What was the motive for some countries to adopt the solar hijri calendar rather than the lunar one? Solar Hijri Calendar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Hijri_calendar

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?

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?

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 :)

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 ?

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.

> "And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be > hell, he shall abide therein and God’s wrath shall be on him and his > curse, and is prepared for him a great torment” > > > *(Surah Nisa:93).* Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufyan killed respectively ordered the killing of Sahabah, e.g. Amr bin al-Hamiq, Malik bin Ashthar, Hujr bin Adbar, only for the reason that they were followers of Ali ibn Abi Talib. > “Ayesha said: ‘Mu’awiya you killed Hujr and his associates, By Allah! The Prophet told me ‘In the ditch of Adra seven men will be killed, due to this all the skies and Allah will be upset”. A contemporary Hanafi scholar, Mufti Ghulam Rasul, wrote in his book *Subeh al-Sadiq*, p.93/94 , that Hujr and his companions were killed because they refused to curse Ali ibn Abi Talib. > Tarikh ibn Asakir, V.12, p.227 Additionally, he instigated the poisoning of the first grandson of the Holy Prophet, Hassan ibn Ali. > > “Sho’ubi states that Mu’awiya sent a message to Jada bint al-Ash’ath bin al Qays that if you poison Hasan then I shall marry you to Yazeed > and in addition to this I shall give 100,000 dirhams. When Hasan was > martyred Judh sent a message to Mu’awiya asking that he fulfil his > side of the deal. Mu’awiya sent the money but said “I reject that > matter of Yazeed since I want him to remain alive, had this matter not > occurred then I would have married you to Yazeed”. > > Tadkhirat au Khawwas, p. 192 > > Mu’awiya reached an agreement with Jada bint al-Ash’ath bin al Qays, namely 100,000 dirhams if she poisons Imam Hasan. Allamah Zamakshari, Rabi’ ul Abrar, V.4, p. 208 > Qatada and Abu Bakr bin Hafs stated that Hasan was administered poison, via his wife Ja’da bint Ashath. One group have said that Mu’awiya have sent Ja’da the poison and upon administering this poison, Ja’da was rewarded”. Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr, al-Istiab > “This is commonly known among the people that his wife Ja’da administered poison to him upon the orders of Ameer Mu’awiya.” Maulana Abdur Rahman Jaami, Shawahid un Nubuwwa, p.303 Furthermore, he appointed his son Yazid as the ruler over the Muslims after him, who was the pure evil. In the light of the above mentioned vers of the Holy Qur'an, the Shia seem right to curse him, by asking Allah swt to deprive him of His mercy. Why can't our Sunni brothers agree to this?

Before the flood I remember learning of five prophets who, after their death, were turned into idols and worshipped in place of God. Being that the prophet Noah (Nuh) (peace be upon him) was the only survivor of the flood (assuming a global and not a local flood), and that he was a faithful Nabi (prophet) who spread God's word. Who were the first people to rebel against God and turn towards idolatry in the postdiluvian era?

Is there any event in which Hazrat Ali(RA) ordered the killing of 40 people because they exceeded the limits of love with Hazrat Ali(RA) and declared Hazrat Ali(RA) to be the God.

The Ash'arite أشعرية‎ or Asha'irah ٱلْأَشَاعِرَة are a known theoligcal sect of creed that refers by name to abu al-Hassan al-Asha'ary and most of its followers can be found among followers of the shafi'i and maliki school of fiqh. And they regard themselves as representatives of ahl-as-Sunnah wa Jma'ah beside other sects (of creed) such as the Maturidi's and the Salafi's. Now I've read somewhere -correct me if I'm wrong- that abu al-Hassan al-Asha'ari passed through three phases in his life. 1. A phase in which he was a follower of the creed of al-Mu'tazilah . 2. A phase in which he started debating al-Mu'tazilah based on 'ilm al-Kalam . 3. A phase in which he defended the creed of ahl as-Sunnah wal Jama'a. And as far as I know in each of these phases or at least in the last two he has compiled books defining his creed and theology. My question now is: Those scholars who claim to be 'Ashra'arites like the imams and scholars: - Among the Shafi'is: al-Juwayni, al-Ghazali, al-Bayhaqi, an-Nawawi, as-Suyuti, al-Fakhr a-Razi, ibn 'Abdassalaam, as-Subki, ibn 'Asakir ... - Among the Maliki's: al-Baqilani, abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi - Among the Hanbali's: ibn al-Jawzi (at least wikipedia claims he was because of his works in ilm al-Kalam) - ... which of his creeds or phases did they follow? It could be great if your answer could include some details.

I have often wondered why Allah did not instruct the Prophet Isa (Jesus) to establish the religion of Islam while He was living on the Earth, which took place during the years 0 A.D - 33 A.D.. The Qur'an states that Allah performed many miracles through the Prophet Isa, so I find it a bit strange that Allah did not also instruct the Prophet Isa to start writing down divine messages, revelations, and moral laws which Allah could have dictated to him, and then Allah could have instructed the Prophet Isa to create a book from this collection of holy writings which would have become the world's first Qur'an and thus the beginning of the religion of Islam. Why didn't Allah have the Prophet Isa establish the religion of Islam while He was living on the Earth?