other madhahib have in these regards. I will post a short summary of the aspects of the quoted text that are relevant to my question under "Summary" at the bottom of the post as well. Section m3.13 of Reliance of the Traveler reads: > m3.13 Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges > to marry someone, and those who may not. > > (1) The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a > virgin bride's father or father's father, *compel* meaning to marry her > to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent. > > (2) Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone > unless she accepts and gives her permission. > > Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father's father may > marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended > to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin's silence > is considered as permission. > > As for the nonvirgin of sound mind, no > one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her > express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, > father's father, or someone else. Section m3.14 is missing in the translation; it's possible that section m3.14 is the two paragraphs starting at "Whenever the bride is a virgin..." in the above quote. Section m3.15 discusses cases where the decision of the guardian and the virgin on who she is to be married to clash with each other: > m3.15 No guardian may marry a woman to some one who is not a suitable match > (def: m4) without her acceptance and the acceptance of all who can be > guardians (def: m3.7). If the Islamic magistrate is her guardian, he > may not under any circumstances marry her to someone who is not a > suitable match for her. > > If the bride selects a suitor who is not a suitable match for her, the > guardian is not obliged to marry her to him. If she selects a suitable > match but her guardian chooses a different suitor who is also a > suitable match, then the man chosen by the guardian takes precedence > if the guardian is one who may lawfully compel her to marry (def: > m3.13(1)), while the one she selects takes precedence when the > guardian may not lawfully compel her to marry (m3.13(2)). Sections m4.0 to m4.2 read: > m4.0 (N: The definition of a *suitable match* should not be > misunderstood as a recommendation for whom to marry. It is merely a > legal restriction to protect a woman's interests when the father or > grandfather of a virgin marry her to someone without her consent (dis: > m3.13,15). As for when she wishes to marry someone who is not a > suitable match, and her guardian has no objection, there is nothing > wrong or offensive in her doing so.) > > m4.1 *Suitability* concerns lineage, religiousness, profession, and being > free of defects that permit annulling the marriage contract (def: m7). (N: > As for color, it is of no consideration in suitability.) > > m4.2 The following are not suitable matches for one another: > > (1) a non-Arab man for an Arab woman (0: because of the hadith that > the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, "Allah has > chosen the Arabs above others"); > > (2) a corrupt man (def: 024.3) for a virtuous woman (0: though it is > sufficient for the would-be husband to have given up his wrongdoing); > > (3) a man of a lowly profession for the daughter of someone with a > higher profession, such as a tailor wanting to marry a merchant's > daughter (A: though an Islamic scholar is a suitable match for any > level whatever); > > (4) or someone with a defect that permits annulling the marriage (def: > m7) for someone without such defects. Being wealthy has nothing to do > with suitability (0: for money comes and goes, and those with > self-respect and intelligence do not take pride in it), nor does being > elderly. Sections m4.3 to m4.5 discuss matters that are irrelevant to my question. Section m7 talks about reproductive defects, insanity, or severe bodily defects/illnesses as being grounds for annulment. **Summary:** According to the shafii legal manual Reliance of the Traveler, if the father or grandfather of a virgin is her wali (legal guardian), he may marry her off to someone who is a suitable match without her consent. Any man is a suitable match, barring the listed reasons of unsuitability; in particular, old age and lack of wealth are not barriers to suitability. **Question:** What is the fiqh (jurisprudence) in these regards in the other madhahib (schools of law), i.e.: - can anyone marry off a virgin without her consent? - who can she not be married off to without her consent?

What is the fiqh on coerced marriages across the 4 sunni muslim schools of thought? Some questions to consider would be: can a virgin child who is coerced into marriage divorce herself on the basis of the coercion? Can a virgin adult be coerced into a marriage?

*The Reliance of the Traveller*, by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller , states in the context of marriage: > m4.2 The following are not suitable matches for one another: > > (1) a non-Arab man for an Arab woman (O: because of the hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, "**Allah has chosen the Arabs above others**"); > > — [Reliance Of The Traveller ; p. 523, Bottom](https://archive.org/stream/RelianceOfTheTraveller1_201712/Reliance%20of%20the%20traveller1#page/n541/mode/2up) > Arabic Text (of Hadith Only): > > إن الله اصطفى العرب على غيرهم (Here, "O:" indicates an "excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh 'Umar Barakat".) This took me by surprise, since it seems to directly contradict another hadith: > ... There is no virtue for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab ... See https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/38040/17163 **Question**: Is the hadith "Allah has chosen the Arabs above others" reliable, and how does it not contradict "no virtue for an Arab over a non-Arab"? ---- An anti-Islam blog quotes a SunniPath fatwa (no longer available): > **The fact that Allah Most High has chosen the Arabs over other nations is affirmed in rigorously authenticated hadiths of the Prophet**, may Allah bless him and give him peace; related by Bukhari and Muslim in their “Sahih” in the beginning of the chapter of merits, # 5897, on the authority of Wathilah ibn al-Asqa` who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Verily Allah has chosen Kinanah from the son of Isma'il, and He has chosen Quraysh from among Kinanah and He has chosen Hashim from among Quraysh and He has chosen me from the Bani Hashim.'” The latter hadith is at Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3605 and 3606 , both listed as sahih. Islam Q&A seems to say two contradictory things on the topic: "... Arabs are superior to others in terms of descent and lineage ..." and "... an Arab Muslim cannot be superior to a non-Arab Muslim just because he is an Arab ...".