I’ve been experiencing waswas for a couple of months now, and it’s making me question something. If Allah is the most just, how is it fair that we are created and then placed in a test we may not want to be a part of, and if we fail, we face eternal punishment in hell? Is it just to be tested in this way

basically who would give justice in an anarchy state. if some gets robbed, would it be allowed for me to rob the robber and give the money back to the people. also is that allowed in a normal society for someone to rob a robber and give the money back?

What does it tell for the personality of Allah the fact that Allah created a human being knowing that the latter will end up in hell. Allah knew this fact, even before that human was brought to life. Therefore, my main question is this: Does this fact conflict with the fact that Allah's personality is described as merciful? Does it make sense in this case to discuss even for justice? Let me elaborate more on my question. If it is known before its birth that a person will not stay in paradise, simply means that that person will not have the capacity to understand God's Existence. It means that the person is not equipped with this capacity by the creator. Following the same logic flow, is it the person's fault that he is not provided with the faculty to understand? Apparently, the logical answer is no. Then, why does the person have to go to hell for smth that is beyond its control? Does even make sense to state that the person has free will?

Every punishment has its severity according to its crime. So even if someone does delibritly shirk and by doing that obviously nothing would happen (affect) to the authority and Allah's power or oneness, so why so much hatred and severe ( eternal punishment ) that it doesn't have any actual consequence to Allah's power and dominian. Even if you somehow justify this, still it won't make sense, because if shirk is a sinn to be that great "unforgivable and intolerable" then Allah woudn't create this world or atleast those people who would do shirk ( based on his knowledge of the future ) . So its a catch 22 situation, if sin of shirk is that much "hated and intolereted" then God wouldn't Allow this creation on the first place because of the "hatered and intolerable" the sin of shirk is, if he Allows the creation (with it's sins of shirk) to happen then it means it shouldn't be an unforgiven sin and obviously no eternal hell as punishment. Imagine it for yourself, if you hate something unconditionally will you allow that thing to happen (if you have the power), if yes,then in reality you didn't hate it to begin with.

Hello hope you are all well. So I live in adult foster care and I've been here 3 years 2 okay and one terrible. A few months back the staff started screaming at me and calling me names then it escalated into physical violence. Also I have heard with my own ears the staff sit there and speculate or talk bad about the clients. Should I report this behavior to protect myself?

Some people out of hardship or being feared that they might end up in hell, Wished that they never exist in the first place. And there is this question, *Why did Allah created me when I don't want to exist?* One answer I heard is that, Allah asked everyone if they want to enter the test or be human beings. They said yes. But I never got reference for it. Closest thing I can get is a Hadith about Adam As taking responsibility, and a Quran ayah talking about > “Truly, We did offer al-amaanah (the trust or moral responsibility or > honesty and all the duties which Allah has ordained) to the heavens > and the earth, and the mountains, but they declined to bear it and > were afraid of it (i.e. afraid of Allah’s torment). But man bore it. > Verily, he was unjust (to himself) and ignorant (of its results) [al-Ahzaab 33:72]”. But in tafsir in ibn kathir. Choosing that whether to take amaanah or not is only given to Adam AS not to every human being. So in sort Adam As took the responsibility behalf of All human beings. **Which some people will argue as injustice,** So can anyone help me to find the answer?

This must be important, as it is stated so early in the Quran at Surah 2:7. Why does Allah blind people to the Truth prior to judging them on their acceptance of the same? > Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and > over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment. Also 2:17, > Their example is that of one who kindled a fire, but when it > illuminated what was around him, Allah took away their light and left > them in darkness [so] they could not see. On my human understanding, this seems unjust on its face. Obviously, God is the source of all justice, so whatsoever He decrees is Just by definition. Nevertheless, why would He set a certain standard of justice in our hearts and minds and then deploy a different standard of justice vis-a-vis the above verses? Considering one of his famous names is the Merciful, why would he give us a challenge to solve with the tool of rationality which He also gave us and then so clearly traduce it, as above?

