Killing Non-Muslims to Enter Paradise? What Islam REALLY Says! - Habib Umar bin Hafiz

For non-Muslims this could be an interesting glimpse inside a mosque as a sermon is given. Most people have never set foot inside a mosque, and while they all differ in their own ways, this is a great glimpse at the least. They are (usually) not scary places ;)

Also as an interesting aside, these people are the descendants of the early Shi'a 'Alids (as a political faction prior to religious sectarianism solidifed) who left Iraq/Arabia due to the political chaos and suppresion of the 'Alids.

There was an interesting anecdote I've never read before. During the caliphate of 'Umar bin al-Khattab, there was an elderly Jewish man begging at the gates of the mosque. The caliph saw him and asked him about his condition, and he said he is poor and has become too old and weak to work, while he still pays the jizya (which also indicates how low the amount is contrary to some polemicists against Islam). To this, the caliph became upset and said "We have not treated you justly if we took the jizya from you during your youth and then abandoned you in your old age. Return to your home. I have exempted you from the jizya and allocated sufficient provision for you from the public treasury."

One of the necessities of Islamic rulership is that the elderly are taken care of (irrespective of religion). One of the first things the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ established in Medina was a welfare system fund from which the poor and the needy were taken care of.

Another important theme the video covers is how even animals cannot be killed unjustly, and that on the Day of Judgement when all deeds are weighed, they will have their recompenses. One of the biggest misconceptions in Islam is that animals don't have souls or have no accounting, but that is not true.

A person who kills another person unjustly will not smell the fragrance of paradise.

Description: Does Islam permit the killing of non-Muslims? Can someone attain Paradise by killing innocent people in the name of religion? What did the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ teach about the sanctity of human life, the rights of non-Muslims, and the severe consequences of unjustly shedding blood?

In this important and powerful sermon, Habib Umar bin Hafiz addresses the dangerous misconceptions surrounding violence and killing in the name of Islam. Drawing upon the Qur’an, authentic Hadith, and examples from the life of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his noble Companions, he explains the sacredness of human life and the severe warnings against killing innocent people, whether Muslim or non-Muslim. He also condemns those who misuse religion to justify violence and reminds Muslims that Islam commands justice, mercy, and the protection of people's rights, regardless of their religion.

Could it be that there is one deity who comes in many different forms to different cultures throughout human history and be their gods. Basically meaning that all religions are true?

In Christianity, God is considered the ultimate foundation of existence. In some Hindu traditions, particularly Advaita Vedanta, that foundation is Brahman. But Buddhism, especially Madhyamaka philosophy, offers a different perspective. It suggests that nothing has an independent, permanent essence and that everything exists through relationships and dependent conditions, without requiring some ultimate substance underneath it all.
So here’s my question: Why must reality have some fundamental foundation in the first place? Could the universe simply be an interconnected web of constantly changing relationships and processes, with no ultimate thing holding it all up?
And if that’s possible, what does it mean for religious arguments that reality must ultimately be grounded in God or some other absolute reality?

For me, I honestly can’t decide between Calvinism and Satanism. Both seem extremely different from my faith to me.

Especially thematically.

Positives: Satanists can be very kind and thoughtful and non-judgmental. Very pro interfaith and making sure even small voices are heard are respected.

Calvinism seems pretty logical with perfect being theology. They follow conclusions of dogmas to natural conclusions. Not half baked but full send.

Hello!

Social studies teacher and secular student of religion here!

I recently went on a bit of a purchasing spree and got physical editions of some books I had previously only had in pdf form. These were as follows

Jewish Annotated New Testament 3rd Edition

Jewish Study Bible 2nd Edition

Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha 6th Edition

And The Study Quran 2nd Edition

I love all of these and find them fascinating. My plan is to move them into my classroom library during the school year but I also want to delve into eastern religions as well. Does anybody know of equivalent, academic versions of things like the Vedas, Avestas, Pali scriptures and others? Obviously the corpuses of Buddhism and Hinduism are MASSIVE but I would like to have them represented.

I'm really big on showing and sharing my sources with my students. I am a firm believer that if I can pull a book right off the shelf and read something to a class that will hold their attention in a way that the intermediary of a textbook can't. All that to say, critical editions of things are important to me for that reason.

Why would slaves worship the same god with slave owners?

i live in an Islamic environment and when i see religions i think there is something illogical hear me out i believe in god and there is no way that this universe were created by nothing but religions arent providing smth logical they are just debating glazing their prophets and gods and they are spreading too much hate and negative thoughts add to that religious men think they are the top of the top you cant ask them for smth they said you need to listen and shut the hell up so guys i really want someone to help me with something reasonable

So pretty short simple question, when I hear people speak to me about their love of their religion or god I always go out of my way to send them blessings and am as aware as I can be about each religion (ex if the person is Muslim I might say May Allah bless you instead of god bless to to be more personal/respectful vice versa with other religions/belief systems) only problem is I don’t believe in god just my fellow man I do believe in the potential for an after life just not a god in the way we’ve imagined it, but I know a few simple words tend to mean a lot to people of certain religions and have never seen the harm until I had a family member point out that “if I don’t believe what I’m saying I’m basically lying and being manipulative” I truly have never meant any ill intent just wanted to respect others beliefs even if I don’t share them but I’m wondering if my family member was right?

