u/Obsidian-Archive

I found a video on Instagram of a girl saying she feels comfortable that south koreans don't wear bikinis in the beach (along those lines).

Many muslims in the comments were saying "if it was muslims, people would have said they are oppressed"

1. Koreans don't like bikinis because they are obsessed with protecting their skin from UV, it is not about chastity. Look what they would wear indoors or at night and then decide.

2. Everyone in that beach was free to wear whatever they want without being harmed or persecuted unlike in a muslim society where it is either illegal or an invitation to being sexually harassed or assaulted. A woman there can wear a bikini and probably wouldn't face any problem unlike in a muslim society.

3. Hair was not covered in that beach so even if we were to compare, whatever is happening on that beach is still prohibited islamically. Hell, women aren’t allowed to go out of their houses unless necessary like going out to take a shit (arabs used to shit outside in an empty place away from houses).

So, no, a muslim society wouldn't even allow women to go to the beach and if they do, they would make them wear all back from head to toe. And I honestly cannot give a shit for the progressives who like to make new islamic rules to sugarcoat the religion.

I hope muslims stop these stupid "if it was muslims" scenarios because they are wrong at their core and filled with logical inconsistencies.

If anyone would like to add something or correct me, please do.

تلاقيه يقرا عن عن الحملات الفرنسية و الانجليزية في مصر او شمال افريقيا عموما و الانتفاضات اللي حصلت للاستقلال و تبعياتها من قتل و حبس و اضطهاد المصريين و الجزائريين، يقولك بص الظلم و الجبروت لمجرد ان ناس عايزة تحكم نفسها، الغرب همجي اوي بص قتلوا قد ايه.

و بعدين لما تحكيله عن اللي عمله المأمون في المصريين او اللي عمله الامويين في الأمازيغ يقولك ان ده نتيجة التمرد عن الحاكم و ان لازم التمردات نسحقها و اي دولة من حقها تتوسع.

نفس الازدواجية ديه ممكن الاقيها في حاجات كتير زي السبي و الاندلس و المغول بس البوست هيبقى طويل.

أكيد عارفين نقاشات الاخلاق و الدين و لماذا لا تنكح أمك بس بعيدا عن عبط الحجج اللي بيستخدمها المسلمين، جه في دماغي سؤال مهم.

لو الأخلاق مستمدة من الدين فقط، ليه المسلم محتاج تبرير و ترقيع للآيات و الأحاديث؟ أصل لما واحد بيبرر آية او حديث، لازم يستند لأخلاق خارج الحاجة اللي بيبرر لها و بكده بيثبت ان الاخلاق نسبية و متغيرة

كان فيه فيديو لناس ملحدين اجانب بيناقشوا واحد مسيحي و اللقطة اتشهرت عشان السؤال هنا كان لو انت شايف قدامك طفلة بيتم ايذائها و انت بمقدورك تنقذها، هتنقذها ولا لا؟ الاجابة المنطقية انك هتنقذها و النتيجة المترتبة انك بقيت احسن من إلهك.

انا بحب انقد الحجج حتى لو كانت إلحادية ك نوع من عدم التحيز و فعلا انا مش لاقي رد او حتى ترقيع يرضي في الحجة ديه.

حابب اسمع ارائكم

I wanted to analyze all the hadiths mentioning the dimensions of the 7 Heavens. Some of these hadiths are Sahih and others were considered Weak (but not fabricated). Still we can consider their contents to be valid since the same thing is mentioned in multiple hadiths and even said by companions.

For context, early arabs used to describe distance in time, like in the hadiths prohibiting women from traveling 3 days without a mihram, it doesn't mean the time of travel is 3 days, it means that the travel distance is one such that it is crossed by 6th century people in 3 days. Scholars already explained how to convert from this unit to miles, which I will mention at the end.

Now for the texts to be discussed.

Muhammad stated that the distance between the lowest Heaven and the highest Earth is equivalent to a distance that would take humans 500 years to cross, and added that the distance between each layer as well as the thickness of each layer is also equivalent to a distance that would take humans 500 years to cross.

