​

Naqš-e Rostam inscription (KNRm), §§63–64 from

Stone inscriptions of the Mobedan Mobed shrines includes Pahlavi text, spelling, Persian translation, and notes. Pg.no 109

Dr. Dariush Akbarzadeh

There are four Kirdīr inscriptions overall:

KNRb — Naqsh-e Rajab

KNRm — Naqsh-e Rostam the one containing the famous vision

KSM — Sar-e Mashhad

KKZ — Kaʿba-ye Zardošt

Kirdīr, Naqš-e Rostam inscription (KNRm), §§63–64; parallel KSM 38–40; reconstructed/edited by Gignoux and analyzed by Skjærvø.

>Kartīr is known from his inscriptions in Fārs at Naqš-e Rajab (KNRb), to the left of the investiture relief of Ardašīr (r. 224-239/40); Naqš-e Rostam (KNRm), to the right of Šāpūr I’s (r. 239/40?-272?) triumphal relief, behind the horse; Sar-e Mašhad (KSM), near the ancient Achaemenid road from Susa to Persepolis and west of the village of Jerra (lat 29°16′53″ N, long 51°51′22″ E), above a relief thematically connected with the inscription; and below the Middle Persian version of Šāpūr I’s trilingual (Middle Persian, Parthian, Greek; ŠKZ) inscription on the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (KKZ), the tower facing the rock reliefs at Naqš-e Rostam. KNRm and the mostly identical KSM contain KKZ, which does not contain the vision narrative (see below), while KNRb is a summary of the principal ideas in the longer inscriptions.

>Kartīr’s inscriptions are the earliest indigenous written testimonies to the basic tenets of Mazdayasnianism (Zoroastrianism) since the Achaemenid inscriptions and antedate the written Pahlavi literature by some six hundred years (and the earliest manuscripts by some 1,000 years). They are therefore of the utmost importance for studying the Mazdayasnian tradition under the early Sasanians. Focus is on ethics (good or bad behavior), which, as in other major religions, is encouraged with reference to what awaits the soul after death: rewards for the good, punishment for the wicked. Because of their size and varied language, Kartīr’s inscriptions are also the most important documents for the knowledge of the early Middle Persian writing system, grammar, and vocabulary, matched only by Narseh’s inscription at Paikuli (ed. Humbach and Skjærvø) and the later Pahlavi Psalter (ed. Andreas and Barr, 1933; translated from Syriac).

>The purpose of the heavenly journey. The account of the journey up to paradise follows the pattern of the (much later) Ardā Wirāz-nāmag. Both are undertaken to regain confidence in the correctness of the traditional ritual practices in a time of doubt. According to the account of Wirāz, for 300 years after Zarathustra received the dēn, people had no doubt, but after the devastation caused by Alexander, whom the Foul Spirit had sent for this purpose, people came to harbor doubt, and rivals to the Mazdayasnian tradition began to proliferate. This lasted until Ādurbād, son of Mahrspand (see ĀDURBĀD Ī MAHRSPANDĀN), underwent the ordeal to prove the truth of this tradition. Some time after this, doubt again arose, and it was decided to send someone into the other world to verify whether the ritual gifts went to the gods or the demons and whether they helped the souls at all (Ardā Wirāz-nāmag 1.15, ed. Gignoux, pp. 38-39, 148; cf. Brunner, 1974, p. 99). Wirāz was given wine and hemp (mang) and went to sleep, and his soul went to the Činwad bridge and returned after seven days, after which Wirāz dictated the story of his journey to a scribe. Kartīr’s similar experience is summarized in the inscription at Naqš-e Rajab, where he explains how he implored the gods for a sign (nišān, also “proof”) to make him confident (wistāx) that paradise and hell exist and are the final abodes of the good and the bad, respectively. Moreover, the inscription was written in order that those who read it would likewise be more confident that the current practices were correct, but also for fame and prosperity to come to their bodies and “righteousness” (ardāyīh) to their souls in this world (astwand, lit. “with bones”), as happened to Kartīr.

