Amina Inloes

If there are physical items involved (talismans, or that sort of thing) in your home, you can destroy them.

However, in general, unlike with Amazon, there are no returns in the department of the unseen - it is easier to do than to undo.

If whatever the person did had some effect, and wasn't just fakery, sometimes you can just wait it out as these things can wear down over time. 

If you or he are suffering ill effects (for instance, he is not thinking clearly, it has backfired and caused conflict because he is now hyper-dependent, or you have a haunted house now), you could go to someone who is honest, trustworthy, and capable who does ruqya or who can advise you on how to do it on yourselves to help remove the ill effects.

However, that might be awkward to explain to your husband and cause more problems - most people are enraged if they find out someone attempted to do magic on them.

If it is just regret, but you don't have any reason to think there is anything actually harming either of you, it may be better to leave the situation as it is and to focus on building a positive home life and also looking after both of your material and spiritual well-being (religion, health, etc). 

In general, regular recitation of Qur'an, regular salat, and playing Qur'an in the background in the home can help to calm down unwanted bad effects and bolster people against the effects of black magic. Of course, praying to Allah for assistance is good.

Sometimes in life we make decisions we regret.

Also sorry to hear about the cheating. 

Infidelity and sorcery are signs that a marriage is not at its healthiest. If there are some other underlying difficulties in the marriage, unrelated to those two issues, maybe you could look into some kind of marriage therapy or counseling.

Yes

You never really know about people. Even in the time of the Prophet (S), there were hypocrites who pretended to be Muslim. Only Allah knows what is in the heart, and only Allah knows whether people will follow through with a lifetime commitment (such as converting to a religion - or, for that matter, having a lifelong marriage).

Many of the sahabah converted instantly. So if he converts tomorrow, he could be an Abu Dharr or a Salman al-Farsi. Or he could be... someone else. One way you can glean some idea of this is with respect to how he is with commitment in life, in general. Has he followed through on other commitments, or does he tend to jump around from thing to thing? This still doesn't give you a full picture but gives you some idea. 

Also, people sometimes change throughout life anyway - there is no guarantee that the person you marry will be the same person forever. 

So, you can never know for sure, but it is good to follow your intuition and good judgment and advice from people you trust and who have wisdom. If you are having doubts, possibly your intuition is picking up on signs that your rational mind is dismissing. 

You could wait some time after he has converted (say, a couple years) before committing to the marriage to see how he does with Islam. 

That said, it is not respectful to doubt that someone is sincere about his religious belief simply because he was not born into it (unless there are some signs that the person is insincere or not thinking straight), and respect is important for marriage. So this should also be sorted out before marriage. 

It is not uncommon for women to convert at the time of marriage to a Muslim man and often they remain in the faith and become strong Muslims. Of course, the social situation and experiences of men are somewhat different, but just putting that out there. 

It is normal for there to be complex emotions in these situations. Even in narrations, it says that a woman's jealousy over her husband is due to her love for him. This is apart from other concerns, such as about the financial effect.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the reality of your emotions. In any situation, is healthier to work through things such as anger or resentment because negative emotions can eat at us, and we are the ones who will suffer. However, this takes time and there isn't an instant fix. 

Bringing another person into the picture (either in terms of a second wife, or illicitly) also changes the relationship between two spouses, and it takes time for the relationship to adjust and to find a new normal. Also, sometimes it changes our own sense of identity and the way we relate to the world, since marriage is heavily tied to identity, and so sometimes it takes time to develop a different sense of self if there is a change in marital life. 

There is a certain wisdom in accepting that we cannot control other people's decisions, and to accept that people in our lives will do things that we wish they didn't. Allah only takes us to account for our own actions and choices. 

Ethically, it is good to treat correctly the other woman in the same way one would treat correctly any other person, especially if she is a sister in faith. 

In societies which are not structured to support polygyny, such as many urban areas today, and where it is a burden for a man to be equally responsible to two separate households, second marriages often don't last anyway, especially if the second wife is getting the lesser end of the deal (for instance, supporting herself and her children financially while the first wife is a housewife). (This is especially the case when the first marriage has been established for a long time and is not ending, and there isn't a strong reason pushing the man to take an additional wife.)

When the Prophet (S) and Imam Ali (A) had multiple wives, they didn't have to commute 4 hours in bad traffic after a 10 hour work shift and pay insurance and mortgages or exorbitant rent for both families, etc. The culture also was set up in a way that acknowledged polygamy, whereas some modern cultures are not even favorable to having one wife and child-raising, let alone multiple wives. Of course, this varies tremendously from place to place. 