Sunan at-Tirmidhi 2588:

"... were to be dropped from the heavens to the earth – and it is the distance of traveling five hundred years ..."

Musnad Al-Bazzar 4075:

"... Between the highest earth and the lowest heaven is a distance of five hundred years, and its thickness is five hundred years, and the thickness of the second heaven is the same ... Between the highest earth and the lowest heaven is five hundred years, and the thickness of the heaven is five hundred years. Between the lowest heaven and the second heaven is a journey of five hundred years, and the thickness of the heaven is five hundred years. Then each heaven is the same until it reaches the seventh ..."

Sunan at-Tirmidhi 3298:

"... Between you and it is five-hundred year ... above that are two Heavens, between the two of them there is a distance of five-hundred years – until he enumerated seven Heavens – What is between each of the two Heavens is what is between the heavens and the earth ..."

Musnad Ahmad 1770:

"... Between them is a journey of five hundred years, and from each heaven to the next is a journey of five hundred years, and the density of each heaven is a journey of five hundred years ..."

(Note that this hadith has other narrations, where the 500 years is replaced with 71, 72, or 73 years and the thickness is not mentioned)

Sunan at-Tirmidhi 2540, 3294:

"... Their elevation is indeed like what is between the heavens and the earth, a distance of five-hundred years ..."

Ibn Mas’ud said the same thing about the distance between layers but did not mention the thickness.

Mu'jam al-Tabrani 8987:

"Between the first heaven and the one above it is a journey of five hundred years, and between each two heavens is a journey of five hundred years ..."

Assuming that the correct dimensions is the 500 one due to the overwhelming evidence supporting it, the total distance from the surface of the Earth to the highest point of the seven Heavens is equivalent to a distance that would take humans 7,000 years (14 x 500) to cross.

According to scholars, people at that time travelled around 24 miles per day, which is equivalent to around 38 km per day. Using that as a conversion factor, 500 years would be around 6.7 million km, and 7,000 years would be around 94 million km. To put that distance in perspective, the thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere is 965 km, and the distance between the Earth and the Sun is around 150 million km.

That would make the Heavens in Islam smaller than the Solar System.

And don't forget that Islamically, the stars and planets are located in the lowest Heaven. Quran 37:6, 41:12, 67:5

تخيل ان كل المعاناة الناتجة من ال٣ اديان الابراهيمية سببها شعب ناقص كان عارف قد ايه هو ناقص و قرر انه يألف قصص من خيالاته او يسرق قصص من اساطير الحضارات المجاورة و يخترع انبياء جم من إلههم عشان ينقذهم من غباءهم و يقتل عشانهم.

و بعدين يجي ناس بعدهم يصدقوا الهبل بتاعهم و يعدلوا عليه

So as yall may know, one of the signs is that the Sun rises from the West. The Hadiths state that when the sign appears, no one can choose to believe to save themselves.

So, I have an idea.

Since the first people to encounter that sign are Americans in the West coast and Canadians in British Colombia, as soon as they see the sign, they tell everyone else so that they can accept Islam and ask for forgiveness before the sun rises at their region.

We would be sacrificing few Americans and Canadians in the process but it would be worth it.

ممكن يبان تساؤل غريب بس انا دايما بشوف الناس اللي في مجال طبي لما يشوفوا حاجات خاصة بالطب في القرآن و السنة، بيلاحظوا الغلطات بشكل اوضح و ده بيخلي ترك الدين بين الاطباء حاجة موجودة

لكن هل فيه ناس خلفيتهم دراسة تاريخ و حصلهم نفس الكلام بس من ناحية الاخطاء التاريخية زي جوار الدراهم في وقت يوسف او الصلب في وقت موسى او حوار تشابه القصص النبوية بأساطير بابلية و اشورية او ان مفيش ادلة على معظم الانبياء؟

