Why did the Arab Caliphate under Umar – a very righteous and close companion of Muhammad ﷺ – attack first, for example, Armenia and Caucasian Albania? Is it permissible in Islam to attack non-believers who have not attacked first? After all, there is a hadith that states: "Whoever kills a Mu’ahid (a non-Muslim living in peace with Muslims), will not smell the fragrance of Paradise".

A hadith in Bukhari states that Ibn Abbas was 10 years old when the Prophet died: >وقال ابن عباس توفي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأنا ابن عشر سنين وقد قرأت المحكم > > Ibn Abbas said, "Allah's Apostle died when I was a boy of ten years, and I had learnt the Muhkam (of the Qur'an). > > — [Bukhari](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5035 ) However he is generally accepted to have been 13 years old. On what basis was the age of 13 determined? Isn't the information in Bukhari more reliable?

I'm confused whether the age of Ibn Abbas (May Allah be pleased on him) was 8 or 13 at time of the death of Muhammad (SAW). I've read a book which says, it is 8. But in different websites, it says, 13. In Wikipedia, they have failed to provide any references to support "13". However, even if they give, I don't care. Their references are not always reliable. In other website, they have also failed to provide references to support "13". So plz answer with references from the books of the reliable and renowned scholars so that they can be cited as reference or from such type website for example: Islamqa. I mean, I want a reliable references. Not from any website. That's why, I would be thankful if anyone give references from the books of scholars.

We were told that the Prophet peace be upon him lived an extremely humble and poor life. He hardly have food at home for the next day. This is what we were told. Now that I have researched, I find that the Prophet could not have been that poor because 1. Quran allowed the Prophet to keep 1/5 of the war booty 2. He had gifted the mount of Fadak to Fatima, which was captured in a battle. 3. He had many wives himself, which would be hardly possible, if he was such a poor man. Each wife lived in a seperate home (AFAIK). Apparently he gave a good amount of Mehr to his wives according to this answer Now I do understand that there were times when the Prophet did not have enough resources, that was in the early and middle time of Islam. But in the last 3 years of his life or so he must have been well off because he was the ruler, he kept the largest part of war booty and People used to send gifts to him which he would accept. My question, In what forms did the Prophet pay Zakat. Did he pay it little over the year or at once at the end of year? If he paid it at one time, does it give the estimate of his wealth? My related question is, why dont we follow the Prophet in Zakat related issue while follow him in every other possible way? Could this be because he never paid Zakat? While searching online, I cam across this similar question . May be one can highlight the authenticity of that answer as well.

As far I know, in the age of Nabi (sm.), sahabi (ra.), tabeyin (rh.), tabe-tabeyin (rh.), there was no instance of paying Imam and Muajjin (Muadhin/Muezzin) of Masajid. But now-a-days, we see, in almost every Masjid, there remains a paid Imam, a paid Muajjin, a paid Khadim and may be somebody else. From when and which perspective Imam and Muajjin are started to get paid?

So Dhul-Qarnayn was the righteous king who blocked Yajuj and Majuj, and is it true that he lived in the time of Ibrahim? There are also some people who say Yajuj and Majuj were around at the time of Musa, but that wouldn't make sense since Dhul-Qarnayn lived a long time before Musa (I think). Could someone please clear this up for me?

We have sahih hadiths to learn authentic info about the life of the prophet, do we have something equivalent in authority and reliability for those four caliphs ?

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests) has a decent overview over early conquests of the Islamic empire. The expansion seems to have been one of the most rapid in history. I'm not aware of any Muslim scholar who opposed the expansionism that was pursued by the caliphate, neither that of the Rashidun, the Umayyads, or later caliphs. However, as far as I can tell, the dominant trend on islam.se seems to be to claim or suggest that warfare in general is a purely defensive construct in Islam, see e.g. [here](https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/1091/17702) or [here](https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/12766/17702) or [here](https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/33226/17702) . If that is correct, then the ulama likely opposed Islamic expansionism on doctrinal grounds, and no scholars would have condemned them as kuffar for doing so. **Question:** if any, which ulama opposed Islamic expansionism, what were their arguments for doing so, and what was the reception of their ideas in among the other ulama?