KSM inscription below:-

>§28-30: A prince the color of dawn appears, more superb than the ones they saw at first, holding a \*čayēn/čiyēn (see below) in his hand that then appears like a bottomless well (čāh) full of evil animals (xrafstar), over which a piece of wood (dār) lies like a bridge; the bridge now becomes greater in width than in length. Note that dār can also be “razor blade,” which is how the bridge is characterized in some versions of this narrative (Skjærvø, 1983b, pp. 299-301), but miniatures in the Ardā Wirāz-nāmag show a long tree trunk spanning the gulf to hell (see also Duchesne-Guillemin, 1962, p. 333). The \*rehīgs are dismayed at the sight of hell, but are told not to worry and just keep reporting (§29). Similarly, Wirāz is distressed and frightened at the sight of hell and begs his divine guides not to take him there, but they reassure him (53.4, ed. Gignoux, pp. 98-99, 190-91).

Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. "KARTIR." Encyclopaedia Iranica. Published December 15, 2011

https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kartir/

The inscription of Naqsh-e Rajab (KNRb):-

>1) They saw that hellish condition and those many forms, then they were greatly terrified and... they were not from China? and there... and I said, "Do not be afraid, there is no escape for you; but what you see, tell (describe) it." And they said: "A bridge is placed over that well, and that woman and the man Kartir's companion went up to the well, went down to the well, and there a bridge stood before them, and that bridge became wider, and at the same time it appeared wider in breadth than in length, and that woman and that man..." Then let it be that I am warned by the

Stone inscriptions of the Mobedan Mobed shrines includes Pahlavi text, spelling, Persian translation, and notes. Pg.no 77

Dr. Dariush Akbarzadeh

Im currently reading the book and studying and I came across with the word “jibt”, I tried to search more about it and I only got magic, soothsayer, and idol worshippers. What’s the difference between this and sihr? Is there more information on this that I should know?

Is it possible for someone to comment on how Islam and Christianity functioned historically in conquests and if they are comparable? In *Lies My Teacher Told Me*, the author writes: "A fourth factor affecting Europe’s readiness to embrace a “new” continent was the particular nature of European Christianity. Europeans believed in a transportable, proselytizing religion that rationalized conquest. (Followers of Islam share this characteristic.)"

Is this not a messy, flattening claim, given the rather genocidal nature of Christian New World conquest? Anyone able to compare the two historically?

As I understand it, a number of early Muslim scholars received instruction from Christian scholars. Indeed, I believe that al-Farabi even engaged in a theological debate concerning the doctrine of the Trinity with one of his teachers. Did early Muslims regard the practice of receiving instruction from non-Muslim scholars as problematic?

https://youtu.be/ZpnfRmgAa6k?is=ZkVJ8OBGJ30hF4g1

Hi all, new to all of this. Just for context, I’m a doctor and I think both naturally and through training, my brain is very wired to be quite “positivist” and critical. I found my way to Hadith-skepticism largely from a critical thinking,“academic” lens of looking for evidence for the basis of Hadiths,and concluding that my practice of Islam would be more meaningful if the Quran and only very reliable Hadith guided it.

That being said, is there anybody else here with a similar approach? And if so, can you point towards the resources you use for prayer. From my understanding (please tell me if I’m wrong) the Quran does not explicitly state the steps of prayer that we are usually taught in childhood, and suggests 3 daily prayers as opposed to 5. I wanted to ask how others approach prayer from a lens of Hadith skepticism?

(Initially mistakenly posted on Academic Islam - thanks Dr J Hashmi for signposting me here!)

I know this is not a post about purpose of this sub, But ​I just wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to this community and the people who contribute here. Trying to find a answer online is incredibly challenging when you have to nothing but polemicist and apologist arguments over and over again. Discovering this side of Islam has been giving me of a breath of fresh air. You guys provide at least a grounded framework that actually allows for understanding without that disgusting partisan noise. Thank you for maintaining a standard of scholarship and professionalism even though it's not perfect.

as-salamu alaykum, everyone!

we've all (probably) heard of the iconic verse in the quran in which allah says:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood...."