لو فيه حد كده ياريت تجكي عن تجربتك، حابب اسمعها

كان فيه فترة في حياتي ك مسلم وصلت فيها اني زهقت من الشبهات لمرحلة اني ملقاش عندي مشكلة اشوف ناس بتجيب سيرتها بالذات الحاجات الأخلاقية، الفرق بس اني كنت بستحرم اقولها انا بنفسي بس كان اللي في دماغي وقتها هو سؤال:

انا ليه عليا العبء بتاع الدفاع عن شخص عمل اللي عايز يعمله و مات من غير ما هو نفسه يبرر افعاله؟ انا مالي؟

هو طبعا التفكير ده لوحده يخرجني من الملة وش بس كنت ماشي بمبدأ انا مسلم في حالي بس انا متفهم الناس اللي بيتكلموا عن الشبهات الأخلاقية. حتى لما عرفت واحدة ملحدة بالصدفة على السوشيال و كنت بفضفض معاها، كانت بتقولي انها مش فاهمة انا ايه و عندها حق فعلا لما اجي افتكر الفترة ديه، كنت متناقض، قاعد بشتكي من حاجات في الاسلام و شايف نفسي مسلم.

و ده جزء من اللي خلاني اجي الصب هنا من كذا شهر، كان عشان افضفض مع ناس عندها نفس الشكوك. لكن برضه الفترة ديه منطقية، الشخص بيبقى مش عارف ياخد خطوة ترك الدين او حتى يفكر فيها بس مازال عقله شغال و عارف ياخد باله ان فيه مشاكل.

Muslims claim that a verse (Quran 27:88)

"Now you see the mountains, thinking they are firmly fixed, but they are travelling ˹just˺ like clouds"

refers to the slight movement of mountains.

They interpret the verse as referring to a phenomenon that happens to mountains in general, and therefore, a scientific miracle.

However, the verse describes one of the events of the Day of Judgement, where mountains will seem as if they are moving. This interpretation can be proved from the previous verse (Quran 27:87) that mentions the Day of Judgement, and another verse (Quran 52:10) mentioning the same event with different wording.

So I made a post and noticed few errors I made so I deleted the post and made a revised one. Sorry about that.

The verse in question Quran 30:2–4

غُلِبَتِ ٱلرُّومُ فِىٓ أَدْنَى ٱلْأَرْضِ وَهُم مِّنۢ بَعْدِ غَلَبِهِمْ سَيَغْلِبُونَ فِى بِضْعِ سِنِينَ ۗ لِلَّهِ ٱلْأَمْرُ مِن قَبْلُ وَمِنۢ بَعْدُ ۚ وَيَوْمَئِذٍۢ يَفْرَحُ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ

The translation provided by the Clear Quran is as follows:

"The Romans have been defeated in a nearby land. Yet following their defeat, they will triumph within three to nine years. The ˹whole˺ matter rests with Allah before and after ˹victory˺. And on that day the believers will rejoice"

As far as the translations go, this one is accurate and align with what the classical interpretations say.

Now, we need to know the time of the revelation of these verses. There is 2 opinions.

The most accepted one is that they were revealed in Mecca before migration to Medina. So before 622 AD.

The second opinion is that it was revealed in Medina during the battle of Badr (624 AD). The second opinion is backed by few hadiths that will address later.

The ones adopting the first opinion falsify these hadiths or say that the verse was mentioned in Badr but not revealed in Badr.

Now, let's examine both opinions historically.

The first victory made by the Romans in the campaign of Heraclius against the Persians was Heraclius' campaign of 622 AD in Cappadocia (moder-day Turkey). Using the second opinion, the verses were revealed in 624 AD, making the victory a thing before the prophecy.

Before duscussing the first opinion, i want to talk about the hadiths about the verses revealing during the Battle of Badr. They mention an interesting fact.

Note: I translated the hadiths using Google Translate and reviewed it myself because I noticed that sunnah website changed the translations.