**In the event of a murder we see the following instruction in the Quran...** "O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered – the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painful punishment." (Surah 2:178) What does the Quran mean when it says, "the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female" in the murder context? Does it mean that if a free man kills a slave unjustly then one of his slaves must be put to death for his crime? What if that man doesn't have slaves at all? What if a man kills a woman, does this mean that a female member of his family such as mother, sister, wife, daughter etc., must be put to death for his crime? If a woman kills a man should a male member of her family be put to death? Likewise, if a slave male kills a free male then the owner of the male slave must be killed for the crime? In the murder context, the Quran could have said simply, "The murderer must be killed!" But it doesn't. It is almost impossible to guess why! What could be the possible reason behind this ambiguity in Quran regarding one of the significant issues of human societies? The above verse deals with the murder. It seems it is replacing the previous rule given to Jews as the Hadith literature mentions: https://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/87/20 . Some suggest that the verse had a context, which is not mentioned in the Authentic Hadiths though. But that doesn't restrict its applicability to Muslims now. If muslims today are expected to take its instructions how should they understand and apply it? Furthermore, even if the suggested context is a battle settlement between two tribes, which had once fought with each other and later joined Islam, how can it be equal let alone justice if a freeman be killed now for a free man that was killed in the battle? Or, a slave to be killed now for a slave that had been killed before? Or, a woman be put to death now for a woman that had been killed earlier?

First, let me point out the motivation for this question: the story of Abd-Allah ibn Jahsh attacking the Quraysh caravan in the Rajab month despite Rajab being a sacred month. "At first Muhammad [pbuh] disapproved Abd-Allah's actions, saying, "I did not instruct you to fight in the sacred month." But later he announced a new revelation: 'They ask you concerning fighting in the sacred months. Say, "Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allâh is to prevent mankind from following the way of Allâh, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-Al-Ḥarâm, and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.'"(from wiki) Now many cite this incident as evidence of anti-Islam being the greatest zulm than anything else. For example, in a political situation (in a Muslim majority but non-sharia democratic country), where the ruling party is by all standards a zalem and got in power in an illegitimate way. But the opposition is clearly anti-Islamic and if they go to power, they killing, abduction, corruption etc might be reduced but they will establish anti-Islamic values and laws such as LGBT rights, abolition of blasphemy law etc. And by Allah, this is not a hypothetical situation. This is the situation we are struggling with in real life. For the Muslims, it is a tough choice and we are divided. Some of us prefer the Zalem but Muslim ruler and some of us prefer the Just but the atheist ruler. The first group argues that it is better to be under the rule of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf than to be under the rule of Christian, but the latter group argues that we should prefer for the betterment of humanity and since the Muslim ruler here in this case causes more harm, we should oppose him according to the Islam.

One justification I hear is that if the disbelievers were to stay alive on the earth forever they won't believe meaning their sin is infinite and thus their punishment should be infinite too. but even if they were not to believe if they stayed on the earth forever, they still died, and since they died, they're being punished for a sin they haven't committed which is eternal hell, which I believe is unfair. Another problem with this justification is that it contradicts one Muslim answer for the question "why did god leave us to live on earth instead of judging us instantly into heaven or hell" which is "God left us on earth to be witnesses on our actions so that we can't deny them when we're being judged and have no excuse for our sins". The contradiction happens because the disbelievers will be accounted and tormented for a sin that they were not witnesses of.

Why is there facilitation for a child born in a Muslim Family as compared to a child born in a Non-Muslim Family? Why is struggle for a Muslim person born in a Muslim Family made easier as compared to a Non-Muslim person born in a Non-Muslim Family? I understand that everyone should seek the truth and that everyone is born in the state of fitra (nature) ie he's born a Muslim and later on, his family influences him to shape his religious and ideological beliefs. However, if a person is born in a Muslim family, he is at an advantage compared to an individual who is born in a non-Muslim family since the person born in Muslim family already knows that God is one and about the finality of Prophethood. So even if he doesn't do research or seek truth, he'll die as a Muslim (even if he doesn't obey God's commands) and therefore, he'll ultimately go to heaven after some time in hell. Whereas the person born in a non-Muslim family, even if he commits good deeds, will not enter heaven if he's a polytheist or an athiest. So why are some people at such a massive advantage when it comes to be born in a certain Muslim family? And how did God decide that which individuals deserve to be born in a Muslim family and the others don't? Did all the people before getting born underwent any test? And if there wasn't then isn't God unjust in doing so by creating unfavourable circumstances for one group of people? I've heard replies from scholars like Zakir Naik and others on this topic but those seemed unconvincing so I thought this is right forum. Edit: Why is this being down voted? Is asking questions not a part of Islam? P.S. I'm a Muslim myself

Recently in France, a teacher was beheaded by someone because of his act of showing some drawings in his class. I just want to know is it really justified to kill someone who disrespects our Prophet Muhammad(SAWS)? From what I have learned so far that our prophet was extremely kind to those who tortured him verbally or physically(by throwing trash). So is it really justifiable to kill someone for disrespecting our prophet?

