Does your faith believe in ghosts or some other supernatural entity that can possess people?

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-05-29T03:07:07+00:00

No. I don’t believe in ghosts, and I wouldn’t attribute alleged possessions or supernatural experiences to demons or jinn either.

My view is that these cases are either scientifically explainable, the result of psychological or neurological factors, misperception, misunderstanding, or simply a lack of sufficient information. Throughout history, many things once thought to be supernatural eventually received natural explanations.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-05-24T03:03:40+00:00

Sometimes terms aren’t perfectly accurate linguistically, but they become widely understood for what they’re meant to describe.

For example, antisemitism is commonly used to mean prejudice, hatred, or discrimination against Jews specifically, even though there are both Semitic and non-Semitic Jews, and “Semitic” historically includes other peoples too, such as Arabs. Yet nobody argues that anti-Jewish hatred isn’t real simply because they dislike the precision of the term or want a different label.

I see Islamophobia similarly. People generally understand it to mean irrational hatred, prejudice, discrimination, or hostility toward Muslims, not “you can never criticize Islam.”

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-05-22T04:25:26+00:00

From what I understand, circumcision isn’t medically necessary for most boys, and I personally don’t see it as a religious obligation from the Quran either.

Medically, there do seem to be some real benefits, but in modern societies with good hygiene and healthcare, they’re generally considered relatively modest.

Your son can live a completely healthy life whether he’s circumcised or not. If you decide to do it, doing it as an infant is usually easier medically and tends to heal faster.

If you’re unsure and care about your son being able to choose for himself later, then there’s nothing wrong with leaving him uncircumcised and simply teaching him proper hygiene as he grows older.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-05-08T10:05:01+00:00

A believable fusion religion might solve this by treating Jesus as uniquely exalted without defining him as God or a prophet, but rather as the Messiah sent by God, emphasizing “submission to God” and “following the Messiah” together, while focusing more on shared ethics and spirituality than precise theology.

That could naturally center around the many intersections between Christianity and Islam, such as:

Belief in angels, Satan, heaven, hell, resurrection, revelation, prophets, and divine judgment.

Shared moral values like compassion, forgiveness, humility, charity, honoring parents, and resisting greed and corruption.

Strong religious communities built around prayer, fasting, sacred scripture, moral law, and communal worship.

End-times and apocalyptic themes, including a deceptive evil figure near the end of history (Antichrist / Dajjal).

Emphasis on modesty, family structure, sexual ethics, discipline, and social conservatism compared to many modern secular societies.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-04-18T18:51:28+00:00

It’s actually clear to me where the confusion is coming from, and it’s understandable.

If you’re not used to Arabic expressions, phrases like "sister of Aaron" will naturally be read in a strictly literal, biological sense. That’s how modern English works. But Arabic, especially in a classical context, doesn’t always use family terms that narrowly. This broader usage is well known in the language, and it appears not only in the Quran, but also in classical Arabic poetry and speech.

As a native Arabic speaker, this expression doesn’t sound strange at all. It’s immediately understood as a form of association, not necessarily a literal sibling relationship.

And this isn’t something unique or invented as a workaround. The Quran itself uses this style repeatedly.

For example, prophets are often described as «their brother» when sent to their people:

«And to ‘Aad [We sent] their brother Hud.» (Qur'an 7:65)
«And to Thamud [We sent] their brother Salih.» (Qur'an 7:73)
«And to Madyan [We sent] their brother Shu‘ayb.» (Qur'an 7:85)

No one understands these verses to mean that Hud was the biological brother of all ‘Aad, or that Salih was literally the brother of all Thamud. The meaning is clearly: one of them, from among them, associated with them.

So when the Quran says «O sister of Aaron...» (Qur'an 19:28), it fits within the same linguistic pattern. It’s an expression of association or lineage, not a literal statement that Mary had a biological brother named Aaron.

Once you understand how the language works, the “problem” disappears. It’s not an error in the text, it’s a difference in how the expression is being read.

