What are the Quran verses that directly or indirectly said Allah is infinite in all aspects? I translated the word "infinite" to Arab and I got لانهائي (lianihayiyi), لانهائي, لا نهاية, مطلق (mutlaq) and others and I cannot find the word in Quran.

I don't mean to bother you. I am not Muslim, but I have deep respect for your faith and work and study with Muslims on an almost daily basis. I have noticed that some of my Muslim friends do not eat certain foods. Can truly necessary medications--insulin, for example--be exempt from Muslim dietary rules? I know God would never want a person to actively harm or kill him- or herself without very, very good reasons. I have learned that people who are ill or very elderly are not expected to fast during Ramadan, and people are asked to go on the hajj only if they can afford it. My true interest is the core of Islam. As a Quaker, I believe any religion that leads a person to find the love and truth within and live it with all people has something precious from which I can learn and enrich my own faith. I was just curious about the dietary laws.

I am willing to accept the argument that one shouldn't trust the bible as it has been changed so many times. There are many inconsistencies in the bible, but what if we had the original bible? What if we had access to the original texts, would we still need the Qur'an? I mean Why debate when all we need to do is go to the source of the text.

Is it appropriate for a 21-year-old daughter to sleep in the same room as her parents, on a separate bed, while they engage in a physical relationship? Does Islam or any ethical perspective provide guidance on whether this situation is acceptable in terms of privacy, modesty, and family boundaries? Additionally, if other rooms are available but the daughter is afraid of sleeping alone in the light, what alternative solutions can be considered to address her fear while maintaining proper privacy and boundaries?

I have a instragram page so if i add logo of betting website/app and earn money from them then it will be haram or halal

As far as my limited understanding of Islam. A man should keep the balance between providing for his family (wife and children) while staying devoted to his Mother. My Mother once told me that a Son should be devoted and obey his mother no matter what. She gave me one example that "If a Mother asks his Son to get a divorce, then he should get a divorce, no questions asked". Although I am also aware that a divorce is the most hated permissible thing to Allah. So which one we should follow? Stay devoted and obey to the Mother to get a divorce, even though it will break a family and potentially break a child's future? Or stay committed to the marriage?

A long ago I read that according to Islam it's possible for Christian to be Christian and eat pig and drink wine while being in a status of d'ima (or something like that). Is that true, or it's forbidden also for non-Muslims according to Islam? N.b. This question may be practical in some Muslim countries. According to Islam, do they need to let Christians drink wine and eat pig or it's forbidden also for them if we are talking about sharia?

Assalamu Alaikum. I am a woman and I usually have discharges before my periods start. And occasionally its not related to my period as well. I read in some places that the discharge is pure. But again in some places it says u should not pray with impure (with discharge) clothes. So is it something like it is pure but makes the clothes impure or anything?

If one is traveling during maghrib or isha and arrives home after isha starts, is maghrib prayer still valid if you pray it at home? Or must we pray maghrib while traveling for it to be valid? **Clarification:** We can combine isha and maghrib while traveling. If we delay maghrib and arrive home during the time of isha, is maghrib prayer still valid?

> Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators. > Qur'an 23:14 In this verse Allah says "... and We made the lump, bones ...". But the lump doesn't totally convert to bones, only a part of it does. So isn't this wrong? Again some might answer this by giving this translation, "... and We made (from) the lump, bones ..." But the Arabic word 'من' is absent here. That means that Allah didn't say that, rather it was put there by the translator. How do you explain this matter? I might be wrong so please forgive me, I'm a human after all.

From what stage is it considered adultery with a married woman? I mean from the time she entered here man's house or from the time she agreed to be his wife and still didn't enter his house?

