They are protesting alright, and what a way to change their situation. A bit like their fellow hooligans in Muqdishu, and their little protest against the late Siyaad Barre. A cruel dictator, yes, but exactly what did they gain from their protest? Lets be pragmatic, these terrorists in Boosaaso will not change the situation to the better. I'd rather live in Muqdisho under the reign of Barre than the reign of the "protesting" bandits. Ilaaheey ha naga dhowro teroristyaasha. Aamin.

Keep the money..just treat us as worthy business partner....FAIR TRADE.

I'm translating a couple of somali songs, it's going very well (to say the least). I'd like some help translating these songs plz. 1. Kenee (it's an old song, "aha keeney..". 2. Saado Cali - Xamdi. Mahadsanid.

How did Islam spread? By the sword? Or the word? I'm trying to understand what caused the early expansions. Where they justified (in accordance to the islamic principle that only allows jihad as a defensive war) ? --------------- 83 conflicts during a period of 154 years. • 570 - Birth of Muhammad in Mecca into the tribe of Quraish. • 610 - Mohammed in a cave on Mt. Hira; hears angel Gabriel • 613 - Muhammad’s first preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. • 615 - Muslims persecuted by the Quraish. • 619 - Marries Sau’da and Aisha • 620 - Institution of five daily prayers • 622 - Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina • 623 - Battle of Waddan • 623 - Battle of Safwan • 623 - Battle of Dul-’Ashir • 624 - Muhammad begin raids on caravans for funds • 624 - Zakat becomes mandatory • 624 - Battle of Badr • 624 - Battle of Bani Salim • 624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr • 624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa’ • 624 - Battle of Sawiq • 624 - Battle of Ghatfan • 624 - Battle of Bahran • 625 - Battle of Uhud. • 625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad • 625 - Battle of Banu Nudair • 625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa • 626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra • 626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal • 626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah • 627 - Battle of the Trench • 627 - Battle of Ahzab • 627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza • 627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan • 627 - Battle of Ghaiba • 627 - Battle of Khaibar • 628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish. • 630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca. • 630 - Battle of Hunsin. • 630 - Battle of Tabuk • 632 - Muhammad dies. • 632 - Abu-Bakr and Umar begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia • 633 - Battle at Oman • 633 - Battle at Hadramaut. • 633 - Battle of Kazima • 633 - Battle of Walaja • 633 - Battle of Ulleis • 633 - Battle of Anbar • 634 - Battle of Basra, • 634 - Battle of Damascus • 634 - Battle of Ajnadin. • 634 - Battle of Namaraq • 634 - Battle of Saqatia. • 635 - Battle of Bridge. • 635 - Battle of Buwaib. • 635 - Conquest of Damascus. • 635 - Battle of Fahl. • 636 - Battle of Yermuk. • 636 - Battle of Qadsiyia. • 636 - Conquest of Madain. • 637 - Battle of Jalula. • 638 - Battle of Yarmouk. • 638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem. • 638 - Conquest of Jazirah. • 639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt. • 641 - Battle of Nihawand • 642 - Battle of Rayy in Persia • 643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan • 644 - Conquest of Fars • 644 - Conquest of Kharan. • 647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress • 648 - Campaign against the Byzantines. • 651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines. • 654 - Islam spreads into North Africa • 658 - Battle of Nahrawan. • 659 - Conquest of Egypt • 662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule. • 666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims • 677 - Siege of Constantinople • 687 - Battle of Kufa • 691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq • 700 - Military campaigns in North Africa • 702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira • 711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar • 711 - Conquest of Spain • 713 - Conquest of Multan • 716 - Invasion of Constantinople • 732 - Battle of Tours in France. • 740 - Battle of the Nobles. • 741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa • 744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr. • 746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha • 748 - Battle of Rayy. • 749 - Battle of lsfahan • 749 - Battle of Nihawand • 750 - Battle of Zab • 772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa • 777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain Map: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~helfgott/img/map-arab-empire.png

This is why you shouldn't hire inlaws. They need money, and what better way to get it than to turn to one of the worlds poorest countries. The EU would shower him with cash, so would the US and even Israel for that matter I wont go into details, since I hope to apply for the post held by CY's son.

Stop consuming.. Atleast for one day. The international "Buy Nothing Day". As.. -an apportunity to reflect over the side effects of our consumer society. -To reflect over the unfairness that results in 20% of the world population using 80 % of the worlds resources. -As a soloidarity to third world workers. Stop the exploitation! Make 27 th november 2004 a shop-FREE day.

