Teknevra

Let's be honest, there aren't many people on the liberal side of the spectrum who can compete.

Plus, if we were to translate Haqiqatjou's content and distribute it across the Muslim world, I'm pretty sure it'd be overwhelmingly well received.

I suspect Albania, Turkey etc would be the exceptions.

And death remains — death remains the sovereign power whose judgment is never overturned, the commander whose command is never disobeyed.

Death — this eternal enigma — has, of course, struck fear into the hearts of human beings since the dawn of mankind, and it will remain the greatest obsession and the chronic fear of every person until the very end.

Naturally, there is no difference here between rich and poor, learned and ignorant, master and slave, nobleman and vagabond. No — death equalizes all and terrifies all.

As death casts its shadow equally across all walks of life, so too has it summoned reflections from every corner of the human spirit. Among Muslims, three profound minds stand out in their confrontation with mortality:

• The ascetic sage, Hujjat al-Islam Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d.505 AH)

• The mystic visionary, al-Shaykh al-Akbar Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi (d. 638 AH)

• And the rational healer, the physician-philosopher Abu Bakr al-Razi (d. 313 AH)—[date approximate]

Imam al-Ghazali on the issue of Death

Let us begin with Imam al-Ghazali. He may be categorized within the ascetic current in Islamic thought — that stream which believed that the best means of purifying, disciplining, and cleansing the soul, and of course inclining it toward faith and religious commitment, lies in the constant remembrance of death.

On the matter of constantly thinking about death — and in practices such as doing anything that might remind a person of the reality of their death, like visiting graves, which of course contain lessons and reminders — Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, in this context, considered that remembering death and fearing it remain the most important factors in disciplining and training the soul.

Imam al-Ghazali believed that knowing the true nature of death and uncovering the mystery of death is impossible — one of the utmost impossibilities — because such knowledge is tied to understanding the reality of the soul, and no one knows the reality of the soul except God, or, as he says, no one knows it except its Creator.

That is to say, even the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) — as Imam al-Ghazali points out — was not given permission to speak about the soul, as stated in the well-known verse and famous story:

“And they ask you concerning the soul. Say: The soul is from the command of my Lord, and you have not been given knowledge except a little.”—Surah Al-Isra - 85

In this sense, even the Prophet was not permitted to speak on the matter, and therefore, no one can grasp the true nature of death, since it is bound to understanding the reality of the soul.

Imam al-Ghazali also believed that death is painful — but this pain, he asserted, affects the soul, not the body. While death does involve a degree of suffering, it is spiritual rather than physical.

Moreover, al-Ghazali held that death is easier for the believer than for the non-believer. The believer can come to terms with the idea of death, since — according to religious belief — it serves as a passage to eternal bliss in paradise.

For the sinner, however, death is akin to an irrevocable judgment — an eternal sentence, like a life imprisonment with hard labor and endless torment in Hell.

Al-Ghazali also observed that the ascetic is the person most accepting of death, particularly sudden death, because they are prepared. The ascetic does not need time to repent before dying — they are already ready to meet death.

In contrast, many people fear sudden death because it deprives them of a final chance to repent — and this, al-Ghazali believed, is the main reason most people are afraid of dying.

This idea is echoed by ascetics who say the hadith as al-Ghazali quotes in The Revival of the Religious Sciences (Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn) :

"Sudden death is a relief for the believer, and a sorrow for the sinner."

In the same vein, al-Ghazali notes that death is a form of dispossession — it takes from a person what they once possessed. So, if someone owned little in this world, parting with it becomes easier.

In the end, al-Ghazali strongly emphasizes the importance of asceticism and being spiritually prepared for death.

---

Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi on the Issue of Death

While Imam al-Ghazali followed a Sufi path—a spiritual approach to faith—not all Sufis agreed with his perspective, particularly regarding the nature of death.

One such figure is the great Sufi master Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi, known as al-Shaykh al-Akbar (“The Greatest Master”) and Dhu al-Jalālah al-Ḥamrāʾ (“the Red Dignity”). Unlike al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi taught that there is no reason to fear death. In fact, he stated clearly: we should not fear death at all.