Assalamu alaikum, there is a hadith, sahih bukhari 3618 , that has been in my mind for a while. So here it is : > "Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "When Khosrau perishes, there will be no (more) Khosrau after him, and when Caesar perishes, there will be no more Caesar after him. By Him in Whose Hands Muhammad's life is, you will spend the treasures of both of them in Allah's Cause." So as you can see here the prophet Muhammad S.A.W prophecies that when the current khosrow (i.e persian king) perishes or dies, there will be no khosrow after him, this is true and actually happened as when Yazdegered III died during the islamic conquest of persia, there was no more persian kings after him and his dynasty was extinguished. Now in the rest of the hadith, the prophet says that when Caesar (i.e Roman emperor) dies, there will be no more Roman emperor after him. But, historically there were a multitude of Roman emperors after Heraclius (The Roman emperor during the time of the prophet p.b.u.h) up until 1453 at the fall of constantinople. How to understand this seeming difficulty? I kindly ask for your answers if you have a good explanation. Walaykum assalam.

I have approached a Madhva Hindu to discuss religion with him. The Madhvas follow a particular school of Vedanta in Hinduism called Dwaita Vedanta that had been, according to the Madhvas, revived by a philosopher named Madhvacharya . It is a monotheistic school of Hindu philosophy that believes the Vishnu to be the Supreme Being and the gods (called devatas) are His great devotees (akin to the Abrahamic concept of angels). The Madhva I talked to when discussing religion said he respected many parts of Islamic law, appreciated Muslims' staunch faith in monotheism, and believed that the vast majority of Muslims are good people. He also believed, when he learned about Mohammad (peace be upon him), that Mohammad was probably a good-spirited man with a simple heart. **However, when he learned about Islamic views on God, he considered it blasphemy. He mentioned that his religion staunchly upholds the absolute perfection of the Supreme Being. He said that an absolutely perfect God is completely blissful and can never have any incentive to create souls and therefore souls were always coexisting in God. He said to believe otherwise means to accept God as not perfectly blissful and therefore not perfect.** When I further tried to discuss with him, he went in great detail to counter me. He made the following arguments to assert that the his religion and the Hindu scriptures (Vedas) are correct. He also said that the arguments he gave were not his but can be found in the works of Madhvacharya such as *Tattva Sankhyaanam,* etc. The Madhvas worship Madhvacharya as the great messenger of Vishnu and the Madhva I talked to asserted that only a true messenger of God can provide strong, scripture-independent arguments for the existence of his Lord and the veracity of the scriptures that extol his Master. The arguments can be summarized as follows. He used some modern terminology for ease of presentation. >>The world we see contains composite entities. A composite entity is a dependent reality because it depends on its components. The universe is a composite entity and therefore is a dependent reality. It also consists of dependent realities. There cannot be an infinite chain of dependent realities because then nothing will ever come into existence. Therefore, these dependent realities depend on a common independent reality. Let us call this God. **God must be a fundamental entity since a composite entity is a dependent reality. The dependent realities are controlled by God and this requires the independent reality to be intelligent. Thus God is an intelligent being who knows**. Vishnu is the Supreme Being. >>From then one can start drawing the following conclusions under **the assumption that the Supreme Being is an embodiment of absolute perfection**. This assumption can be used to understand the diversity in the world. >>***The supremacy and blissfulness of Vishnu imply the eternality of the Jiva Atmas (which means individual souls)***. Because the Supreme Lord is always perfectly blissful, He is eternally self-satisfied. Therefore He has no reason to create Jiva Atmas to worship Him or to punish. Since He is supreme, there can exist no agent that creates souls without His will. Hence Jiva Atmas were never created and eternally exist with Him. ———————————————————— **Correction:** I talked to a more experienced follower of the Madhva philosophy and he said that the Madhva follower I talked to got the origin of souls argument wrong. This experienced follower said that according to Madhvacharya, souls though beginningless, are not without cause. God is the only entity who is beginningless and without cause. Souls came into existence in the beginning of reality (the infinite past) as an immediate consequence of His supremacy and Him being an embodiment of truth and absolute perfection. He said that God is an embodiment of truth and that it is the intrinsic nature of truth to maximize to the fullest extent possible while remaining unaltered. Because God is Supreme His powers cannot be checked. Thus God, whose intrinsic nature is to maximize to the fullest extent possible, instantaneously (in zero seconds because nothing can limit His powers) created an infinite number of reflections (Pratibimba in Sanskrit) and these are the individual souls. Thus from the very beginning (infinite past) there were an infinite number of souls. Thus souls are beginningless but not without cause. God is the only beginningless entity who is without cause and so He is special. In response to Islam’s criticism that the beginningless of souls and God is an assassination of His grandness, the more experienced Madhva follower said, “Not so. The beginninglessness of God is of a higher status than that of others because He is independently beginningless while souls, fundamental matter, and the ontological duality are dependently beginningless. Thus, God alone is The Beginningless One due to His independence. The fact that you can be beginningless and still not surpass the beginningless of God elavates His status even further. What makes the philosophy of Madhvacharya unique is that it elevates the status even higher than the status given to Him in other monotheistic schools because Madhvacharya showed what others thought was unimaginable. Thus when the Vedic concepts of reincarnation and beginningless of souls only serve to show the majestic grandeur of God.” ———————————————————— >>***Because the Supreme Lord is solely independent, all of the Jiva Atmas are under His control.*** They cannot act, grow, and develop on their own. >>Let us make the reasonable assumption that the number of Jiva Atmas is infinite. ***An Infinite number of Jiva Atmas imply the existence of unique intrinsic personalities from an application of Chatton's anti razor ("If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added and so on.")