"Civilians? There are no civilians in Israel! Why do you think Qaradawi sympathises with the Palestinians means? I asked you how you wanted the Palestinians to fight back, they don't get billions and weaponry from USA every year like the Israelis do." The best way for the palestinians to fight back, is to blow up themselves, target civilians..OK soilders out of duty, kids, old ppl - or retired military if u will. I suspect that it will lead to a hundred and ten times more dead palestinians, small or no damage on israeli infrastructure and it's civil defence..actually they might even benefit from it and become world leading on selling anti-terrorist education to different countries. Wait a minute..isn't that what's going on right now? I dont give a damn what Qardawi thinks, he is obviously as tactically challenged as all other arab leaders involved in the history of Palestine/Israel. Israel spends billions on weaponry :confused: Hmm do you think that could be one of the reasons I'm against these terrorist but most importantly stuBid acts? What if the israelis ceased building settlements, lets say they even went out and said that they would pull back from some of the occupied areas, and some arabs saw that as an opportunity to launch new attacks? If the only answer was for the israelis to be less aggressive, how come then every israeli pullback (IDF) is followed by even more arab violence? You must be unfamiliar with this conflict dear. Those places they "withdraw" from are the few settlements they are unable to protect or sustain. They are those surrounded by hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. They are merely a few square kilometres and not even close to the area they ought to give back as granted by international law. Plus, they are expanding the settlements on the Golan Heights, does that sound like a nation that is striving for peace with its neighbours? It is the Israelis tanks that roam the Palestinians streets and not vice versa, how do you expect them to have peace when they (their govt) clearly don't want it? Look at the situation in Iraq, it is the Americans that are the occupiers, but the neo-cons and the american govt think that the insurgence is wrong in fighting back (irresponsible of their means). And I've already answered your question, if you read any of my posts u'd know that. "I thought he was a terrorist" If he was, he'd be barbecued for breakfast. Lets just say that he used to be a terrorist but now, he's a pragmatic zionist and a corrupt arab leader. "Also, you don't come forward with any solution as to how this conflict can be ended." Short answer: stop blowing urselves up.

Ngonge, replying to you is tiring my friend. I hate repeating myself. But you can read all of my answers on: www.zionists.staged.the.latest.somali.election.and.they.are.also.responsible.for.911.the.lies.against.michael.jackson.his.failed.nose.operation.and.much.much.more.com ------------- V:"You have sympathy for the Jews not allowing people back to their homes, but don't understand why the Palestinians are fighting the occupation?" Actually it's the other way around, it's because of my sympathy for the palestinians (and jews) that I think that this whole refugee-issue is unrealistic. I'm all for the right of the occupied, but there are different ways of fighting back. Blowing yourself up, firing at children, deliberately targeting civilians is something that I will never sympathize with. "Well, almost every decent human being in the world thinks that this could be achieved if the Israelis ceased building settlements and withdrew from Palestinian lands, but you seem to think that the solution lies in the Palestinians not fighting back." What if the israelis ceased building settlements, lets say they even went out and said that they would pull back from some of the occupied areas, and some arabs saw that as an opportunity to launch new attacks? If the only answer was for the israelis to be less aggressive, how come then every israeli pullback (IDF) is followed by even more arab violence? "You must be a Zionist to say something so heartless in defence of Israel." Heartless, realistic. Patato, barandho. Being a zionist is in these days. Even a certain Arafat (who's a someone here is smitten by) is a zionist. "Do you know the story of how the British came to give Palestine to the Jews? The Zionists led by Chaim Weizman promised to drag USA in WW1 (after the Germans, Austrians and Ottoman Turks had won and Germany had offered a deal to Britain, which was favourable for the Brits but the Zionists derailed the deal) and they were in return offered Palestine and the Balfour declaration was issued." I've heard of it yes. The point being that Israel has its roots in fishy circumstances. And here I thought that palestine was a land without ppl for a superior ppl! Sounds a lot like politics, which seldom is about fairness.