For Ibn Arabi, death does not signify destruction, annihilation, or disappearance. Rather, he described it as separation, not cessation. Only the body dies—the soul, he believed, continues to live eternally after parting from the body.

He once "wrote in Fusus al-Hikam/The Bezels of Wisdom" [18]: A Chapter of Psychological Wisdom in the Word of Yunus

"And it is God (al-Ḥaqq) who undertakes the dismantling of this present form—what is called 'death'—but it is not annihilation; rather, it is separation. He takes the person to Himself. And the only thing truly meant by death is that God takes the person to Himself: 'To Him all matters return.'

When He takes the person to Himself, He constructs for him a new vehicle (body), unlike this one, from the substance of the abode to which he is transferred—an abode of permanence, because of its equilibrium. In that form, he will never die—meaning, its parts will never be separated."

In other words, while the physical body perishes, the spiritual or intelligible form persists.

Building on this view, Ibn Arabi asserted that in the afterlife, God grants each person a new body—not a physical body, but one suited to the nature of the next world. This new form, he said, will not suffer from weakness, decay, or dissolution.

Thus, in his view, there is no cause to fear death—not only for the believer or ascetic, as emphasized by figures like al-Ghazali, but for all people. Ibn Arabi offered a universal message of comfort: death is not an end, but a transformation.

This hope was grounded in his deep belief in the mercy and kindness of God. From this perspective, he even argued that the fire of Hell itself would, one day, be transformed by divine mercy.

Ibn Arabi did not necessarily mean that Hell would be extinguished altogether. Rather, he proposed that its fire would become cool and peaceful for its inhabitants—just as it did for the Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him), when he was cast into the flames and emerged unharmed.

Through God's mercy, even Hell, he suggested, would be a place of divine presence—not eternal punishment.

In this way, Ibn Arabi’s reflections on death are not a warning, but a message of hope. A kind of good news.

Abu Bakr al-Razi on the issue of Death

Finally, we come to the great philosopher and physician, one of the leading figures of Islamic civilization: Abu Bakr al-Razi.

Al-Razi, in fact, in his "Philosophical Letters" did not agree with either views by al-Ghazali or Ibn Arabi.

First, he criticized the views of the ascetics that was similar to al-Ghazali— who believed that fear of death is essential for moral and spiritual training. In contrast, al-Razi believed the opposite: that overcoming the fear of death is the best way to develop and refine the soul and character.

Second, as a physician, al-Razi naturally leaned toward logical reasoning and evidence. He used concepts like pleasure and pain as a way to judge between life and death.

He defined pleasure as the absence of pain. Based on this definition, he argued that death is actually better for a person than life — because in death, there is no pain.

According to al-Razi, life is full of pain, hardship, and suffering — even though it also includes some pleasure.

In contrast, death contains nothing — no pain, no pleasure, no feeling at all.

So, while life is a mixture of both pain and pleasure, death is completely free from pain or any sensation.

From this, al-Razi reached a logical conclusion: that something completely free of pain is better than something that includes both pain and pleasure.

Through this kind of rational argument, al-Razi believed that death is not painful, and that a person feels nothing after dying — no pleasure, no pain — because death is total extinction and absence.

---

Conclusion

In the end of everything that has been said so far, is what emerges from these three perspectives is not merely a divergence of theological views but a profound philosophical triad. Each thinker offers a unique and compelling response to the most universal of human concerns – the confrontation with death.

Al-Ghazali, the ascetic, presents death as a spiritual trial. Its mystery, for him, should inspire humility, repentance, and moral discipline. The key to facing death, he teaches, lies in being prepared – not through fear alone, but through a life steeped in ethical awareness and detachment from worldly distractions.

Ibn Arabi, the mystic, invites us to see death not as an end but as a divine unveiling. It is a transformation, not an annihilation. For him, death is neither curse nor punishment, but a gateway into a deeper reality. His view is rooted in an unwavering trust in God’s mercy, where even Hell may eventually become a place of divine presence rather than torment.