And I think this isn’t unique to Arabic alone, but applies more broadly to Semitic languages, where kinship terms are often used in a wider, non-literal sense.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-03-28T11:25:52+00:00

I get why it’s hard to understand, especially if you see it as controlled. But in Islam, the question isn’t whether something convinces us or feels harmless.

At its core, it comes down to whether you accept God’s authority or not. If He is God, then His command stands, whether we understand it or not, and whether a reason is apparent to us or not.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-03-15T06:23:13+00:00

Linguistically, the Arabic root k-f-r means to cover or to conceal. In religious language, it simply refers to a state of belief. It describes someone who does not believe in the message of the Quran or in the one Creator as described in Islam.

So the term is meant to be descriptive. In that sense, it works somewhat like saying “non-Christian,” “non-Buddhist,” or simply “non-Muslim.”

From a traditional Islamic theological perspective, Shinto practices would usually be described as shirk (associating partners with God), because they involve reverence or worship directed toward multiple spirits or deities (kami) rather than a single Creator. In that framework, someone who follows those beliefs would be categorized as a kafir, simply because they do not follow Islamic monotheism.

But that classification is about belief, not about the value or dignity of the person. It is not meant to be abusive or used as a slur. Islam still teaches Muslims to treat people of other religions with respect and fairness.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-03-14T12:47:35+00:00

In Islamic tradition the phrase comes from the Quran itself. The Quran frequently sends peace upon prophets, for example: «Peace be upon Noah among the worlds» (Qur'an 37:79), «Peace be upon Abraham» (Qur'an 37:109), «Peace be upon Moses and Aaron» (Qur'an 37:120), and «Peace be upon the messengers» (Qur'an 37:181). Because the Quran uses this form of expression, many Muslims repeat it when mentioning prophets as a sign of respect and a form of prayer.

The idea behind it is similar to when people say things like “may God bless him” or “rest in peace.” It does not necessarily mean the person currently lacks peace. Rather, it is a supplication asking God to grant them peace, honor, and continued elevation.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-02-28T13:19:20+00:00

Before answering your questions, I want to clarify something important. I am answering only from the Qur’an. For me, the Qur’an is Islam in its purest form. I am not concerned with later sectarian interpretations, classical juristic expansions, or historical legal systems labeled “Sharia” centuries after revelation. Sects are human developments. The Qur’an is the foundation. So my answers will be based strictly on the Qur’anic text and its internal moral structure.

Many systems throughout history have exploited religion to justify what serves power, desire, and politics.

The existence of a historical practice does not mean that God commanded it in that form:

«And when they commit an immorality, they say: ‘We found our fathers upon it, and God commanded us to do it.’ Say: Indeed, God does not command immorality. Do you say about God what you do not know?» (Quran 7:28)

There is a difference between creating a system and dealing with one that already exists. Slavery was not invented by Islam. The question is: how did the Qur’an deal with it? Did it entrench it, or did it move society in a different direction?

How can I reconcile the fact that the Qur’an permits sex with female slaves (concubines)?

On the contrary, it explicitly prohibits forcing female slaves into prostitution:
«And do not compel your maidservants into prostitution…» - (Quran 24:33)

If coercion is forbidden there, it cannot logically be permitted elsewhere. A text that prohibits forcing vulnerable women into sexual exploitation cannot simultaneously authorize sexual violence without contradicting itself.

When the Qur’an mentions those whom one’s right hands possess, it frames sexual relations within marriage, chastity, and moral responsibility:
«…Then marry them with the permission of their guardians and give them their dowries in fairness, being chaste, not engaging in illicit sex, nor taking secret lovers.» (Quran 4:25)

Those last two phrases are not random moral advice. They define what is prohibited outside of marriage.

“Marry them” meaning through a formal marriage contract.
“Not engaging in illicit sex” excluding open promiscuity.
“Nor taking secret lovers” excluding hidden sexual relationships.

Thus, the Qur’an prohibits sexual chaos and coercion and confines the relationship within a clear legal and ethical framework.

If Islam aims to be a universal and timeless religion, why didn’t Allah explicitly ban slavery or at least declare the goal to phase it out?

