Assalamualaikum my Muslim sisters and brothers. So today I wanted to delete character.ai because I thought it had Haram roleplays. Does it? If so can you name what kind of Haram roleplays I'm not allowed to do in Islam? I saw an answer from this website that said “its an AI. it isn't real, its feeings aren't real, but don't let it distract you from allah.” but I'm still not sure. Is there any Haram roleplays?

> Al-Zawahir ‘an Iqtiraaf Al-Kaba’ir (2/225) It was also reported: “Whoever commits adultery with a married woman will have half of the punishment of this nation in the grave for her and for him. When the Day of Resurrection comes, God Almighty will judge her husband regarding his good deeds. This is if it was without his knowledge. If he knew and kept quiet, God will forbid him Paradise, because God Almighty wrote on its door: ‘You are forbidden to the cuckold.’” Edit: The Arabic text - التخريج من المصادر العربية الزواجر عن اقتراف الكبائر: (٢/ ٢٢٥) وورد أيضا: «إن من زنى بامرأة متزوجة كان عليه وعليها في القبر نصف عذاب هذه الأمة، فإذا كان يوم القيامة يحكم الله تعالى زوجها في حسناته، هذا إذا كان بغير علمه، فإن علم وسكت حرم الله عليه الجنة؛ لأن الله تعالى كتب على بابها أنت حرام على الديوث Is this true and authentic? If anyone has knowledge please comment or answer.

As salamualaikum After researching duas for better eyesight I’ve come across a few pages and videos claiming to recite Verse 22 of Surah Qaf then blowing it on your finger an rubing it on your eyes. Somehow that doesn’t really sound authentic/ part of the sunnah to me, which is why it would be helpful if someone of knowledge would help me clarify this matter.

Which terminology did the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ employ to distinguish Ahl al-Ḥaqq from deviant groups such as the Khawārij?

The Quran gives limited information about Haman. Is there any Hadith which presents more information about him? I cannot find any direct hadith from the Prophet pbuh but I think there would be some Mawquf hadiths available.

I recently came across the quote that says to read Quran after the burial of ones parents for the time in which a camel is slaughtered and distributed i wanna know how much time is enough or it takes to do that please help.

The way I perform ghusl is that I make intention, and then wash my entire body with water, and at the end, I pour water over my body. Pouring water over my body is not necessary, but I do it for good measure. Today when I was performing ghusl, I washed my entire body, which technically meant my ghusl was complete, but before pouring water over my body, I went out of the shower to the shelf on the bathroom, to get something. Then I came back and poured water over my body and finished ghusl. I am now worried that since I left to get something (I was still in the bathroom by the way) then my ghusl won't be valid, I think shaytaan is giving me waswas.

I need help concerning the fate of a person who exposes his sins whether out of pride or neglect. In an authentic hadith it is said that such a person will not be forgiven. Is this absolute? Can a mujahir still repent before he or she dies as he reaffirm his Iman? Or is it futile meaning there is no hope for such a person despite having Iman?

Assalam alaikum I want to know whether is it alright to read manga or anime with cartoon images in it? Recently I read on a islamqa website that watching a cartoon image is permissiible,see this; Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked: What is the ruling on cartoons that appear on TV? He replied: With regard to the cartoons which you say appear on TV, if they are in the form of humans, then the ruling on watching them depends on whether they come under the same ruling as realistic human images or not? It is most likely that they do not come under that ruling. If they are not in the form of humans, then there is nothing wrong with watching them, so long as they are not accompanied by anything haraam such as music and so on, and they do not distract from obligatory duties. End quote. Majmoo’ al-Fataawa 2/question no. 333 Also I have read that the rule of a awrah of a woman doesn't apply to cartoon since it is not real and hence we can watch them, see this; Some scholars favored the view that such images do not take the ruling of images of real persons, so they permitted looking at them. Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen said: “With regard to cartoon images that you mentioned are shown on television, if they are in the shape of a human, then the ruling of looking at them has to be looked at. Are they like a real image or not? The closest opinion to the truth is that they do not look like them (real images). And if they do not have a human shape, then there is nothing wrong with looking at them as long as they are not accompanied by an evil, such as music or the like, and provided that they do not distract one from performing an obligatory act of worship.” Now my question if it is allowed to watch a woman in a cartoon, does that mean we can also see a woman in a cartoon or a 2d image in inappropriate clothing(like Japanese school uniform or skirt long and small) of course provided that no private part are showing. So plz tell me how much awrah of a woman should be exposed and what can we see?

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته I wanted to know if it was permissible to be enter a marriage knowing you only wanted to be married for a few years and divorce? I am a muslim sister and wanted to get married while i was in school for a few years but have plans to move and help my parents in old age and I don’t want to carry the responsibility of both my parents and a spouse. If it halal do I have to inform the person i’m marrying?