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3192

عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ لَمَّا كَانَ يَوْمُ بَدْرٍ ظَهَرَتِ الرُّومُ عَلَى فَارِسَ فَأَعْجَبَ ذَلِكَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَنَزَلَتْ ‏:‏ ‏(‏ الم *غَلَبَتِ الرُّومُ ‏)‏ إِلَى قَوْلِهِ ‏:‏ ‏(‏يفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ ‏)‏ قَالَ فَفَرِحَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِظُهُورِ الرُّومِ عَلَى فَارِسَ ‏.‏ قَالَ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ كَذَا قَرَأَ نَصْرُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ ‏:‏ ‏(‏غَلَبَتِ الرُّومُ ‏)

On the authority of Abu Sa'id, who said: On the day of Badr, the Romans were victorious over the Persians, and this pleased the believers. Then the verse was revealed: (Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been victorious) up to His saying: (The believers will rejoice in the victory of Allah). He said: So the believers rejoiced at the Romans' victory over the Persians. He said: This is a good gharib hadith from this chain of narration. This is how Nasr ibn Ali recited it: The Romans defeated (not were defeated).

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2935

عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ لَمَّا كَانَ يَوْمُ بَدْرٍ ظَهَرَتِ الرُّومُ عَلَى فَارِسَ فَأَعْجَبَ ذَلِكَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَنَزَلَتْ ‏(‏ الم * غُلِبَتِ الرُّومُ ‏)‏ إِلَى قَوْلِهِ ‏(‏يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ ‏)‏ قَالَ فَفْرَحَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِظُهُورِ الرُّومِ عَلَى فَارِسَ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ ‏.‏ وَيُقْرَأُ غَلَبَتْ وَغُلِبَتْ يَقُولُ كَانَتْ غُلِبَتْ ثُمَّ غَلَبَتْ هَكَذَا قَرَأَ نَصْرُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ غَلَبَتْ

On the authority of Abu Sa'id, he said: On the day of Badr, the Romans were victorious over the Persians, and this pleased the believers. Then the verse was revealed: "Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated" up to His saying: "The believers will rejoice." He said: So the believers rejoiced at the Romans' victory over the Persians. Abu 'Isa said: This is a hasan gharib hadith from this chain of narration. And it is recited as "ghalabat" (victorious) and "ghulibat," (defeated). This is how Nasr ibn Ali recited it: The Romans defeated (not was defeated)

So, it seems that even the hadiths mentions a change in the way these verses were recited. Instead of "The Romans were defeated then victorious", it was "The Romans were victorious then victorious again"

Now for the first opinion

Scholars has three different opinions on the time of the fulfillment of the prophecy, in other words, the victory of the Romans:

1. Battle of Badr 624 AD

2. Treaty of Hudaibya 628 AD

3. 2 years before Badr 622 AD

No. 1 and 2 don't align with the history since the victory happened in 622 AD.

No.3 is the best option. The hadiths mentioning the context of the wager Abu Bakr said that the victory happened 7 years after the defeat, meaning that the verses should be revealed on 615 AD.

Now here is the biggest problem for me (someone else actually pointed it out for me):

Ignoring all the contradictions and the different recitations and different opinions, how do we verify that the verses actually were revealed in 615 AD? What disproves the idea that all these were written after the battles to fit with the Quranic narrative? Nothing, for all we know, the scholars just tell you it was revealed before without evidence.

If someone has any additions or want clarifications, let me know. There are actually many other things to say about the topic and my research was a bit shallow conaidering my first attempt had errors. So if anyone notices any inaccuracy, let me know

I was helping someone with debunking the claim and thought of making it into a post so that people can benefit from it.

The verse in question Quran 30:2–4

غُلِبَتِ ٱلرُّومُ فِىٓ أَدْنَى ٱلْأَرْضِ وَهُم مِّنۢ بَعْدِ غَلَبِهِمْ سَيَغْلِبُونَ فِى بِضْعِ سِنِينَ ۗ لِلَّهِ ٱلْأَمْرُ مِن قَبْلُ وَمِنۢ بَعْدُ ۚ وَيَوْمَئِذٍۢ يَفْرَحُ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ

The translation provided by the Clear Quran is as follows:

"The Romans have been defeated in a nearby land. Yet following their defeat, they will triumph within three to nine years. The ˹whole˺ matter rests with Allah before and after ˹victory˺. And on that day the believers will rejoice"

As far as the translations go, this one is accurate and align with what the classical interpretations say.