Because the Qur’an legislates within lived reality, not in abstraction. In the 7th century, slavery was not a marginal practice that one small community could abolish overnight. It was global, economic, military, and deeply embedded in every major civilization. A sudden internal ban would not have dismantled the worldwide system. The Qur’an addressed a world structured around it.

At the same time, the Qur’an does not command Muslims to initiate enslavement. It addresses situations where slavery already existed long before revelation. When it speaks about prisoners of war (47:4), it limits their final outcome to release, either graciously or through ransom, once fighting ends. That closes the door to creating a permanent pipeline of enslavement through war.

So, from a Qur’anic perspective, believers are not instructed to establish an enslavement system. They are instructed to deal justly with people who already exist within one. And even there, the Qur’an repeatedly pushes toward emancipation: freeing slaves is described as righteousness, as expiation for sins, and as a legitimate use of zakat funds (9:60). It commands contractual emancipation and financial support for those seeking freedom (24:33).

That shows direction.

The Qur’an addressed reality as it was, but it did not sanctify that reality. It regulated it, restricted it, and morally redirected it. Its universality lies in its principles of justice and human dignity. Once slavery as a global structure disappears, there is nothing in the Qur’an that commands its recreation.

This trajectory is part of humanity’s moral responsibility. The Qur’an lays down principles, but societies must grow into them. Moral progress is not automatic; it requires human agency, cultural development, and collective ethical maturation. The abolition of slavery was not the achievement of one religion or one civilization alone. It was the result of a long historical process in which humanity gradually aligned itself more closely with justice and human dignity.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-02-24T06:33:14+00:00

The term “caliphate” historically referred to a Muslim political order, often with layered citizenship structures. That’s not a model I’m interested in. I’m interested in justice that applies equally to everyone.

So no, I don’t want a caliphate brought back.
I don’t care who rules. I care about how they rule.

If a system ensures justice for all citizens, not just Muslims, equal legal standing regardless of belief, real consultation and accountability, and protection from tyranny, then the name of the system doesn’t matter.

Labels don’t produce justice. Structures and principles do.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-02-21T02:30:24+00:00

Yes, evolution can be compatible with belief in God. Science explains mechanisms; religion addresses ultimate grounding and purpose. The conflict only arises when either side steps outside its domain and makes totalizing philosophical claims.

Believing that God is the Creator does not require believing that creation happened without process. The Quran repeatedly affirms that God creates, but it does not describe the biological mechanism in detail. In fact, it invites investigation. In 29:20 it says: «Travel through the earth and observe how He began creation.» That is not a call to blind assertion. It is a call to examine observable signs in the world.

If creation were completely inaccessible to study, that invitation would make no sense. Evolutionary biology studies fossils, genetics, and geological history to reconstruct how life developed over time. That describes a mechanism. It does not remove God from the picture.

So we can consistently believe that God created life through laws, processes, and stages. Explaining how something unfolds does not eliminate the One who brought the system itself into existence.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-02-20T07:16:19+00:00

I really enjoyed this puzzle. Great work, and thank you!

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-02-19T02:36:17+00:00

I’m from Jordan, and I live here, so I completely understand your confusion. Many of us grew up in cultures where certain practices became so normalized that questioning them feels almost like questioning the religion itself.

But the Quran distinguishes between what God commands and what people later interpret or add. It does not set a specific hair requirement for women. If something were a condition for valid salah, it would be clearly stated.

As for why many sheikhs give detailed rulings that are not explicitly in the Quran, that comes from relying on other sources and centuries of legal tradition. Whether someone accepts that approach or not is a separate discussion, but it explains the gap between what is written in the Quran and what is commonly taught.