***. There are an infinite amount of Jiva Atmas, each unique from the others. Because there are infinite Jiva Atmas, there exists all possible intrinsic personalities which can be classified as follows: those who want to love God (mukti-yogas), those who want to remain in sense pleasures and not love God (nitya samsarins), and those who want to hate God, yagnas, moral rules, and those who love Him (tamo yogas). **After all, if there are an unlimited number of souls, what is preventing a hater of God from existing? Nothing, and so by application of the anti razor, we can posit the existence of haters to make reality complete and comprehensive.** There is a whole range of intrinsic natures that fall into the category of divine natures. The same is true for demonic natures and in-between natures. The mukti-yojas can thrive only in a blissful and loving environment filled with devotion towards Lord Vishnu while the tamo yogas can thrive in a painful and agonizing environment filled with hatred towards Lord Vishnu. (of course, anyone can thrive in a blissful environment, but if tamo-yogas are given a blissful environment then there would be no sense of justice in the universe: if perverse and spiteful people get bliss, what is the point of being good, kind, and cooperative?) >>***Intrinsic natures of the Jiva Atmas imply the existence of the desire to achieve appropriate happiness and the incentive to immediately act to get that preferred bliss***. Each Jiva Atma wants to achieve happiness that is on par with its intrinsic nature. They therefore have a natural incentive to act in a way to get their preferred happiness. No Jiva Atma is unsure of its intrinsic nature and therefore those who did not want to act at the very beginning (i.e. from the infinite past) are the ones whose intrinsic personality is to remain absolutely aloof from loving and hating God. These Jiva Atmas would choose, in the very beginning, to remain in a coma-like state so that they are forever unaware of their surroundings. For them, happiness is no awareness and no experience. >>***Lord Vishnu’s all-blissful, all-merciful, and perfectly just nature implies His desire for each Jiva Atma to grow and develop to their full potential and reach its desired state of happiness without successfully infringing on the intrinsically desired happiness of other Jiva Atmas existed for all time. There was never a time He did not want the Jiva Atmas to grow and develop towards their destiny because Lord Vishnu’s all-blissful, all-merciful, and perfectly just nature implies He never wanted to delay any Jiva Atma from achieving the perfection it intrinsically prefers.*** Therefore, Lord Vishnu, from the infinite past, actively drives the dependent Jiva Atmas through His will. His will is an embodiment of perfect justice based on cause and effect. Karma is therefore a system that takes each Jiva Atma to its intrinsically preferred state appropriate for its exact nature. Jiva Atmas having divine (demonic) intrinsic natures will eventually reach Lord Vishnu (eternal damnation in Andha-tamas, a place where immense pain and agony serve to reinforce these Jiva Atma's desire to hate Him and a place where these unique entities can thrive) and those whose intrinsic natures are in between the divine and the demonic are destined to stay forever in worldly existence. The grace of God is with everyone due to His perfect nature and everyone will reach their preferred salvation, but salvation does not need to mean attaining the abode of Lord Narayana. Lord Vishnu’s all-merciful nature reflects the absence of an iota of bias in Him. >>Note: Experience also shows that everyone’s life is different and therefore it is quite reasonable to say that the trajectories of two Jiva Atmas can never be the same (but can be very similar). The nature of trajectory is determined by the intrinsic nature. Therefore, no Jiva Atma’s intrinsic nature exactly matches that of another Jiva Atma; however, two Jiva Atmas can have very similar intrinsic nature >>**Omniscience of Vishnu implies predestination for everyone.** The omniscience of Lord Vishnu, who is not under the control of time, implies that He can see, at once, the exact trajectory each will take to meet its ultimate fate. He sees exactly how each Jiva Atma will forever respond to righteousness, unrighteousness, etc. **For an infinite being whose knowledge is perfect and infinite, “forever” is not unbounded and not unknown for Him**. >>***All of this implies the existence of reincarnation from the infinite past.*** Each Jiva Atma wants to achieve happiness that is on par with its intrinsic nature. They therefore have a natural incentive to act in a way to grow and develop to their full potential and get their preferred happiness. Since they were in His will of perfect justice from the very beginning, all Jiva Atmas began to act from the very beginning. Currently, we all know we were born from our mother's womb and see ourselves acting. Since the Jiva Atma within my physical body has been acting from the infinite past, the Jiva Atma within my physical body has reincarnated and had lived as other beings in the past. ***The correct argument for reincarnation rests on the unshakable conviction that the Supreme Lord is the embodiment of perfection and perfectly loves us all***. >>Experience shows there are two types of bodies: those that only have a yoni (biological female) and those that have a linga (biological male or biological hermaphrodite). Of these two, the latter is intrinsically stronger, more dominating, and more suitable for pleasure. For instance, the males experience more pleasure during intercourse and are more likely to reach orgasm than the female body, underscoring that males satisfy their sexual needs more often than females. Because there are an infinite number of Jiva Atmas, all possible kinds of individual souls exist. We can divide them into two categories: souls that are eligible for a body with only a yoni and souls that can become eligible to have a body with a linga. The latter souls are of course eligible to have a body with only a yoni because if they are qualified with a body with more pleasure than they are naturally qualified to have a body with less pleasure. Let us define the former category of souls as female souls and the latter category of souls as male souls >> **If you believe that God is absolutely perfect, then you will believe that He never created souls and that reincarnation exists. Since you believe that God created souls and do not believe in reincarnation, you were told not to believe in a perfect God. That is a character assassination of the Almighty Lord** The Madhvas, thought monotheists, still worship the gods (devatas) and still pray to them. However, they do not worship the gods as God but as great devotees of the Supreme Being who are eternally superior to humans. They only pray to the gods for devotion to the Supreme Being because only such a prayer, according to them, makes the gods happy. **My Question: How to respond to this?**