Sometimes second/third/fourth marriages do last, and I don't want to give you a false hope, but just putting this out there. Time shows the end result of all things. 

Different people look at a thing and take different lessons from it.

However, one could glean from their marriage that when two people are sincere, mutually self-sacrificing, pool their wealth and talents, and committed to each other and a higher cause, they can accomplish anything!

I am sure there will be some other insights as well. 

In addition to the answer previously given, another thing to consider is that although the Qur'an references certain events in the Prophet's time, it speaks in a universal manner that is accessible to any reader, regardless of their society or era. It is very difficult for a human author, especially one who is not from an area with diversity and a high level of education available, to do this.

Also, when you consider the way that the Qur'anic texts unfolds, the style of speech is not the same that a human would use when organising a book; for instance, the conception of time is more overarching, as it would be from the divine perspective. 

Some people also consider the presence of scientific or numerical miracles to be convincing evidence. 

Ultimately this is something one can also look at the text and get a sense of!

The Qur'an mentions "the heights" (a'raf) in the world of the hereafter:

"And between the two there shall be a veil, and on the heights there shall be men who know all by their marks, and they shall call out to the dwellers of the garden: Peace be on you; they shall not have yet entered it, though they hope. [...] And the dwellers of the heights shall call out to men whom they will recognize by their marks, saying: Of no avail were to you your amassing and your behaving haughtily: Are these they about whom you swore that Allah will not bestow mercy on them? Enter the garden; you shall have no fear, nor shall you grieve." (7:46, 48-49)

However, the Qur'an does not specify what "the heights" are or which men are on it. Therefore, scholars and commentators have advanced a number of viewpoints. Narrations also vary somewhat. 

In the Twelver Shi'i tradition, one of the most common views is that the men on the heights are the Prophet (S) and the Imams (A). Those who are in harmony with them many enter Paradise, but no one can enter Paradise if they are hostile to or rejected by them. 

Some commentators (Sunni and Shi'i) have also put forward the view that it is a  holding place for people who deserve neither paradise nor hell (for instance, they have equal good and bad deeds; they did not have religious responsibility due to dying young, mental illness, or never hearing the call to God), and whose judgment is delayed, so they await their final judgment there. This also appears in narrations. Some have also suggested they await the intercession of the Prophet and Imams there. 

Other views have also been advanced.

That said, the word a'raf carries the connotation of "knowing" (such as in the word 'arif used for a mystic), and it does lend the sense that the people on the a'raf might also be imbued with special knowledge and insight. The ayat also suggest they have a special form of knowledge, since they recognize people by their marks, even though many things will be made clear to all people in the hereafter. This supports the idea that the men on their heights are the Prophet and Imams; or, at least, people with a sharp spiritual knowledge.

Perhaps several of these views are correct. God knows best.

Islam is not a fashion show. Many Muslims today focus on things that are not important, and judge and criticize people for minor things while the world is burning.

Our big problems are dictatorship, economic inequity, racism, classism, consumerism, materialism, shirk through worshipping the ego or false ideologies, poverty, warfare, social breakdown, and environmental degradation. What color clothing people are wearing is not the big problem. It is allowed to wear black clothing or white clothing or any other color clothing, and it is wrong to prohibit the things that Allah has allowed. There are enough haraam things.

Their criticism is based on a sense of dislike of the other (a sort of tribalism - those people are different from us and do things different from us, so they must be wrong), and if they don't criticize this, they will find something else to criticize. This attitude is one of the defects that some human beings have - people often fear or dislike people who are different than themselves and who seem "foreign". It is one of the things that Islam should ideally remove from people, but sometimes there is still progress to be made.

Besides, in places like Saudi Arabia, it is normal for women to wear black outside, and women are half the population, so it is really a strange criticism. 

And, many people say that green was the Prophet's (S) favorite color. This is somewhat beside the point, but just putting it out there. 

Also there is no requirement in Shi'ism to wear black, it is simply a custom that has developed in many places during certain time periods. But Shi'is are religiously allowed to wear any color they want. 

If they are Americans, ask them what they do on Thanksgiving. If they are English, ask them what they eat at Christmas. And so on. Most cultures have some sort of feast where they eat some kind of meat or animal product, and oftentimes those feasts are associated with religious commemorations.

(Apart from the vegetarians of course!)

Usually people see their own cultural practices as normal and other religious or cultural practices as cruel. 

It is not the people who are suffering from malnutrition or poverty who are saying that it is cruel to sacrifice an animal and share the meat with people who are deprived. The sacrifice is not just to kill the animal and destroy it for the sake of killing or feeding an idol, but rather it is intended to go to good use.