Now, we need to know the time of the revelation of these verses. There is 2 opinions, the most accepted one is that they were revealed in Mecca (the last few years of Muhammad's life not the early years), so they proposed a time range between 628 AD (Treaty of al-Hudaybiya) and 630 AD (Conquest of Mecca). The second opinion is that it was revealed in Medina during the battle of Badr (624 AD). The second opinion is backed by few hadiths that will address later.

Now, let's examine both opinions historically.

The first victory made by the Romans in the campaign of Heraclius against the Persians was Heraclius' campaign of 622 AD in Cappadocia (moder-day Turkey). Whether the verses were revealed in 628 or 624 AD, that victory was already a thing, debunking the claim.

Now, let's look at other problems.

The hadiths about the verses revealing during the Battle of Badr that I said will discuss later. They mention an interesting fact.

Note: I translated the hadiths using Google Translate and reviewed it myself because I noticed that sunnah website changed the translations.

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3192

عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ لَمَّا كَانَ يَوْمُ بَدْرٍ ظَهَرَتِ الرُّومُ عَلَى فَارِسَ فَأَعْجَبَ ذَلِكَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَنَزَلَتْ ‏:‏ ‏(‏ الم *غَلَبَتِ الرُّومُ ‏)‏ إِلَى قَوْلِهِ ‏:‏ ‏(‏يفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ ‏)‏ قَالَ فَفَرِحَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِظُهُورِ الرُّومِ عَلَى فَارِسَ ‏.‏ قَالَ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ كَذَا قَرَأَ نَصْرُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ ‏:‏ ‏(‏غَلَبَتِ الرُّومُ ‏)

On the authority of Abu Sa'id, who said: On the day of Badr, the Romans were victorious over the Persians, and this pleased the believers. Then the verse was revealed: (Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been victorious) up to His saying: (The believers will rejoice in the victory of Allah). He said: So the believers rejoiced at the Romans' victory over the Persians. He said: This is a good and rare hadith from this chain of narration. This is how Nasr ibn Ali recited it: The Romans defeated (not were defeated).

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2935

عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ لَمَّا كَانَ يَوْمُ بَدْرٍ ظَهَرَتِ الرُّومُ عَلَى فَارِسَ فَأَعْجَبَ ذَلِكَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَنَزَلَتْ ‏(‏ الم * غُلِبَتِ الرُّومُ ‏)‏ إِلَى قَوْلِهِ ‏(‏يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ ‏)‏ قَالَ فَفْرَحَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِظُهُورِ الرُّومِ عَلَى فَارِسَ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ ‏.‏ وَيُقْرَأُ غَلَبَتْ وَغُلِبَتْ يَقُولُ كَانَتْ غُلِبَتْ ثُمَّ غَلَبَتْ هَكَذَا قَرَأَ نَصْرُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ غَلَبَتْ

On the authority of Abu Sa'id, he said: On the day of Badr, the Romans were victorious over the Persians, and this pleased the believers. Then the verse was revealed: "Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated" up to His saying: "The believers will rejoice." He said: So the believers rejoiced at the Romans' victory over the Persians. Abu 'Isa said: This is a hasan gharib hadith from this chain of narration. And it is recited as "ghalabat" (victorious) and "ghulibat," (defeated). This is how Nasr ibn Ali recited it: The Romans defeated (not was defeated)

So, it seems that even the hadiths mentions a change in the way these verses were recited. Instead of "The Romans were defeated then victorious", it was "The Romans were victorious then victorious again"

Saying that the Romans were victorious in 624 AD (at Badr) when the Romans won against the Persians in 622 AD actually makes sense because news sometimes take months to reach other places. It seems that Muhammad used the victory of the Romans to make the muslims feel that they will also win against Quraysh. Like saying "the Christians did it against the polytheists so we can do it too and defeat the polytheists"

If someone has any additions or want clarifications, let me know.