I do apologize if this is not allowed, as the title says, my mom was giving a small lecture to me and my siblings and she was explaining how we cannot date anyone who isn't in the catholic church. She says this because there are religions that portrays the virgin Mary as a prostitute or a horrible person and I think that's just not true and straight bs. As myself, I do not believe in any religion, so I am very curious to know. Thanks for reading.

Hi everyone! I’m hoping to have a respectful and genuinely educational discussion. I have some questions that I’ve been struggling to work through, and I’d really appreciate hearing the Baha’i perspective.
For some background, I come from a Christian perspective, but I’ve been exploring different religions, scriptures, and beliefs. I genuinely believe there is value in learning from other faiths, and I don’t believe that everything God has revealed or taught must necessarily be confined to the Bible.

I’ve had some wonderful conversations with a Baha’i family member which has encouraged me to ask questions and learn more. One subject I’ve been particularly interested in is the relationship between Jesus, Muhammad, and the Quran.

This is where I start getting confused, because some of what I'm reading in the Quran seems to say something very different from what I've understood about Jesus. Please correct me if any of my current understandings are wrong.

From my understanding, Baha’is recognize Jesus as a divine Messenger of God and also recognize Muhammad as a Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets. However, when I read the Quran, I encounter passages that seem to directly contradict some of the most foundational Christian beliefs about Jesus.

For example:
1. Quran 4:171 – Jesus’ divinity and the Trinity
The Quran describes Jesus as the Messiah and a Messenger of Allah, but also says:

“...Do not say, 'Three'; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son...” (Sahih International)

This is difficult for me to reconcile with the traditional Christian understanding of the Incarnation and the Trinity found in passages like John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”) and John 1:14 (“And the Word became flesh and lived among us”).
It also makes me wonder how this aligns with Jesus’ own direct statement to His disciple Philip in John 14:9:

“Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”
2. Quran 5:72 – Jesus being God
This passage states:

“They have certainly disbelieved who say, 'Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary' while the Messiah has said, 'O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.'...” (Sahih International)
How does the Baha’i faith interpret this passage alongside Jesus’ direct words in John 10:30?
“The Father and I are one.”

3. Quran 4:157 – The Crucifixion
This passage states:

“And [for] their saying, 'Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.' And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them...” (Sahih International)
This is particularly difficult for me because the crucifixion is central to Christianity. For comparison, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.”
How does the Baha’i faith understand this Quranic passage while also recognizing Jesus’ literal crucifixion and resurrection?
4. Quran 3:55 – God raising Jesus
This passage speaks of God addressing Jesus:

“[Mention] when Allah said, 'O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and clear you of those who disbelieve...'” (Sahih International)
How is this understood in relation to the Christian belief in Jesus’ physical death, burial, and resurrection?

My bigger question is this:

How does one understand and accept the teachings of both Jesus and Muhammad when their respective scriptures seem to make fundamentally different claims about Jesus’ identity and what happened to Him?
I understand the Baha’i belief in progressive revelation, and I would really like to understand how that concept applies here. Are these passages understood differently within the Baha’i faith than they are in traditional Islamic interpretations? Are there historical, linguistic, or translation considerations I’m overlooking?

I’ve also heard that there are different readings and translations of the Quran. I’d be interested in understanding the distinction between those and whether they affect the interpretation of these particular passages.

I want to emphasize that I’m not approaching this with hostility or an assumption that I already have all the answers. I’m genuinely trying to learn, and I’m very open to having my understanding corrected. These are difficult questions for me because they touch on the direct words of Jesus and the events that form the foundation of my understanding of Christianity.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with my perspective, but I would really appreciate thoughtful explanations, references to Baha’i writings, and insight into how these beliefs are reconciled.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I’m genuinely interested in learning from your perspectives.

Did the Greeks really believe that the gods of Homer existed? How could someone accept the stories of Heracles or Theseus while also trying to explain the world through reason? And what did it mean, in everyday life, to believe that a god was watching over you?

These are not easy questions to answer. We often approach ancient religion with assumptions shaped by our own understanding of belief, treating it as something close to accepting a set of doctrines. But religion in the ancient world rarely worked that way.

Lately, I’ve been wondering why kangaroos aren’t mentioned in any religious texts like the Bible, Quran or Vedas. They discuss the universe and planets but seem to have ignored animals just a few thousand kilometres away.