I was curious to know why people give citation from hadith? I have no intention to say that any of the hadith is false. The Quran will surely not be changed but like the other books changed, can't there be a fitna over hadith changing?

**Jeremy England's theory on the origin of life is founded in “dissipation-driven adaptation of matter,” in which all forms of matter, living and nonliving, adapt to produce the maximum amount of energy.** How shall we prove that this does not mean that Allah does not exist?

I was trying to sleep at night and thinking about something and these came to my mind. There are ayats that talk about life, one ayat if I remember correctly, it says life is a joke and amusement https://quran.com/6/32 . Other ayat talks about life has a purpose and a test to see who is the best in deed https://quran.com/29/2 . My understandings about those 2 ayats : 1. The test should be serious and not a joke or even amusement. Why do these ayats contradict each other ? 2. After reading deeper and understanding the whole context of one ayat https://quran.com/6/32 , of course this world is different if we compare it to the next life. And it is far better for those who are “taqwa” in this world. One of the taqwa definitions can be found on https://quran.com/29/2 which says who believe in one God and will be tested and whoever passes they are “taqwa” which will be granted the better of the next life. If I go with my understanding in this case I can see these two ayats have distinction. If you could share your point of view regarding these two ayats and even share their own understanding I’ll be really grateful. But to focus about this QnA forum I think I’m going to ask about my first understanding here, Why do these two ayats contradict each other ?