Viking, I dont claim to have the solution to this problem. I'm sure that if there is one, large groups on both sides would definetly end up angry and feel betrayed. For me the main goal is that as many ppl as possible on both sides can live in peace without having to see the blown up remains of their dead children in a Cafè in Tel Aviv on public broadcasting. Or having to ask a 19 year old for permission to get the body of your 13 year old daughter who's been shot twenty times on her way to school. That makes the discussion of the refugee-issue increadbly cynical since these refugees are reduced to pawns in a political game. Lets be honest, Israel will never accept it, it would mean the death of Israel as a jewish state (having a 20 % arab minority already). And also there was about as many sefardic jews who fled to Israel after 48' and the following wars, so it evens it out. 21sqkm is a small area, these refugees could easily re-settle in neighbouring arab countries, who have land and sometimes even wealth - assuming the other arab-countries really care as much as they claim. ----------------------------------- Ngonge: "The Arabs back then had every right to fight back. I’m intrigued as to the measures you’re using to equate the actions of the occupied and the occupiers here!" The arabs back them weren't occupied by the jews. Palestine was under the control of the british, remember? "You didn’t dispute the fact that the party you claim was a party of peace was the same one that created the state of Israel and the terrorist roots of the IDF, yet in the same breath you’re trying to convince me that they were a peace loving party?" Mapai a peace loving party? I dare you to point out exactly where I said that. Still searching? I said "the doves of Mapai" which is quite different from saying "Mapai - the doves", dont you think? I'm not naive, I'm aware of the fact that Israel was funded by terrorists. But I'm also aware of the fact that the arabs back then were just as much of terrorists, tactically challenged terrorists, but still. "Of course it sounds like Sharon, but where it differs from Sharon is the fact that it’s voiced by the occupied and oppressed." Occupied, oppressed..and what more? Yes, voiced by those in a helpless and weak position. A group that cant afford to do things that will lead to having ppl like Netanyahu at power. "The way you talk about this situation, anyone reading it would think history started with the Intifada or the first suicide bomber! You blame the Arab leaders for the predicament the Palestinians are in but you completely disregard history, the Zionists or the role of world powers. This argument of yours has more holes than a sponge." As I've already stated, I dont put all the blame on arab leaders. I put most of the blame on them. You seem to share their thinking patterns (that's the only explaination to ur obsession of Arafat, that, or ur his cousin who's hoping for a good position in his parlament). Now I'm not a pacifist, but if I'm about to use violence, I'll use it tactically. Take this latest brilliant move, where some arabs decided to shoot primitive misiles from Gaza. Let me see, since operation DP started about 5 israelis lost their lives..compared to oer 100 palestinians. Now you might think that 95-0 for Israel is a good score, but for me it's unacceptable.

V:"Are you saying that it's the Palestinians' fault that they are occupied.." I never claimed to support how Israel acts in the occupied areas, offcourse I dont blame the palestinians. I put most of the blame on arab leaders, who drove it's ppl into devasting wars which they all lost. "There is a difference between Jews and Zionism, we respect the former but abhor the latter for its ideology and policies." Abhor to it as much as you like, I doubt that will make it go away. "Didn't the Israelis kill the only leader who was close to bring them the peace you claim they want?" The israelis didn't kill him, a certain extremist did. That's why on the day of his funeral, hundreds of thousands of israelis mourned his murder. "You are under the impression that the Israelis want peace. They haven't wanted peace since day one, if they had chosen peace, they would be unable to annex as much land as they have in the last 50 years." That's the problem with the public opinion, so easy to influence. Which is also my point. All of this useless arab violence in the occupied areas are working to the advantage of the political right. So when Begin and his crew shouted "All of Israel" most ppl thought "fascist". But when the arabs attacked and lost..ppl thought..why not. "How did Hizbollah manage to kick them out of southern Lebanon, through dialogue? NO! It was because most of the Yahuudi boys on the frontline were returning home in body bags." You cant compare southern Lebanon with Gaza or the WB. First off, most of it's inhabitants have fled and re-settled in other Lebanese cities. So for hamas & Co to have a succesful guerilla war in that area, most palestinians would have to leave. Unless you think that a couple of hundred thousand palestinian lives is a price worth paying. But good for them, now instead of being occupied by both Syria and Israel, it's just Syria. -------------- Ngonge: "So the Mapai of Ben Gurion were Doves?" I said that where? Ben Gurion was a good leader for _his_ ppl. Too bad the palestinians aren't that lucky. "The first and main political party for the Zionists that settled in the land of Palestine were passive doves?" Offcourse not, if that was the case, Israel wouldn't have been at all. The arabs back then weren't "passive doves" either, the difference is that they were tactically challenged..and yes..loosers of all the wars. "The people who created the Haganah (and the Irgun) and went on to slaughter countless Palestinians and British were doves?" Offcourse they were! They as much as their arab counterparts who murdered and attacked jewish immigrants before 48'. "Sharon says he’ll dismantle the settlement but his history tells us otherwise, sister. The “peaceful†groups you mention are not in power in Israel and have never been. All the previous governments (Labour and Likud) have acted the same way when it came to the Arabs, sister." First of all, I'm not your sister Secondly, you are wrong. As I've already pointed out (which you conviently missed) Mitznas administration could have been a step in right direction. "Peace is indeed a good and noble idea but your foes have to be peaceful people before you decide to make peace with them, they have to show that they’re willing to demonstrate their desire for peace with action not simple words." That sounds a lot like what Sharon and his crew says.