As the Qur'an says, it is not the flesh or the blood of the animal that reaches Allah, but rather it is the piety. In the book 'Ilal al-Shara'i', it is also related that the Prophet (S) said: "This sacrificial offering of the slaughter animal has indeed been established [as part of the pilgrimage rituals] so that your poor may be able to partake of meat, so feed them [with it]."

And, are the people who are criticizing this eating meat? If they are, there is no more discussion to be had. Even if they don't meat, do they have access to a variety of food or nutritional supplements so that they don't suffer from not eating animal products?

Perhaps if the people who are criticizing this spend a year in a situation where they have very limited types of food and are in need of basic protein and nutrition, they would appreciate the gift of meat more. (Especially currently as the world is facing food shortages.)

Similarly, before modern methods of food production, storage, and transportation, which allows for a variety of food, many people relied on having some meat to get proper nutrition, and this was not considered cruel. 

However, it is of course good to look after matters such as the kind treatment of animals, human and sensitive slaughter, and not wasting the meat at hajj, since it was the Sunnah of the Prophet (S) to be kind to animals. These are modern issues that the world is facing due to large numbers of people and the industrialization of animal raising, that are not related to or limited to Islam or Eid al-Adha specifically, but which still should be taken into consideration on a practical level. 

The Qur'an teaches us to look at the civilizations that came before us, consider their rise and fall, and take lessons from that so we make the best decisions in our own lives and societies. We should also look at previous civilizations to be humble: we should not assume that just because our society is at an apex, it must last forever. If our society is prosperous, we should thank Allah for that and not assume it is all under our control, since those people who started to attribute blessings to themselves instead of Allah soon fell. 

The Qur'an and hadith give a sense that there are some metaphysical laws underpinning civilizations. Positive spiritual and ethical practices of societies lead them to flourish, whereas negative spiritual and ethical practices lead them to decay or destruction. This is part and parcel of natural law and is often connected to natural causes but is also part of divine justice. 

Some Muslims see the process of history as a gradual unfolding and en route to an ultimate victory of tawhid - that is, a meaningful process of history - although others may not agree with that. 

The main criticisms in the Qur'an of pre-Islamic societies are of idolatry, superstition, tribalism, and depotism. In some cases, flagrant violations led Allah to rain down destruction on some places, as in the Old Testament. In other cases, they just led to the decline of the civilization.

Pre-Islamic Abrahamic monotheists are also sometimes criticized for deviation, self-glorification, and so forth. 

Individual people in ancient societies are presented in accordance with their acts. For instance, the husband of Zulaykha in Egypt is presented as neutral, whereas Firawn is presented as evil. The Queen of Sheba is overall presented as a good ruler but as starting out with an incorrect theology due to worshipping the sun. There are also some specific criticisms of specific places/times such as the people of Lut. 

Mesopotamia was a large region with many peoples and dynasties, so one cannot give a single view for the whole civilizational phenomenon. Similarly, ancient Egypt had a long reign of dominance and so one cannot make sweeping views about everything. This is apart from the obvious fact that both Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt contributed to the the development of later civilizations and so we retain some of their legacies, such as some ideas or technologies.

Babylon gets a bit of a bad rap in the Qur'an due to the Harut and Marut situation, and also the story of Ibrahim (A). Ancient Egypt is also associated with magic. But neither place is discussed extensively. This is different from the Biblical tradition, in which Babylon is personified and condemned. 

On the other hand, Shi'i hadith speak of the sanctity of Karbala from ancient times, and Karbala is in Mesopotamia. There are also Shi'i hadith speaking of Adam being created from the clay of the Euphrates. So there is a sense of a portrayal of this region as part of the cradle of civilization. 

Muslims have had various views about the ancient heritages. Some Muslims found benefit in reading ancient philosophical texts like those from Greece or in wisdom from things such as the Code of Hammurabi or traditional Chinese medicine. Other Muslims opposed ancient things because they belong to pre-Islamic times and civilizations.

Insofar as the hadith says to seek knowledge even from China, and China obviously was not a Muslim-majority or Abrahamic civilization, one can assume that Islam does not have an objection to seeking beneficial knowledge from ancient civilizations. 

Today, some Muslims are very focused making a full break from the ancient past and fear anything from the ancient times as bid'ah or shirk. So they reject anything ancient, on the grounds that it is pre-Islamic, although ancient things - like modern things - can sometimes have wisdom and sometimes have error. Other Muslims have an interest in studying the past, such as literature or archeology, or preserve some ancient holidays and customs. 