I have a 14 volume Al-Bidaya Wan Nihaya. It is said that in the last volume it talks about end times Armageddon, Imam Mahdi, Yajuj-Majuz etc. But my last volume ends at the description of 767 Hizri. Am I missing anything. Does this book talk about End times, if yes, then where? Is my copy of the book faulty? If so, Where can I find the right copy of the book?

Assalamualaikum, I have been having doubts about this issue for a while and if anyone with knowledge can help, i would appreciate. It is said that we can not know how many have passed since Prophet Adam whenever i ask a scholar but there are some sahih hadiths which actually tells us he lived not that long time ago. Hadiths: •The period between Adam and Nooh (peace be upon them both): it was narrated from Abu Umaamah that a man said: “O Messenger of Allah, was Adam a Prophet?” He said, “Yes, and Allah spoke to him.” The man asked, “How much (time) was there between him and Nooh?” He said, “Ten centuries.(qarn)” Narrated by Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh, 14/69; and by al-Haakim, 2/262. •The period between Nooh and Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both): our evidence is in the continuation of the hadeeth of Abu Umaamah (may Allah be pleased with him) quoted above: … He said, “And how long was there between Nooh and Ibraaheem?” He said, “Ten centuries.” (Narrated by al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak, 2/288. Now, i know qarn also means generation but even though we understand it that way, it still doesn't reconcile with science. Since we have remains of ancient human communities that date back much longer time ago. We also know from books that Prophet Ibraheem lived 4000 years ago, between him and Nooh there is 10 qarn and between Nooh and Adam there is 10 qarn too. Even if we assume qarn is 10000 years, which i think scientifically impossible, it means Prophet Adam lived 24000 years ago and this still doesn't make sense. I would really appreciate if anyone has an explanation, thank you.

i remember reading about a battle in which the muslim army under Khalid bin Waleed laid siege to a city with a trench around it and Khalid RA had the old and weak camels slaughtered to fill up the trench and cross it. What was the name?

I came accross Sana'a publication by Sadeghi (Sana'a and The Origins of Qur'an), but he only conclude ***some example*** of textual variation with standard qur'an. > Table 1 gives a **few examples**, in English translation, in which C-1 > differs from the standard text.38 The C-1 type shares a number of > variants He also, pointed many reading variants from Ibn Mas'ud and Ubay ibn Ka'ab. Which is not what I, or every layman, can understand. *(Is it affect the meaning?)* Have also searched this forum and found this interesting insight, https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/40078/is-it-likely-that-the-sanaa-manuscript-was-an-accepted-reading-of-the-quran Adding up some more point in textual variant. But still, it's not complete list. I was wondering if any publication has been made, which include list of **all** difference found between Sana'a and the current Qur'an; in terms of overall meaning in english translation? Because I didn't find one.

Asslam Alaikum. I am having doubts. So basically I saw a post on the internet. The internet said that the Prophet PBUH made a false prophecy with this Hadith: Sahih Muslim 2900 > Nafi' b. Utba reported: >We were with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) in an expedition that there came a people to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) from the direction of the west. They were dressed in woollen clothes and they stood near a hillock and they met him as Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was sitting. I said to myself: Better go to them and stand between him and them that they may not attack him. Then I thought that perhaps there had been going on secret negotiation amongst them. I however, went to them and stood between them and him and I remember four of the words (on that occasion) which I repeat (on the fingers of my hand) that he (Allah's Messenger) said: You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to conquer it. Then you would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack the Dajjal and Allah will enable you to conquer him. Nafi' said: Jabir, we thought that the Dajjal would appear after Rome (Syrian territory) would be conquered. So here now it says that the companions thought that Dajjal would come after the conquest of Roman Syria? But that didn't happen. Now I know it could be said this refers to the ends times but that post already knew people would say this and so he states the hadith which says that there will be No caeser after Heraclius in the Syrian territory and there will be no Khosrou in the Iraqi Territory. Then he presents another Hadith that the Last hour will not come until the Romans become the majority of people and he presents commentary of this Hadith saying that the Romans must be continuous. And he says this refers to the Byzantines during the time of Prophet Muhammad PBUH and as we know they don't exist anymore. He says and I quote: "Why this matters is because the Hadiths regarding the fall of Constantinople then cannot be understood to mean an event where the Roman Empire comes back. It also addresses the explanation I mentioned with the first Hadith, that the Dajjal is to come back at a later date that the Hadith doesn’t say he has to come back right after. If additional conditions for the Dajjal to return is the continuation of the Romans then that is problematic alongside these Hadith regarding Constantinople." Then he says that assuming that the hadith which states there will be no Caesar after this one refers to the Syrian territories and that the above Hadith refers to the dajjal coming in the future, not after the conquest of Syria, this directly contradicts another Hadith in Sahih muslim which states dajjal will come after roman Syria is conquered (Hadith is Sahih Muslim 2899a) and plus also the other Hadith that Romans will never rule Syria again. He says "For brevity there are Hadith regarding Constantinople that put the previous Hadith into perspective and create issues listed here: -https://sunnah.com/muslim:2920a -https://sunnah.com/muslim:2897 -https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4294 " He says that historical conquest of Constantinople refutes this prophecy? Any refutations?