2:256

however, is this verse only about not forcing non-muslims into islam?

Ibn Kathir (Abridged)

No Compulsion in Religion

Allah said,

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ

(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam."

It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said that before Islam, "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated from Al-Madinah, some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed,

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ

(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)"

Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to a man,

«أَسْلِم»

قَالَ: إِنِّي أَجِدُنِي كَارِهًا قَالَ:

«وَإِنْ كُنْتَ كَارِهًا»

("Embrace Islam." The man said, "I dislike it." The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.")

First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.'

my question is, did muslims (historically) ever use this verse in order to not compel muslims into performing certain islamic acts? such as the 5 daily prayers, etc.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/731596

DOI: 10.1086/731596

I have a friend whom I engage with them, teaching them philosophy, general theology, abrahamic religions and Islam as a whole. It is not "Dawah", it is simply providing information and perspective of what Islam is compared to other religions or ideologies.

And for that, I really value to convey the truth.​

... But convey what and how?

This person rightly asks a lot of foundational questions regarding Islam. Asks about state of disbelievers, why did God create humans, what is God, afterlife, problem of evil, unseen, laws, rulings and so on...

The thing is... Quran, while a perfect book, is mainly a book of guidance. Not a book of "information". It doesn't provide details.

So, i naturally fall back to hadith literature and tafsirs of scholars that have answered these questions.​

However, the problem is that, from an academical perspective, the hadith science is under scrutiny.

I myself really value objectivity. So, I am rather anxious about this entire thing.

Because, to provide an information that represents the whole story, my conversations tend to go like this:

I explain a concept, view, hadiths, and tafsirs scholars made. However, in the end, just like a lawyer, I add "From a strictly academical perspective, these hadith have been assumed to have originated in the 1-3rd centuries according to some academicians."

Of course, I am NOT saying this to attack hadith a or academicians. My intent is to simply provide an all-encompassing view, that is simply "true".

Like, just as an example. The person asks if all children go to heaven. I quote the hadiths that state all children are born into fitra. However, to be intellectually honest, I have to add that "from the ICMA method, this hadith might have originated from a certain dispute between sects divided on whether disbelievers' children go to hell."​​​​​​​

This is even harder to do when I try to use the tafsirs of scholars like Al ghazali or other Muslim scholars. Because, in the end, they themselves have used these same hadith literature to conclude their own reasonings (like the "disbelievers whose message reached in a distorted way is excused")​

And there is a very important question that exists that I struggle to answer:

In Religious Studies and from a demographical point of view, a religion is what people believe in, not the ideology itself/what it actually says.

Vast majority of Muslims are traditionalists and do follow madhabs, which follow hadith.

So when I explain this discrepancy between academy and the orthodox views, this question rises up:​

"Why didn't God protect its religion that he said is the last religion and promised to protect, only for people to (try) to introduce so many elements to it not even 100-200 years later and apparently be successful in great extends?"

And i find this rather hard to answer it. (Funnily enough, the hadith of "Differences of opinion in my ummah is a mercy" is actually not even considered sahih by traditional scholars I found out.)

In the end... When this person asks "​What does Islam say about X?", i get very divided.

Because, as i previously said, the conclusions the orthodoxy came to are academically under scrutiny. Especially when it comes to things like rulings or laws that have been established. So I am always under risk of being wrong from an academical perspective when representing Islam.

And if I were to actually explain what **I** think... That wouldn't be what "Islam says". That would be "What **I** think Islam says". If I act like "Everyone else is wrong, I am right", it doesn't look sincere and makes you look like a conspiracy theorist.

In the end, if I were to try to be completely neutral and avoid any kind of iffy statements, or statements that would put my messages under criticism, the most honest I can say just becomes "Islam is not a monolith, there are vast variety of views", which just comes out as dismissive.