Conversely, some modern secular nation-states in the Middle East where the government felt threatened by Islam or Islamic movements have tried to build a national identity based on the pre-Islamic heritage or promote a sense of national arrogance based on a pre-Islamic heritage. It is nice to respect and appreciate and know about the good things from the past. However, it is wrong to deploy pre-Islamic identity as a tool to whip up nationalism, strengthen dictators, suppress Islam, and inflame wars with other nation-states. So this is an example of wrong usage of pre-Islamic heritages in the modern era. They do not relate to the ancient civilizations but rather wrong things that occur in our own time. 

So there isn't a unilateral view on these civilizations or the ancient world in general, but these are some aspects of how history has been understood in an Islamic context. 

Social institutions have changed, but human nature and the soul have not changed. The basic challenges that human beings face have not changed since ancient times. Then and now, people have dealt with inequity, tribalism, injustice, social harmony and disharmony, family challenges, and so forth. The fundamental principles of ethics also have not changed. This is why one can find wisdom and inspiration in literature from a long time ago.

In our era, there are some new "social technologies" to try to grapple with age-old problems - for instance, democracy and the nation-state system - but our challenges as human beings remain the same. Furthermore, all human beings must grapple with mortality, consider what happens after death, and find meaning and purpose in our lives and in the universe. People also often want to know how to improve themselves ethically and spiritually and how to transcend the baser aspects of their existence or avoid being controlled by their lower desires. 

Science, technology, access to knowledge, and mass institutionalized education have benefits. However, they do not always make people into kinder or better people. You meet some people who live very simple lives and very little formal education but who have a very good family life and who are generous and treat others well. And, of course, vice versa. In fact, one can say that places which have had the most technological advances and where there is a strong consumerist culture also have more isolation and alienation. So the advances that the modern era has brought to the world are not all things that relate to some of the fundamentals of human existence such as how to coexist with others. Rather, they operate in other areas of life; for instance, curing physical diseases. 

So, the challenges of being a human being, and of having a society, are areas where religion provides guidance. Islam, being rather comprehensive, provides a rather lot of guidance on both spiritual and social matters.

As for Islam itself, it is both flexible and inflexible. It is inflexible on some points; for instance, some requirements specified in the Qur'an. At the same time, it has an inherent adaptability to different cultures and situations. Otherwise, it would not have spread to so many different cultures and flourished. We can see in our era that there are various ways Muslims have looked to Islam to solve new problems, whether they be individual or communal. So there is a scope of adaptability that does not confine it to 7th century Arabia and which has allowed it to flourish today, even in places where other organized religions have lost ground.

As for whether society is not as barbaric as it used to be without Islam... looking at the events of the past couple hundred years, such as the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the world wars, crippling economic sanctions, and the deployment of chemical and nuclear weapons... I would not agree with that. There may be more focus in public discourse on individual freedoms, human rights, and the value of a human life, but at the same time there are large masses of people who are dispossessed and suffering due to the current global power structures, and there is more institutionalized inequity than at any other time in the past. Not all lives are treated as having the same worth, as we see in attention given to current conflicts. We also have the capability to do much more horrible things to each other than at any time.  So there are some ways that the jahiliyyah Arabian society was barbaric, and there are some ways that the world is barbaric now. In any case, the question of which era is better or worse than another cannot really be answered; just pointing out another side of the question. 

So here are a few thoughts. I am sure others will have some excellent insights! 

This is a good question, which has been discussed by scholars. These are some views:

1. Heaven and hell exist outside of our normal time, because they are eternal. So, when we do a good act in this life, we build something at the same time in heaven (like hadith speaking of planting a tree in heaven). However, we do not experience it until after we leave this world and go through the Resurrection. Since the mi'raj occurred outside normal space and time, the Prophet (S) was able to see the eternal reality rather than being bound to our reality, which consists of normal space and time, and from which the eternal realities of Heaven and Hell are veiled. I personally favour this view.

2. When the Prophet (S) saw heaven and hell, he saw the heaven and hell of barzakh. That is, when we are in barzakh but before Resurrection, we also experience a type of heaven or hell based on our deeds, but which continues only until the Resurrection and is not eternal. 

3. Allah showed the Prophet (S) a vision or appearance of what will happen in the future in Heaven or Hell. Allah can do that because Allah knows all things and can present knowledge of the unseen to anyone He wills. 

Also, it should be remembered that while the idea that the Prophet (S) experienced the mi'raj is established in Qur'an and hadith, individual narrations about what he saw may be correct or incorrect.