Al-Razi, the rationalist, strips death of metaphysical speculation. He challenges both religious fear and mystical hope by proposing a naturalist approach. Death, in his view, is the absence of pain, sensation, and self. Because there is nothing left to suffer, death should not be feared – it is a return to nothingness, and thus a form of peace and a release from all suffering.

Together, these perspectives form a rich philosophical landscape. Al-Ghazali compels us to prepare, Ibn Arabi asks us to trust, and al-Razi teaches us to accept. They do not converge in doctrine, but they converge in purpose – to make sense of death, and through that, to make sense of life.

In the end, the final power of their reflections lies not only in their differences but in their shared insistence that how we think about death profoundly shapes how we live.

Let’s be real, slavery has been around forever, way before Islam. Every civilization practiced it: Romans, Greeks, Persians, Africans, Indians, Chinese, Europeans—you name it. It wasn’t some rare exception, it was how the world worked for thousands of years.

So why did slavery even start? Simple: power, war, and economics. Tribes and nations that conquered others didn’t just walk away—they took people. Captives were turned into slaves, used for labor, sold in markets, or used as leverage. In most ancient societies, slaves were the backbone of the economy. They worked the fields, built cities, raised the homes of kings, and even fought wars. And if you couldn’t pay your debts, you could be enslaved too.

It was also a status symbol. The more slaves someone had, the more important they looked. This wasn’t unique to Arabia. Even philosophers and priests in ancient Greece and India owned slaves. So yeah, slavery was embedded deep into every society—socially, economically, and politically.

So when someone says “Islam allowed slavery,” they’re ignoring a massive historical fact: Islam didn’t create slavery, it walked into a world already running on it. And expecting 7th-century Arabia to suddenly abolish it, while the rest of the world wouldn’t do that for over a thousand more years, makes zero sense.

⸻

Why Didn’t Islam Ban Slavery on Day One?

Because the world wasn’t ready. Back then, slaves weren’t just servants, they were the workforce. If Islam had abolished slavery overnight, millions of people—including the slaves themselves—would’ve been thrown into chaos with no income, no social safety nets, and no infrastructure to survive. Islam took a realistic, long-term approach: regulate first, then reform, then eliminate.

Also, let’s be honest, no other religion banned slavery in its scripture either. Not Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism—you name it. So expecting Islam to do something completely revolutionary in an era when humanity wasn’t ready is just applying double standards.

⸻

Islam Encouraged Freeing Slaves, Not Owning Them

There isn’t a single verse or hadith that tells Muslims, “Go buy slaves.” Instead, the Quran and Sunnah are filled with reminders to free slaves, treat them like family, and respect their dignity.

“But he has not attempted the uphill path. And what will make you know what the uphill path is? It is the freeing of a slave.” (Qur’an 90:11–13)

Muslims were even told to educate their slaves, feed and clothe them the same way they did themselves, and give them the option of working to earn their freedom. That’s not something you do for someone you consider “property.”

⸻

The Claim About Sex Slaves is a Total Misread

People love pulling out verses like 4:24 and saying, “Look, Islam allows rape of slaves.” But those verses talk about permitted sexual relationships, not abuse.

The Quran mentions “wives and those whom your right hands possess” in the same breath, putting both under a lawful category of intimacy. That doesn’t mean forced sex is okay. In fact, Islam forbids forcing anyone, even your own wife.

The Prophet ﷺ said: “Do not force your women (wives) to have intercourse. That is not appropriate in Islam.” (Ibn Majah 1920 – Sahih)

If that’s the standard with wives, why would it be any different with slave women? Consent matters in both cases.

⸻

Captured Women Were Protected, Not Abused

Another common myth is that Muslims raided villages, killed men, and took women as sex slaves. That’s not how Islamic warfare worked.

Captured women were only taken from the battlefield, meaning they were active participants or supporters in war. Not innocent bystanders.