What's up with the love declaration? How is that relevant?! "Waxaan ku dadaalayaa saxiibnimadeyna"..do I smell nepotism..I think I do. It's true what they say.."the ppl get the leader they deserve" "Dalalka aanu walaalaha nahay aanu dariska nahay". WTF?! A traitor for a ppl of traitors.

Originally posted by NGONGE: So, in your mind’s eye a Palestinian election is what’s needed to sort everything out and give legitimacy to the Palestinian cause? The issue of the “corruption†of Arafat is what’s holding up progress, right? I suppose you already think that the 1996 elections that were overwhelmingly won by Arafat were also corrupted, which would beg the question of why another corrupted election is needed! Maybe the answer would be to have Israeli observes overseeing this new election and making sure it’s fair and transparent, eh? This side issue still doesn't explain why Arafat is such a bad guy though! I dont like Arafat, but I'm aware of that most palestinians do. In a new election he would probably get re-elected..but I'm also sure that the palestinians would vote out corrupt politicians out of the palestinian parlement, which is a huge step in right direction. Another thing that would come out of it would be that Israel & the US would have a harder time waving off the democraticatically elected leader of the palestinian ppl and claiming that there is no one to negotiate with.

Actually Viking, I'm tired of this "zionists against the world" rhetorics. It hasn't done shit to help the palestinians, after all of the arab-initiated wars, which they all lost, I think to myself..violence might not be the way. Zionism is like any other nationalism, but they have the muscle power to back it up. Not all zionist organisations are bad, Gush-shalom, Btselem and a group of israeli soilders who refuse to serve in the occupied areas ("refusing for Israel" couragetorefuse.org) are just a couple. And they are also the true footsoilders of the palestinian struggle..which is more than I can say about suicide bombers. Ngonge:"By whom? The Arab world or the Western media? Was the Labour party of Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan better?" Yes I agree that Golda Meir & Moshe weren't much of good leaders. Much of the 67' war is her administrations fault, since they didn't pick up on Sadats begging. But Begin was definetly not a better option. After the 67' war, his view of the world was no longer seen as fascistic by the israeli public, instead, most of the soicalist-zionists borrowed his view of the world and became hard-core settlers. His party would most definetly have stayed insignificant..if not for..****** .. (fill in the rest on ur own). "Why are you so concerned with the voting patterns of the Israeli public? Do you seriously think that will make a noticeable difference? Would the Palestinians get Jerusalem back? Would the Israelis dismantle their settlements?" Yes I do belive that. I'm convinced that most israelis want peace, but then there's the political right who keeps shouting out that arabs only understand violence ("because every israeli pullback is followed by more arab violence"..). When the doves of Mapai were in power, it's leader Mitzna wanted to go back to the negotiating table, he was ready to negotiate with Arafat even. He supported the peace process and was ready to dismantle most settlements in the WB and Gaza. He was very critical of Israels use of "targeted killings" and how the IDF treated the palestinians. Now compare that to the present situation! The only hope of the palestinian ppl is the israeli voting patterns, since we all now that th US wants what Israel wnats..and if the US says yes, the rest of the world has nothing to say. So lets be realistic.

May God help us all.

NGONGE, I didn't say that they favour him, I said that Sharon and the white house support his prosponing of the palestinian elections - which they do. Sharon is extremly against a new palestinian election. The white house seem to share his view, since when Ahmed Qurea asked the states for help in holding a new election last spring - the white house said no. Which makes you think..why? Wouldn't that be something to add to the list "acheiving democracy in the mideast"..sounds good..and so much easier that in most other countries. The simple answer is that they want the corrupt leadership to stay in power. This way, both isreal and the us can go about saying that there isn't someone to negotiate with.

Yes the arab/palestinian violence is idiotic, and history is proof of that. Prior to the 67' war Herut & Co were concidered as fascists and they were political outcasts. Sharon has idiotic arab violence to thank for his power. Every israeli pull-back of the IDF is followed by increase of palestinian violence, that only makes the public opinion to vote more right-winged. It's not about "turning the other cheek", it's about being realistic. Zionism is alive and here to stay, Israel is the most powerful force in the mideast, why challenge it? What good has come out of it..the oslo agreements? It's long dead, and shouldn't have been to start with.