I have heard the following narration (I summarized it, and some parts may be paraphrased) > While Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas was the governor of Damascus at the time of > Umar ibn al-Khattab, he wanted to extend a mosque in Damascus. So > he bought the lands around the mosque. A Jewish man, however, refused to > sell his property. Finally, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas simply took the > ownership of the land and had his men pay the Jewish man. There was > nothing the Jewish man could do. One day, he told what happened to his > Muslim neighbor. The neighbor told him to go to Medina, and find caliph > Umar: “I am told that he is a most just ruler.” > > So the man goes to Medina, asks about Umar when he gets there, people > point at a man under a tree. He goes to the man, introduces himself, > and narrates what happened. Umar writes a note, and tells the man to > give it to the governor of Damascus. The note says: **I am not any less > just than Anushirvan .** The man looks at Umar, looks at the note, > thanks him and leaves. > > When he arrives at Damascus, he is hesitant about what to do. A > modest man gave him a one-line note which would hardly change > anything. Still, he invested a lot in this matter already, so he goes > to the governor, says he has seen caliph Umar, and gives him the note > that Umar gave. As soon as he reads the note the governor's face pales, > his hands starts to shake. He says: “consider your land is given to > you.” > > The man so surprised that his curiosity about > what the hell is happening overwhelms his joy of having his land back. > He begs the governor: “Please, just tell how this note made change your > mind in an instant!” > > The governor says, here is why. Before Islam, Umar and I went to Persia for trade. While we were in > Persia, a group of gangsters came and took our camels and our money. > There was nothing we could do; there were too many of them. Back at the > inn we were staying, we told what happened to the inn-keeper. The > inn-keeper told us to go to King Anushirvan, that he was a most just > king. So we went to the king. We were given a translator. We told out > story to the translator, the translator narrated the story to the > king. The king ordered that we should each be given a bag of gold. > Back at the inn, we told the inn-keeper what happened. The inn-keeper > was slightly puzzled. He said there must be some misunderstanding: > “Come, tomorrow we go together, and this time I will be your > translator.” > > Next day, the three go to the King again. The inn-keeper narrates what > happened. The King's face pales. He orders that two bag of golds shall > be given to each of us, and our camels also. The king added: “when you > are leaving the city, one you shall leave from the East entrance and > the other from the West entrance.” > > We were of course most puzzled. Back at the inn, the inn-keeper told > us the story. He said, when we narrated him what happened, he realized > that gang was the gang of the king's son, and the king's second > man. When he narrated the story to the king, he of course realized who > was who. > > When I was leaving the city I saw to men hanged. There was a big crowd > around them. I asked about them and someone said, these two are the > son and the second man of the king, they robbed traders. There was > another man hanged at the other entrance, he was the translator, who > mistranslated our story so as to protect them. The king ordered the > execution of his own son! > > Now you see what Umar means with his note. He is telling me that he will > execute me just like the king executed his son. > > Upon hearing all this, the Jewish guy not only granted his land, but > he also became a Muslim. What is the strongest source of this narration?

Assalamu alaikum. **Does the husband have to pay the remaining Mahr if the wife does not want to continue the marriage but does not ask for Khula either because she does not want to give the Mahr back?** **Context:** The wife went to her parents' house after an argument, but she agreed that she would stay for 2 months to look after her parents. During this time husband and wife had quarreled over the phone, since then the wife has broken off all contact with her husband (also known as "ghosting"), i.e. she has blocked all communication channels, now they have been separated for 6 months and for 4 months of this time there has been no communication between them (despite many attempts by the husband). In conversation with the wife's parents, the husband was told to give the remaining Mahr to her. Her parents want the marriage to continue. On the question whether his wife would like to continue this marriage at all, the parents did not give a clear answer (evaded the question), but after what they said indirectly it can be concluded that she possibly has no interest in the marriage. But she clear want's the remaining Mahr and won't ask for Khula. *Some questions to consider in the context:* 1. Now, does the husband have to give the Mahr since she is "ghosting" him? 2. And can her actions/non-actions be interpreted that she does not want the marriage or that she want's divorce (Khul)? Due to many other reasons the it is very likely that the wife is not asking Khula because she does not want to give anything back to her husband. 3. What is the status of this marriage? 4. Is there any "hak" violated and if yes, Who is violating the rights of whom?