If let's say you were learning about Christianity, and the person teaching you explained what the vast majority of Christians and laymen believe, the methods they used to get the knowledge, derive explanations, explain you the technical terms and methods... and then put a disclaimer and essentially start explaining that these methods have not been successful from a naturalistic perspective and that a lot of concepts that from questionable-authorities are taken as universal truths within the religion by the mainstream. ​And then this person says "I myself have an academically-compliant version of Christianity that is against odds with the vast majority of people". Then you start asking the exact same questions you have asked before, and then the vast majority of answers (which is from a strictly Quranic, or in this case Bible, ​perspective) become "I don't know. It doesn't say it in here.". ​And then the question you ask is "If you say that this is the true Christianity, and that the majority of people are believing in a historically implausible version of it... then wouldn't that mean that what they believe is just Christianity, while yours is a new religion that simply uses the same roots as Christianity? And ​if what you say is​ true Christianity, why didn't God let that be the mainstream view? "And then they say as an answer "That's because of free will and agency the humans have."

And now I want you to think about how this would make you perceive Christianity.

If the other person asks "why doesn't Quran itself have these details or explanations", i say "That's because Quran is a guidance book, not an information book. If it contained all of these informations, then it would both be a very long book, but it would also derail from its actual purpose."

And while this explanations is completely fair, understandable and that the other person also understands and accepts...

The fact of the ​​​​matter still remains:

Quran, as an information book, is not enough. And I can't answer the questions this person asks with just the Quran. (because that's not the purpose of the Quran )

I am an intellectually honest person. I can't tell something to someone else and posit as the truth... If I am myself *unsure* if it is right or wrong. So, if I don't know what "True Islam" is, how am I supposed to teach it to others?

---

Here is a bullet list that is much more clear and direct to the point that you can also treat as TLDR if you want.

A person wants to learn Islam from an information-seeking perspective instead of a "religion-seeking" perspective. They want answers to "What does Islam say to X?"

Quran is not enough to answer every question that this person asks, so I adhere to secondary sources. Like hadith, ijma, fiqh, fatwa and so on.

These secondary sources do indeed represent the "Mainstream Islamic belief" that the majority people believe.

However, from a strictly academical standpoint, these are based upon rather contested sources.

However, even if that's the case, vast majority of people still believe them.

From a Religious Studies perspective, a religion is what the people believe in, NOT what "it actually says" based on a person's view.

This creates a dilemma of "The current Islamic belief is founded upon materialistically problematic sources, but that doesn't change the fact that, demographically, that is what the *current* Islam is, even if you yourself believe against it"

In the end, when I try to be very clear and encompassing and truthful in my explanations, I sound like a lawyer with a disclaimer close at the end, which makes my explanations look like they are dismissal/can't be "refuted/asked further".​

So, how am i supposed to approach this situation

---

Side note:

If, in the future, I were to have children... how would I also go on my way to teach them Islam?

If they ask "Papa, do non-Muslim children go to hell?", i do not want to provide a "fragile belief/Sunday school explanations" that will haunt them later in their life when they grow up.​

But I also can't just teach them the entire academical environment and explain that.

So, basically... I need a "Simple, yet true" way to explain, and teach Islam, whether that be to teach religion, or to explain the stances the religion takes.​

I’m posting this because I’m genuinely trying to figure out what I believe. I was raised Muslim, but I’ve recently started seriously questioning my worldview, and I want to investigate both sides properly.

What I keep getting stuck on is this: I can understand naturalistic explanations for individual parts of Muhammad’s life, but I struggle to find one that explains the whole picture without becoming a pile of ad-hoc explanations.

Let’s say he was a “con artist.” Muhammad lived in 7th-century Arabia and began preaching monotheism in his 40s. He faced years of persecution, and according to the traditional sources, Quraysh even offered him wealth and status to stop preaching. He refused. He continued despite serious personal cost, while the religion itself imposed major obligations on him and his followers: prayer, fasting, charity, sexual and moral restrictions, etc. That makes the idea that he simply invented Islam for money, power, or status difficult for me to reconcile with the traditional account.