Islam gave those women shelter, food, protection, and the chance to be freed or even married. The Prophet ﷺ himself married two such women, Safiyyah and Juwayriyyah, after freeing them. They weren’t kept as “sex objects”—they became respected wives.

⸻

Old Tafsir Isn’t Divine Revelation

A lot of critics throw in ancient Islamic commentaries to justify slavery or mistreatment of captives. But tafsirs are not the Quran. They’re interpretations by scholars from specific times and places, and many of them were written when slavery was still globally accepted.

Islam didn’t freeze in the 9th century. The core ethics of the Quran always aimed to lift people out of oppression. If a tafsir goes against that, maybe it reflects the scholar’s era, not the eternal message of Islam.

⸻

Islam Treated Rape as a Capital Crime

Let’s make this crystal clear: rape is a major crime in Islam, regardless of who the victim is.

A man once raped a woman during the Prophet’s time. The Prophet ﷺ had him executed, and declared the woman innocent. (Abu Dawood 4379 – Sahih)

That’s the ruling. Death. So if rape results in execution, how could Islam possibly allow it in the case of slaves? It can’t. And it didn’t.

⸻

The Bottom Line

Islam didn’t promote slavery, it walked into a world that ran on it. But instead of accepting it blindly, Islam: • Never told believers to acquire slaves • Pushed for gradual freedom and reintegration of slaves into society • Ordered kind treatment, education, and marriage for slaves • Forbade forced sex, even in marriage • Punished rape harshly, regardless of the victim’s status • Encouraged emancipation as a spiritual virtue

So no, Islam didn’t allow rape. And no, it didn’t glorify slavery either. It regulated a broken system, cleaned it up, and started pushing humanity toward a more ethical direction—long before the rest of the world followed.

People quoting verses without understanding context, ethics, or legal rulings are just twisting things to fit their agenda. Read the full picture, not just one line.

In Islam, some will say absolutely NO physical contact between the opposite genders, others will differ.

There’s obviously a-lot of nuance to this. But in all honesty….from my own experience, the whole “No physical touch rule” or just depending on where you are, getting eyes JUST for being next to the opposite gender is so hurtful.

There are people that will even say someone can’t even have genuine conversations or comforting conversations with the opposite gender.

So many people, on the internet just see’s this, especially Muslims, and actually thinks it’s good.

It’s hard to learn about Islam in a fun way, and let’s be real.

What child is actually paying attention to their Huzur, speak in one of the most boring ways, sit and more, for a long time, when they just want to go home and do their thing.

It’s honestly one of the reasons why me, and I promise SO MANY others have a better time learning about religions like Christianity.

Male or Female, those creators actually make it genuinely interesting to listen to, and isn’t CONSTANTLY getting whiplash for even adding even a hint of sarcasm or giving questions about their bible and events, and characters.

Their comment section isn’t constantly about gender or this and that.

It really hurts, especially as someone with many non-maharams cousins to friends that I could not imagine losing.

And seriously, with all that emphasis on Zina people do, they make it sound like no one has self-control.

That in NO situations a woman can’t defend herself.

Like sure, probably might not have a weapon or is that physically strong.

But like, if they have a gun, knife, pepper-spray, or whatever, or is just muscular and a brain, and because this is the 21st century, it’s going to be a different situation then what it might have been in the 7th century.

Even more, people act like men literally can’t control themselves, saying women need to cover up. But I honestly beg to differ, people in the West specifically?

I’ve went to beaches with half-naked women, and unless I’m looking real closely, everyone is just minding their business, used to this.

Can you guys and gals give your own worries or opinions?

This is unbelievable!

Are we supposed to ask shopkeepers and supermarket owners "Where is Allah?", before buying stuff from them?

It definitely explains why so many "Islamic states" like Afghanistan have failed whereas non-Islamic states such as Singapore have succeeded, due to the will of Allah.

"And Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change themselves. (Quran 13:11)

Key phrase here is:

"Unless it was CLEARLY found in the Book of Allah without needing to be EXPLAINED"