I am not a Muslim, but I am very interested in it. I hope by getting an answer to this question I will take a step closer to maybe accepting Islam. I understand that Allah gives everyone a chance to live out our lives on earth to test us, even though he knows full well how everyone will do. This is similar to how a legal system allows a convicted criminal to make an appeal in his defense even though everything may be stacked against. I.e. all the evidence. In the day of judgment Allah will use our lives as evidence against us to prove if we did good or bad. To be just Allah allowed us all to live our lives so Allah doesn't have to say to us on the day of judgement "I knew what you would've done if i gave you a life so you go to hell or heaven,etc." Instead Allah can say "you had your chance and you failed to prove yourself etc." So suppose we have two people both born in say a Christian family and let's say one is very devout to his religion and the other is more casual and doesn't care much, he just happened to have Christian parents. Like your typical teen they go through school not to concerned yet about religion and reach say the age of 20. Still very young and focused on their sorting their future lives not too serious about religion; as most people are in the west at this age. Now suppose the less religious person suddenly dies due to an accident, very probable and has occurred to many people in the world. The devout religious person continues his life and eventually converts to Islam at say 35, which he practices until death. The question is therefore, is it unfair that the first person who died early when he was still developing and didn't get a chance to reach full maturity or reach a standard livelihood to be able to pursue say religion? Even if would have remained say a disbeliever till death, wasn't letting him live on earth their to prove he would have died a disbeliever and to avoid having to say "I knew you would have lived to die a disbeliever anyway". The first person who died can now argue that if I had lived to the same age as person 2 I might have become a Muslim. If Allah was simply going to say to him " I knew you would have lived to die a disbeliever anyway" than why did Allah give him a life on in the first place. I understand that Allah has said in the Quran that everyone at some point their lives will be introduced or exposed to Islam. But I feel many young people who do are so caught up with problems in their lives and future that they may miss the opportunity to take it seriously. Especially as in this example they may die very young, ignorant of religion having lived a life focused on worldly pleasure. Many Muslim convert's are like this early on and in later life realise they should submit to god and may come across Islam in their search. I'm not attacking islam I just want this issue cleared up and would appreciate a kind response from someone who might have the answer. Thank You

Within a few sinful years I spent, I took psychedelics and since then, I have had paranoid delusions of persecution that 98% of the people I interact with are being paid or threatened by an organization to watch me, make noises around me, put hormones in my food, and remind me that I'm being watched by bringing up things I've watched and done at home. After reverting back to Islam (Alhamdulellah for His guidance), I have found solace in Allah's justice and believe that if there truly is an organization making people harm me mentally and physically, then justice will be served on the Judgement Day by an exchange of good deeds or bad deeds between me and those people. My question is, if I live according to the paragraph above, **by potentially unjustly blaming people for something that they might not be doing, am I garnering bad deeds myself?** I don't act upon my thoughts by calling people out or anything, I just feel pity towards those who I think are harming me and garnering bad deeds in this life. Edit to bump the question and for added information: The Quranic verse “inna ba’ad–dhan ‘ithm (49:12) makes me feel like it's a sin to think the way I do. Does this verse apply in cases of almost automatic paranoia that one develops over a few years in their unguided times?

Reading the history, I have noticed that Islamic ruler are mostly tyrants rather than rulers. They have full control of all affairs. No one can defy them. There is no election. A descendent of the King is chosen by the King and it usually become Kingdom. Or someone has to defeat the ruling King to change the lineage. In modern world there are three branches of government. The head of state, the assembly and the judicial branch. There are checks and balances. Everyone does their own job. The head of state presides all affairs but he can be removed by Assembly. The Assembly makes the Law. The judicial branch make sure that Law is executed and that head of state be made accountable. My concern is Islam does not have a model where the masses can gain prosperity and happiness because of totalitarian model. The head of the state essentially becomes a terror. No one can say anything against him, even in a joke because he is everything. **In Islam how can a ruler be subjected to accountability?** For example in cases * He is suspected in killing someone * The ruler is suspected in squandering money * The ruler selected incapable people * It is suspected that the ruler has committed adultery. Are there any checks and balances on the ruler? If yes what are they. I have also heard (don't have the quote now) that in Islam, obeying the ruler is mandatory. That further suppresses masses if they want to raise their voices. **Are there any guidelines in Islam that would facilitate such accountability for ruler?**

In [4:3](https://quran.com/4/3) , it says per the Sahih International translation: > And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, > then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or > four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one > or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may > not incline [to injustice]. This can easily be understood as a reminder to men who want to marry multiple wives that they have to treat their wives equitably. However, if there is no way for the wives to enforce this, it can easily fall flat. This leads to the questions: - What constitutes "injustice" among multiple wives? Please make sure to elaborate on general, yet specific enough rules, not just concrete example situations. - What can a wife who feels she is being treated unjustly compared to her co-wives do to force her husband to correct this? Is it grounds for obtaining a divorce, can she legally force him to change his behavior while staying in the marriage, is there payment she can demand; what legal rights does being treated unjustly by her husband give her?