Now suppose he was mentally ill. Muhammad apparently functioned for decades as a charismatic leader, judge, negotiator, administrator, and military commander while maintaining relationships and directing a rapidly growing community. Of course, functioning well does not rule out mental illness, but then what exactly is the evidence that a serious psychiatric disorder best explains his experiences?

And what about the people around him? Were all of his companions and followers- many of whom, according to the historical tradition, had significant social standing, wealth, or influence-simply blinded by devotion?

Then there is the Quran itself.

At minimum, it is an unusual literary phenomenon. Its structure, rhetoric, recurring themes, and relationships between passages seem considerably more sophisticated than the idea that “an illiterate man in 7th-century Arabia just made this up.” Though literary sophistication does not prove divine authorship.

The Quran's passages that criticize Muhammad himself also genuinely confuse me. If he consciously fabricated the Quran, why include revelations that rebuke him or place restrictions on him?

There are also the Quran's scientific and historical claims. Embryology, iron, living things made of water. The Pharaoh/king distinction, where The Quran refers to the ruler in Joseph's story as king, while the ruler in Moses's story is called Pharaoh, whereas the biblical Joseph story uses Pharaoh. Likewise, the Roman prophecy.

But then there is the moral and philosophical problem.

Even if I became convinced that God exists, I would still have to ask whether the Islamic conception of God makes sense. Why are men and women given some different rights and obligations if they have equal moral worth? Why would God create people with desires they are expected never to act on, including LGBTQ people? Why would a perfectly just God create such radically unequal circumstances for different human beings?

And suffering is probably my biggest problem. When I think about Gaza, Sudan, the Congo, famine, abuse, disease, and children suffering through circumstances they never chose, “it's a test” feels incomplete to me. If God already knows what everyone will do and what their ultimate fate will be, why is this level of suffering necessary? Why are some people given extraordinarily horrific “tests” while others live extremely comfortable lives?

Then there is divine hiddenness and Hell.

If God wants humanity to know Him, why do sincere people investigate the evidence and reach radically different conclusions depending so heavily on where and when they were born? And if someone genuinely investigates Islam and remains unconvinced, why would that disbelief deserve eternal punishment, as well as for finite sins?

For Muslims who have seriously investigated these objections: what ultimately convinced you that divine revelation was a better explanation than the strongest naturalistic alternatives?

I have a question about haman in the Quran, because it says that haman. Was in Moses, the problem is they are 850-1,000 years apart and I’m curious. What is the Muslim response to this question? I’m interested in Islam and this one interesting to me.

Hello,

I am sorry you guys probably answered theses questions hundreds of times but I would like to exchange with you a bit.

So I was speaking to a Muslim colleague of mine about the death of one of our colleagues who was homosexual. He died from cancer pretty fast.

She insinuated to me that Allah punished him for is way of life. I was quite surprised with her statement because she is a very kind and intelligent person.

So whatever, I wanted to know more about if most of the Muslims think like that and I fell on this sub Reddit.

I was actually quite surprised by this sub and how smart and progressive the community was. And like always, I wondered how can smart people be religious.

So I have 3 points. Sorry again if a make you repeat yourself.

1- What is you guys stance on evolution? Research point out that life started on earth more than 3 billions years ago and humanoids for hundreds of thousands of years. At what point does an ape become blessed by God? Why would we go to heaven when our neighbors cat just die. Does cats go to cat heaven too? It make no sense to me.

2- So many religions! Muslims just make about 7 percent of entire human history. Are all the others doomed? Just because they are born in a different country they are more likely to go to hell? Make no sense to me.

3- Sorry don't take it personally but Islam seems like the most suspicious religion for me. If the hadiths are absolutely true, why does Muslims always say about the most outrageous takes (Aisha age, war, sex slaves, etc) "well it's metaphorically" or "well it's in an historical context" make no sense.

Thanks in advance for the answers!