In Christianity it's taught that Jesus was resurrected after 3 days in his tomb, which is why his body is no longer there. Although muslims believe that Prophet Esa ascended to heaven and wasn't crucified, what is their view on "Jesus'" body dissaprearing after 3 days in the tomb?

Can someone spoonfeed me the definition of "Riba"="ربا"=interest in each of the following schools: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, along with explaining the Shafi'i definition. I'd like the definitions in Arabic too if possible, I remember in Maliki that it is in the lines of "كل قرض جر نفعا ...", while for Shafi'is, something like "عقد على عوض مخصوص غير معلوم التماثل...". In particular I heard the Shafi'i's definition is exceptionally long aiming to cover all cases but fails to cover only one of them, I appreciate a clarification on this matter and explanation for it, Actually if possible an explanation for each of the 3 definitions I'm requesting. so the request is for: - Definition for Riba in Hanafi Fiqh, written in Arabic, along with explanation, - Definition for Riba in Maliki Fiqh, written in Arabic, along with explanation, - Definition for Riba in Shafi'i Fiqh, written in Arabic, along with explanation pointing what it covers and what well-know cases of Riba it misses (I don't know if there is disagreement around Riba cases between schools of Islamic Fiqh, so I said "well-known cases"),

Why did Musa عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ banish Samiri but only scold Harun عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ? > قَالَ يَـٰهَـٰرُونُ مَا مَنَعَكَ إِذْ رَأَيْتَهُمْ ضَلُّوٓا۟ ٩٢ > > Moses scolded ˹his brother˺, “O Aaron! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, > > أَلَّا تَتَّبِعَنِ ۖ أَفَعَصَيْتَ أَمْرِى ٩٣ > > from following after me? How could you disobey my orders?” > > قَالَ يَبْنَؤُمَّ لَا تَأْخُذْ بِلِحْيَتِى وَلَا بِرَأْسِىٓ ۖ إِنِّى خَشِيتُ أَن تَقُولَ فَرَّقْتَ بَيْنَ بَنِىٓ إِسْرَٰٓءِيلَ وَلَمْ تَرْقُبْ قَوْلِى ٩٤ > > Aaron pleaded, “O son of my mother! Do not seize me by my beard or ˹the hair of˺ my head. I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’” > قَالَ فَمَا خَطْبُكَ يَـٰسَـٰمِرِىُّ ٩٥ > > Moses then asked, “What did you think you were doing, O Sâmiri?” > قَالَ فَٱذْهَبْ فَإِنَّ لَكَ فِى ٱلْحَيَوٰةِ أَن تَقُولَ لَا مِسَاسَ ۖ وَإِنَّ لَكَ مَوْعِدًۭا لَّن تُخْلَفَهُۥ ۖ وَٱنظُرْ إِلَىٰٓ إِلَـٰهِكَ ٱلَّذِى ظَلْتَ عَلَيْهِ عَاكِفًۭا ۖ لَّنُحَرِّقَنَّهُۥ ثُمَّ لَنَنسِفَنَّهُۥ فِى ٱلْيَمِّ نَسْفًا ٩٧ > >Moses said, “Go away then! And for ˹the rest of your˺ life you will surely be crying, ‘Do not touch ˹me˺!’1 Then you will certainly have a fate2 that you cannot escape. Now look at your god to which you have been devoted: we will burn it up, then scatter it in the sea completely.” Taha

Qur'an 4:3 makes Islamically permissible men having more than one wife. However, after some (comically unsuccessful) attempts at finding a husband, I can say the idea of my (inshallah) future husband having a second wife feels degrading to me. My dream of finding a loving husband does not involve negotiations of a second wife. I'm at a point where I feel I should insist on being the only wife. **Question**: Is it improper for a woman to insist on being the only wife? Obviously, a husband may choose to have just one wife, and (as far as know) this is the norm in Muslim society. But I'm wondering if it's improper (as in haram, disliked, etc.) for a woman to obstruct her (current or future) husband from finding a second wife. I'm not clear on this, maybe this is a perfectly acceptable decision that a woman may make.