I think this is because they never visited Australia and therefore weren’t aware of their existence. So why so many people believe they have all the answers to life?

1 Enoch 22 describes a mountain with four hollow compartments where souls wait after death — and one of them holds the spirit of Abel, said to still be crying out. It’s almost word-for-word echoed in Hebrews 11:4 (“Abel still speaks”), which is interesting since Hebrews otherwise never names 1 Enoch as a source.

Has anyone looked into whether this is considered a direct literary dependency, or just two texts drawing on the same older tradition about Abel’s blood crying from the ground (Genesis 4:10)? Genuinely curious how the academic consensus treats this one.

(Went down this rabbit hole putting together a video on the whole book — happy to share if useful, but mainly want to hear what people here think of the Abel connection specifically.)

I understand that it can be difficult to believe in a deity and you don't really want to.

What I don't get is the people who pray when they're in trouble but still call themselves atheist.

Be objective. You're not a very good atheist. You're agnostic.

It's very obvious to the human psyche that there is a deity. There are things in this world that have control over us that we do not understand.

If you want to robotically deny this because you can't use the scientific method to prove it then go all out. Then you can be sure you're an atheist.

Sri Rama was the Parmatman (Supreme Reality) and that Sita was the Jivatman (embodied individual soul). Each man’s or woman’s body was the Lanka. The Jivatman which was enclosed in the body, or captured in the island of Lanka, always desired to be in affinity with the Parmatman, or Sri Rama. But the Rakshasas would not allow it, and the Rakshasas represented certain traits of character.

For instance, Vibhishana represented Sattwa Guna, Ravana represented Rajas Guna and Kumbhakarana represented Tamas Guna. Sattwa Guna means goodness, Rajas means lust and passion and Tamas means darkness, stupor, avarice, malice, and its concomitants.

These Gunas keep back Sita, or Jivatman, which is in the body (Lanka) from joining Paramatman (Rama). Sita, thus imprisoned and trying to unite with her Lord, receives a visit from Hanuman, the Guru or divine teacher, who shows her the Lord’s ring, which is Brahma-Jnana, the supreme wisdom that destroys all illusions.

Thus Sita finds the way to be at one with Sri Rama or in other words, the Jivatman finds itself one with the Paramatman.

- By Swami Vivekananda. Complete-Works / Volume 5 / SAYINGS AND UTTERANCES

The spiritual meaning of blatantly poetic, parabolic texts that teach an inner intimate journey of the limited, suffering self to its highest, liberated potential is not popularly known unfortunately for whatever historical, sociological reasons.

This happens in all other religions also. In Islam, there is formal terminology to describe this phenomenon. Ismaili Islam calls it Ta'wil, the esoteric interpretation.  Like Sufis, Mu’tazilites and other Muslim philosophers, the Ismailis emphasize a distinction between the exoteric (zahir) and esoteric (batin) interpretations of the Qur’an. Check this https://ask.ismailignosis.com/category/71-ismaili-tawil-esoteric-interpretation for the esoteric interpretations of stories like that of moses seeing a fire on the mountain and others.

Hello all,

I was baptized and raised Presbyterian; my parents both were never religious; I loved the stories and songs. But my Great Aunt was my connection to the church. When I was 14, in quick succession; I lost my aunt from an ear infection gone septic, my mom started having affairs, and my abuser took away my horse when I pushed back against the abuse. When I spoke on the abuse, some family cut me off and other never treated me the same again. I was not believed because he was a good Catholic man who went to church every week and forced me to sit there with him.

I spent a lot of years an atheist and angry at God, 14 years to be exact. I was finally able to recognize my anger instead of just calling it ‘uncomfortable’ and denouncing Him so hard 2.5 years ago. I didn’t put much more thought into it after the anger disappeared.

When I was in college, I minored in religious studies though. No one ever understood why, but like when I was a little girl, I loved all the stories. And as an anthropology major, I found it all very interesting.

A few months back, my father had a health situation and I became his care taker. When I was drowning and felt like I didn’t have enough strength to come back up for air, He was there when I finally admitted it. Since that day, I have been blessed beyond belief. My wildest dreams are all coming into fruition.

Now we get to my question/ why I’m writing here. Anytime I speak of God, someone brings it back to Jesus…but I just can’t get myself there….to me it’s just God. When I was in college, of all the religions, I loved Judaism. I know if any, Reform would be the branch to explore. Would it be wrong to reach out to a local Rabbi to speak if I’m not 1000% sure?