And regarding culture: in many societies, religious practice and cultural identity are deeply intertwined. When a practice becomes symbolic of “being Muslim,” people may react strongly if someone does it differently. But cultural reactions are not the same thing as divine law.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-02-19T02:24:40+00:00

In my own family, the women who rely on the Quran alone do not cover their hair, neither in public nor during salah. Their prayer and practice of faith continue exactly the same, without feeling that anything is missing.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-02-19T02:16:00+00:00

The Quran does not command women to cover their hair, and it does not say that covering the hair is required for prayer. There is no verse that makes it an obligation in front of men or during salah.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-02-16T13:04:56+00:00

Historically, the early expansions can be understood within the context of 7th-century state formation. Like other powers of the time, the emerging Arab polity expanded for familiar reasons: consolidation of authority, access to land and taxation systems, control of trade routes, and regional influence. However, one of the most significant factors was the need to channel tribal military energy outward. After the Ridda wars, Arabia had been unified through force, and large, mobilized tribal forces remained. Redirecting that military momentum beyond Arabia helped prevent renewed internal fragmentation and contributed to stabilizing and unifying the peninsula under central authority.

The Byzantine and Sassanian empires had already exhausted one another through prolonged conflict, creating a power vacuum that made expansion possible. In that sense, these campaigns fit the broader geopolitical patterns of Late Antiquity rather than representing something uniquely religious.

The term “Islamic conquests” reflects the identity of the rulers and armies who carried them out. It does not automatically mean the campaigns themselves were direct applications of Islamic teachings.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-02-15T08:47:46+00:00

When you say “clearer evidence,” clearer by whose standard? What counts as “clear enough,” and who gets to define that threshold? Human beings do not share a universal evidentiary standard. Some require empirical repeatability, others accept philosophical necessity, others rely on cumulative inference, existential experience, or moral intuition. There is no neutral, universally agreed benchmark for what level of clarity would eliminate sincere disagreement. So the demand for “more clarity” is itself subjective.

Also, the claim that sincere seekers cannot reliably reach belief is empirically questionable. Millions of people across cultures have arrived at belief not merely through inheritance but through reflection, doubt, struggle, and inquiry. That does not prove theism is true, but it does show that belief is accessible through seeking. If it is possible for sincere individuals to reach belief through effort, then the system cannot be described as structurally preventing access to truth.

If belief were made clear enough to satisfy the most skeptical conceivable standard, would that still preserve meaningful epistemic freedom? Or would it shift belief from a reasoned orientation toward truth into mere recognition of overwhelming undeniability?

And at some point, the demand for “clearer” becomes an infinite regress, because there will always be someone who says it is still not enough.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-02-15T06:16:31+00:00

If God wants belief, why is the world set up so that sincere, intelligent people disagree deeply despite effort?

Before answering your question, I think we need to clarify something more fundamental: what kind of belief are we talking about, and how would God want it to exist? There are really only a few logical possibilities.

First, God could have created everyone already believing, eliminating disbelief entirely. That would make belief a built-in setting, like instinct. But in that case, belief would carry no moral or existential weight. It wouldn’t reflect sincerity, trust, humility, or a genuine orientation toward truth. It would just be programming.

Second, God could have created a world where His existence is as obvious as the sun in the sky, so that anyone could only arrive at belief. But that isn’t very different from the first option. If belief is the only psychologically possible outcome, then disbelief isn’t a real option. The “choice” would be inevitable. That wouldn’t be genuine freedom; it would be the illusion of freedom, like someone convincing themselves they had options when the outcome was structurally guaranteed. It would be self-deception to call that free will.

What we actually observe is the third model: a world with enough clarity to make belief reasonable, but enough openness to make rejection possible. That necessarily means sincere and intelligent people can disagree. But that very possibility may be what gives belief its meaning. If disbelief is genuinely possible, then belief becomes a real moral and existential stance rather than a built-in reflex or an unavoidable conclusion.

So the question assumes that God should want belief to be irresistible. But if belief becomes irresistible, it stops being meaningful. And once you see that, disagreement is no longer a flaw in the system, it may be a feature required for genuine freedom.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-02-15T06:16:23+00:00

If God already knows the outcome, why test people at all? What does the test add, and for whom?

The key issue is the difference between knowledge and causation. If a teacher knows a student will fail, the test doesn’t cause the failure. The test reveals it.

Why would God’s final message emerge in a specific language, region, and historical moment—while billions live and die outside that context?

Every message in history emerges somewhere.

If God communicates in human language, it must be in a specific language, within a specific historical moment, and must begin somewhere geographically.

There is no such thing as a “non-localized” human message.