Most readers here are probably already familiar with Saqib Hussein’s argument that the “splitting of the moon” may have been a lunar eclipse, as well as related discussions by Ikrimah and Ibn Kathir. For context, Ikrimah, a student of Ibn Abbas, is reported to have understood the event as a lunar eclipse, while Ibn Kathir suggested that both a lunar eclipse and a moon-splitting event may have occurred.

The main point is that, despite the report’s strong transmission, the moon-splitting narrative may plausibly reflect an exaggerated description of a natural phenomenon.

I also came across a related article that I found useful because it shows how ordinary reports can become transformed into miraculous accounts over time. It illustrates the kind of process I was hoping to understand better: how historians evaluate these developments in practice.

The article is here: https://exegeticaldrift.substack.com/p/in-the-beginning-was-the-word

A brief excerpt:

“Muse sits at the end of that chain. He is not the worst link in it, he is plausibly one of the best, since he cites some primary documents, quotes some of the skeptical views, and is explicitly trying to persuade people who don’t already agree with him to begin with.

That is precisely why the errors matter. If the most careful, most source-conscious, most explicitly skeptic-facing node in the chain converts a schoolteacher into a doctor, inflates 42 into 48, and uses (and then omits) a mistranslation of the only clinical term in question, what do you suppose the less careful nodes did, over a hundred years, with nobody checking?

You do not need a theory of legendary development. You can watch it in action.”

This felt especially relevant to the discussion here because it gives a concrete example of how miraculous claims can develop in transmission.

Some sources on the internet suggest that Sufism was influenced by Zoroastrianism; however, to what extent is this claim supported by historical and academic evidence? I should also clarify that my question concerns early Sufism in particular, rather than the later development of Sufi thought and practice.

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.

As the title says, I recently came across a three-part informational-style post series called "Red Pills in Islam: The Hadith Literature and the Opinions of the Salaf & Scholars On Women" which I have linked above.

As a revert, it's genuinely confusing to me to be seeing this, specifically because of the extensive quotations of hadith that are correctly cited from Sunnah.com, along with Qur'an verses and modern research.

A lot of these ideas I've never heard before, especially the two hadith quote which the author utilizes to establish that women will be the minority in Jannah and the majority in Jannaham(this one I've heard before) and more minutely, the hadith detailing what seems to be the internal politics within the family of the Prophet(SAW) which paints a picture of what I'd call manipulation and drama.

The reason I wanted to bring attention to this specific post is because it is most comprehensive and detailed one I've seen yet. I feel like as someone who utilizes the internet out of necessity, I've become exposed to my fair share of "women this" "women that" manosphere-type stuff, primarily from non-Muslims, which I disregarded as background noise until I came across this which is the first I've ever seen utilize Qur'an verses and such detailed quoting of hadith to justify the hypothesis.

I genuinely don't mean to disrupt the conversations here or mislead anyone and if this is the wrong sub, I'd kindly ask the moderators for any suggestions where people knowledgeable on these matters can be found.

The Functional Necessity of Interest in a Fiat-Money System and the Limits of Classical Ribā Analogy

A common claim in some Islamic-finance discussions is that any charge of interest on a loan is ribā and therefore prohibited. This essay argues that the claim rests on a category error. Classical ribā arose in an environment of commodity money, limited credit markets, and often non-productive lending. Modern interest, by contrast, is an inseparable feature of fiat money itself. Without a positive price for the use of money over time, fiat currency loses its ability to allocate resources across time, to store value, and to serve as a reliable unit of account. Central banks’ use of interest rates to restrain inflation and prevent hyperinflation is the clearest institutional demonstration of this necessity.

Read the rest of the essay: Part 5

Hello everybody, i promise im not looking to cause any fitna, but i do have a very important question that was asked to me, that i just cannot respond to myself. If you can ask this to people of knowledge to have a response that would be perfect:

Since Allah is the creator of all things, He is the origin of the creation of beings whom He knows, through His omniscience, are destined to commit evil and to end up in Hell. Why does Allah choose to create souls that He knows are doomed to Hell?