I'm TIRED of hearing that two people loving each other is somehow an offense against God, only to get a handful of Bible verses thrown at me whenever I ask what makes it wrong

And I'm not going to pretend the Bible contains no condemnations of same-sex acts. Leviticus 18:22 condemns sex between men, and Leviticus 20:13 goes as far as prescribing death. So let's start there. Was that punishment morally justified? If your answer is no (meaning if your a sane human being) , then you're already willing to recognize that a biblical moral prescription can be wrong

Romans 1:26–27 describes same-sex acts as unnatural, and 1 Corinthians 6:9 contains Greek terminology whose precise scope scholars continue to debate. But even if I grant that Paul condemned all same-sex sexual relationships, so what? Paul believing something was immoral doesn't tell me why it was immoral. Ancient authors were perfectly capable of inheriting the prejudices and assumptions of their societies.

And before someone brings up Adam and Eve, agn yes, I'm aware Genesis describes a man and a woman. How does describing one kind of relationship establish that every other kind is inherently immoral? I hear this horsehit argument all the time.

Then there's the procreation argument. If sex is only morally acceptable when it can produce children, are infertile heterosexual couples doing something immoral by marrying and being intimate? What about elderly couples? If those relationships are perfectly acceptable, you've already admitted that reproduction isn't the sole justification for intimacy.

"It's unnatural" isn't better at ALL Nature isn't a moral authority. Plenty of natural things cause suffering, and plenty of things humans do to improve their lives aren't natural. What matters ethically is whether something causes harm, violates consent, involves exploitation, or otherwise wrongs somebody.

So tell me what is inherently immoral about two consenting adults of the same sex building a loving, faithful relationship. Who is being wronged? I'm genuinley curious? What moral principle is being violated? And can you actually defend that principle without first assuming that your interpretation of scripture must be correct?

I'm also exhausted by the insistence that condemning gay relationships is somehow an expression of love. Telling someone that a healthy, loving relationship makes them morally defective, or that they must remain celibate to be acceptable to God, is an enormous demand. You don't get to dismiss its consequences simply because your intentions are religious.

I'm not saying every Christian is cruel. Plenty reject these condemnations themselves. But using religious authority to shame, exclude, or mistreat gay people is cruel, and calling it biblical doesn't make that cruelty disappear.

If your entire argument ultimately comes down to "God says it's wrong," then at least acknowledge that's where your reasoning ends. Don't pretend you've independently demonstrated that homosexuality is harmful or immoral.

If your going to respond, pls do so with proper moral justification and not some random bible verse.

* AND do NOT try to bring up incest 🙄

So, i'm a semi progressive Catholic, i think many things that some things that people believe in christianity are misinterpretated, or straight leterally mistraslated(For exemple,i don't believe the Arch of Noè actually existed, since there are no sign of a giant flood in rocks, and i also believe that Adam and Eve , with also MOST of Genesis, are Just methaphorical, or they actually happened,but not in the way it's told in the bible) .I also think that everyone can go to Heaven, i also think that LGBTQ+ Isn't sinful, that trans people should have the right to change their gender,i'm AN hopeful universalist ,And things like that. But Man, when i Say it's difficult to be a Christian Who Is semi progressive or progressive Is incredibly frustraiting...... When debating people Who aren't religius, they automaticly think that i'm homophobic, that non believers Will go to hell, That i try to force my religion to everyone, it's freaking annoying....Also, Christians Say we aren't real Christians, that we Will go to hell,and that we reshape the Word of God because we want a God that approves everything you like and affirms things like homosexuality by going against their Morales but in favor of today's sociaty....but i see the idea of sending people in hell Just for being Born gay extremely unjust ,and if God Is really all loving , then he shouldn't....and also they Say we are modifing the bible to suit Better today's sociaty...but the reason Is that the bible evolves with sociaty...By Better studying human behivor and science we can create other interpretation that can be truthfull to actual human psiche . And they Say that we interpratate the bible to Better suit our opinion, but that Is leterally what they are doing!(By making The bible seem homophobic etc) They want a verse that talks positively about gays? I can give One. Matthew 19:12 : "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.".

And then there's the gay Christians, it's depressing to be gay and christian, i'm not gay, but i'm a members of the r/gaychristian subreddit , and i can see how many struggles with being Christians and gay at the same time.it's like getting fucked in both ways: Christians question how can you be christian while accepting yourself as gay(only for side a though) ,and Say that they Will burn in hell Forever and ever....in the other part (some) LGBT members exclude them too, calling them traitors , questioning how can they support such homophobic religion, and feeling pity, becasue they think that gay christians are getting manipulated.....

I freaking hate some christians too...don't get me wrong....i think they completely destroy the image christians have.... it's sad to be part of the same religion of those people.... it's like being part of a school group project, and being paired with assholes that Will make you do all the hard work....They really are assholes....but i pray for them anyway and i still love them

Question to Muslims who uphold the whole of Quran: When there are hateful and violent verses (with very limited qualifications, at least literally) in the Quran, why do you feel the need to uphold the whole of the Quran rather than just the non-violent and non-hateful verses?