Can someone verify these characteristics about the Mahdi , here is a Christian claim "" In broad terms, what the Bible says about the Antichrist are the same attributes as the 12th Imam, or Mahdi, in Islam’s writings. Here are some of the main similarities (there are more): Spiritual world leader (Revelation 13:8) Rides on a white horse (Revelation 6:2) Seven year covenant/treaty (Daniel 9:27) Global seat is on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Daniel 9:27, 2 Thessalonians 2:4) Beheads non-believers (Revelation 20:4) Will the Mahdi reappear, unite the Sunnis and Shias, and establish a Caliphate? Will he be the foretold Antichrist? Time will tell, but the case is rather uncanny and compelling." Can someone respond to these claims

they're both war games with depictions of people and a world as well as man made war vehicles like tanks, planes, ships, guns, and violence but it is a team game and it teaches me the importance of teamwork and has no mental effect i play because it's connected to a hobby of mine a non violent hobby and i like playing it and want to know if it's haram even if it makes me sad and i am addicted i would really like know if it's haram

There is a story that goes like this: Once the Second Caliph Umar, Omar bin Khattab told the people to not be excessive in mahr (bride price) and not to exceed four hundred dirhams. A woman protested and quoted Verse 4:20 of the Qur'an which says: >But if you want to replace one wife with another and you have given one of them a great amount [in gifts], do not take [back] from it anything. Would you take it in injustice and manifest sin? Caliph Omar immediately retracted his statement, saying that whoever wants to give an exorbitant mahr can give it. What is the authenticity of this hadith?

Assalamu Alaikum I have a friend who doesn't beleive in the death penalty for apostasy, so I tried to convince him using the example of the Sahabah, that they fought the the apostate tribes, and forced them to convert to Islam and pay Zakah. However, he thinks that theses tribes (like Banu Hanifah) 'claimed to be muslim' (even though, they obviously weren't muslim as they had accepted a false prophet), which is why it was necessary to compel them into giving Zakah. In other words, he beleives that if they had explicitly renounced Islam, Abu Bakr RA would have had no option but to take Jizya from them. So what I'm looking for here, is authentic/sound narrations to prove that any of these tribes had explicitly renounced Islam or explicitly denied the shahadah becuase he thinks that these tribes still beleived Muhammad SAW to be a Messenger, just not the last Prophet (which is obviously also kufr, but not explicit). So can y'all find some please :)

I'm currently researching Shari\`a laws, and this query is related. ʿUbaydallāh bin Jaḥsh parted from Islam and adopted Christianity and died a natural death. Yet, under Shari\`a law, leaving Islam constitutes a capital offense. As an example _Reliance of the Traveller_ states: []] But then why wasn't ʿUbaydallāh bin Jaḥsh punished? Or why isn't Shari\`a law different because of the precedent set by this incident? Any help is much appreciated. Thank you!

Tattoos are haram, but historically they are quite common among the Bedouin tribes. Are the Bedouin shunned by other Muslims who consider tatoos to be haram, or is the conflict handled in some other way?

Why and when was the second Caliph Umar (radiallahu anhu) blessed with the title "Al-Farooq". I have read different narrations in it, and would like to know some references.