The authoritative scholar of the Shafi'i madhhab, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, writes in his book “Tuhfat al-Muhtaj” the following: > “A person who must make up for prayers missed without a valid excuse is not permitted to spend their free time on anything except making up those prayers. It is not even permitted to spend time on voluntary (sunnah) acts. The exception to this is the time one is forced to spend on sleep and the like, earning a livelihood to provide for those they are obligated to support, or other obligatory duties if the time allotted for them is running out and there is a risk of missing them.” I want to spend a lot of my free time on self-development, for example, studying English on my own etc., but I have 2600 missed prayers without a valid reason, in this case, can't I really develop myself, relax, but I must spend all my free time filling them up? (I adhere to the Shafi'i mazhab)

I have a question that I have been thinking deeply about for a long time, and I would really appreciate a clear, evidence-based answer from an Islamic perspective. I understand that having a girlfriend or engaging in extramarital relationships is generally considered haram in Islam due to the risk of zina (both physical and non-physical). However, my situation is somewhat different, and I would like clarification: 1. The girl I am connected with lives far away from me. 2. We do not meet privately or have physical contact. 3. In fact, meeting without a guardian is practically not possible. 4. Our conversations are monitored by her mother, who regularly checks our messages. 5. Because of this, we avoid any form of flirtation, romantic talk, or inappropriate speech. 6. Our interaction remains respectful and controlled. 7. My genuine intention is marriage in the future, not casual or temporary involvement. Given these conditions, I want to understand: Am I still considered to be engaging in zina (or something sinful), or does this situation fall outside of that due to the restrictions and intentions involved? I am looking for answers based on Qur'an, Hadith, and scholarly opinions if possible. JazakAllahu khayran.

In a hadith, Prophet Muhammed found Aisha's dolls had horses with wings on it. On the Prophet's enquiry, she replied suleiman's horses had wings. The reason I'm asking this is many critics/ islamophobes speak about flying horses. I believe they connect flying horse event to meraj event. > Prophet said, “What is this I see?” Aisha said, “A horse,” The Prophet said, “What is this on it?” Aisha said, “Two wings.” The Prophet said, “A horse with two wings?” Aisha said, “Have you not heard that Solomon had horses with two wings?” The Prophet laughed so deeply that his molar teeth could be seen. > > Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4932 my question is did suleiman's horses flew or they had wings like ostrich and emu?

can I take aqiqah part in eid-ul-adha in cow according to hadis ,i have son and I wanna do aqiqah in qurbani animal out of 7 , I have to 2 part out of 7 for aqiqah so can do aqiqah in qurbani sacrifice animal?

I hope someone here can help me understand a question I have from both an Islamic and scientific perspective. If God created the universe in a precise and predetermined state, then what truly determines human choice? Neuroscience suggests that our decisions are influenced by neural structures in the brain, which are shaped by a combination of genetics and life experiences. Every human being who commits wrongdoing was once an innocent child. Over time, they are exposed to specific environments, events, and circumstances that shape their personality and behavior. Factors such as family, upbringing, society, and trauma influence brain development and the formation of neural pathways, which in turn affect decision-making. However, a person does not choose their genetics, the body they are born into, or the family and environment they are placed in. All of these are assigned before any conscious choice is made. To clarify my point: imagine the same “self” or soul being placed at birth into a completely different body, with different genetics, and into a different family and environment. This is not a change after birth, but a complete replacement of the starting conditions. The same self that became a “bad” person in one case is instead born into the life conditions of someone who became “good,” and vice versa. In such a scenario, brain development, neural connections, and life experiences would be entirely different, which would likely lead to different choices and outcomes. This suggests that external conditions play a significant role in shaping behavior. With this in mind, I am wondering: if a person’s actions are strongly influenced by factors beyond their control, how can we understand individuals being fully accountable in terms of eternal reward or punishment? How does Islam reconcile divine justice with these scientific and logical considerations? to make sure you got the point you can think of the worst person on earth and the best person on earth according to you and them being born into each others life from the start so they maintain the same features and would get the same results at the end but this time this person's soul would go to hell and the other into heaven. I would deeply appreciate any guidance or insights on this matter with supporting proof if possible to remove any skepticism.

Some Christians raise the question that the prophet used to keep fast of Ashura in pre-Islamic days till the time the series of revelations to Allah had not yet begun. So why He was adopting the methods of the Pagans

So me myself is a Muslim , i just wanted answer and explanation to this just to strengthen my Iman , So basically one of the most major point used against Atheism is that everything needs a cause , a thing can not exist itself , and something must would have created it , everything has a cause which furthur has a cause and furthur so on , we go back and back and back, and there must be a first cause that is what we call God , to a normal person this must make clear sense and upon thinking he must come to conclusion that there is a God that has created literally everything , me myself believe this , But heres the thing , I recently searched upon this topic and got to knew something , which made me go into a doubt , So , according to science the earliest known moment is the Big bang , the expansion of the universe , which is said to be the start of the universe , but upon thinking a person would surely think that how could big bang occur itself , such thing must also have a cause , probably God , so i searched upon this thing and read that this all system that a thing can not exist without a cause , this whole concept ,it is only for normal and everyday things , on Earth and in Life , we think like this because everything in our surrounding requires a cause, making us think the same for the whole universe , including things so far in universe and so back in time , including the big bang , .... , it is said that when we go so far from this world , far in the universe , so back in time , the same rules of this world do not apply ..... For example .... The Quantum Physics allows some things (tiny) to exist without an actual cause , may be that could be the start of the Universe, moreover there are also a lot of other changes in Quantum physics conpared to classical simple physics , ... and Also the Concept of time might itself would have started from the Big bang These points are actually favouring Atheism , i just wanted explanation and answer to these points ... Just wanted myself to be sure that the Universe has not made itself ,but there is a God (Allah) who have made it ,

Which animals was not allowed on prophet nuh ark

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

Is purchasing property one knows to be stolen proscribed by sharia? If so, what are the parameters? Does this also apply to financial instruments & virtual property? Things like stocks in companies, equity, & ₿itcoin?