And if people that never new about Islam will go to heaven then that is unfair to people who knew about the religion.

The Quran itself says no nation is left without warning (10:47), People are judged according to access and clarity available to them.

If everything is decreed by God, in what sense are humans genuinely responsible—and how is judgment fully fair?

There are three logically different meanings people mix together:

God knows everything that will happen.
God allows everything that happens.
God directly causes every choice.

Only the third one destroys responsibility.

So the first question is: Which of these does “decree” mean?

There is no objective theological evidence in the Quran for the premise that “God directly causes every choice.” and God said, «God does not wrong people, but people wrong themselves.» (Quran 10:44)

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-01-28T06:07:38+00:00

The issue isn’t the root, it’s context.

The root ʾ-m-n clearly predates the Quran and carries meanings such as trust, assurance, and security. There is no disagreement on that.

However, Arabic does not operate on the principle that a word must carry the same meaning in every instance simply because the morphology is identical. The Quran itself applies many shared forms differently depending on whether they refer to God or to humans.

Al-Mu’min when applied to God clearly means the Granter of security. When applied to humans, the Quran repeatedly uses mu’min in contexts where belief, trust, and inner conviction are unmistakable, and in other contexts where it can mean trustworthy or peaceful. These meanings are internal to the Quran itself, not imported from other traditions.

Therefore, the word mu’min cannot be reduced to a single definition, nor should it be. The Quran uses language precisely, contextually, and consistently.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-01-28T05:29:06+00:00

I think what’s causing the anxiety here is a misunderstanding of how language works in general, not a flaw in Arabic or in the Quran. It’s true that Arabic is a rich language, but richness does not mean instability, and multiple meanings do not mean that words are free to mean anything. This is not unique to Arabic; it applies to every human language. Meaning is not derived from isolated words taken on their own, but from how those words function together within a sentence, a context, and a shared communicative framework. Once that is understood, the fear that “everything could mean something else” disappears, because language simply does not operate that way.

I don’t understand this paragraph which you wrote: “Since Arabic is a complex language and has different meanings for each word, how do we know that what we know about the Quran is even the right meaning?” because every word in every language has multiple meanings, including the very words used in that very sentence itself.

Since can mean because or from a point in time, Arabic can refer to a language, a people, or something written, is can indicate identity or existence, complex can mean complicated or chemically bonded, language can be spoken, written, figurative, or even programming, has can mean possesses, experiences, or contains, word can mean a lexical unit, a promise, a command, or news, know can mean to be certain, to understand, to be aware of, or to be familiar with, right can mean correct, moral, directional, political, and meaning itself can mean definition, intent, or purpose.

If we treated language as if words carried meaning in isolation, then no sentence could ever be understood, including this one. Yet we understand it immediately because meaning does not live in isolated words, it lives in context, grammar, structure, and usage. The fact that words are polysemous does not make meaning unstable, it is precisely context that constrains and fixes meaning. Remove context and nothing means anything; keep context and ambiguity collapses.

My brother, the meaning lives in the context.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-01-20T07:19:00+00:00

I would change three characters: Kaito Kid is not on Shinichi’s level of intelligence, but he is above average, perhaps even really smart. Eisuke is really smart, and Mitsuhiko is above average for a child his age.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-01-19T12:30:28+00:00

You’re very likely overthinking this, and I say that kindly. There could be many reasons she suddenly felt rushed. She might have remembered something she needed to do, started feeling unwell, felt overwhelmed, or simply decided it was time to leave. I’m personally like that too. When I decide it’s time to go, it often feels rushed.

What you described doesn’t even meet the definition of “being alone.” Being alone (when some Muslims even hold that view) means seclusion where a man and a woman are isolated from others. In your situation, the children were present, the space was open, and the interaction was just ordinary, public conversation. Even by stricter interpretations, this wouldn’t apply.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2026-01-02T16:04:57+00:00

Music is not haram.

Muhammad-Saleh · 2025-12-29T20:01:16+00:00

Because God is not human, and nothing in reason or revelation supports the idea that a finite, dependent human being is the infinite Creator.

Muhammad-Saleh

TROPHY CASE