He needs to do like Mandela and step off..it's ironic how his corrupt leadership keeps prosponing the elections (this spring inshAlah) and how that's supported by both Sharon and the white house. hmm :rolleyes: Labeling him as a terrorist would be to complement him, to say that he is as the likes of Sharon...Sharon has done so much for his ppl, which is more than what can be said about Arafat.

Yes the wall is illegal because it goes into the greenline. But on the other hand, the distance from the greenline to the sea is 10 km (the WB is 7x as wide, makes you think about so called arab leaders and their lack of military tactics. If only they didn't try to abort Israel, history could have been quite different). http://securityfence.mfa.gov.il/mfm/Web/Main/pic.asp?pic=46133.jpg ..It's about ten thousand palestinians on the israeli side of the fence. The fence has messed up the alredy fragile palestinian economy. It's most definetly not temporary as they say, Israels economy is also in a bad shape, so why spend 20-30 millions on every km. It's naive to think that Israel will pull back to their pre-67 line, the largest kibbutz will probably be included into Israel, thereof the fence. For every suicide bomber, the israeli public will be supporting the fence even more. Just look a Beer Sheva last month, the bomber came from an area where the fence hadn't been built yet. All of this idiotic violence from the palestinians, what good have they gained from the intifada? Prior to the intifada in 87, how many roadchecks were there? Useless.

Salama Caleykum wa RaxmatuLahi wa Barakaat :cool: Either way, the poster is missing the point. He finds the covered women to be "flirty", "sensual" and so on. It's a sexualized portrait of these muslim women. That's not the purpose of the hijaab. It's purpose is for him to define these women after what they say, their minds, and not what's under those bui bui's. But maybe that's our fate as women..to be eternally objectified?

Salama Caleykum. To the poster: I c ur point, but I think Qacbaro is on to something too. Offcourse you should think twice before you buy something from a muslim owned store, but you shouldn't stop buying stuff from muslim owned stores. It's not like the non-muslim stores sell only halal stuff, so either way, u have to check what's in the food you buy. But by buying from muslims, u will be empowering ur extremly marganilised group (muslims) and giving it a louder voice. If muslims would do all of their grocery shopping in muslim owned stores, the owners wouldn't have to try to attracts non-muslims for survival. Yahdikalah and Ramadan Kariim in advance

Salam girlie! I dont consider the age of Caisha r.a. when she married nabi Maxamed s.a.w. to be important to my faith either. Just an issue that I've been wondering about. Ppl giving their children away..I've heard of it If they view their children as property, then it's seriously s-a-d.

OG-Girl, ur a masaari! 1. You have never seen Somalia. 2. Neither has your dad. 3. Your mom is masaari and you have been to her country. That makes you more of a masaari then somaali right? It's seems *odd* to me that you even know anything about Somalia. Where did you live again?

this doesn't seem right. If this article is true in any sence, WHY haven't the ulamas discussed it b4, that would be the logical thing to assume..right? Anyone who can point out any errors? Please do. YahdikAlah. ------------------------------------------------- EVIDENCE #1: Reliability of Source Most of the narratives printed in the books of hadith are reported only by Hisham ibn `Urwah, who was reporting on the authority of his father. First of all, more people than just one, two or three should logically have reported. It is strange that no one from Medina, where Hisham ibn `Urwah lived the first 71 years of his life narrated the event, despite the fact that his Medinan pupils included the well-respected Malik ibn Anas. The origins of the report of the narratives of this event are people from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medina for most of his life. Tehzibu’l-Tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet, reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: “He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq†(Tehzi’bu’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, 15th century. Vol 11, p. 50). It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people in Iraq: “I have been told that Malik objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq†(Tehzi’b u’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50). Mizanu’l-ai`tidal, another book on the life sketches of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet reports: “When he was old, Hisham’s memory suffered quite badly†(Mizanu’l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatu’l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, p. 301). CONCLUSION: Based on these references, Hisham’s memory was failing and his narratives while in Iraq were unreliable. So, his narrative of Ayesha’s marriage and age are unreliable. CHRONOLOGY: It is vital also to keep in mind some of the pertinent dates in the history of Islam: pre-610 CE: Jahiliya (pre-Islamic age) before revelation 610 CE: First revelation 610 CE: AbuBakr accepts Islam 613 CE: Prophet Muhammad begins preaching publicly. 615 CE: Emigration to Abyssinia 616 CE: Umar bin al Khattab accepts Islam 620 CE: Generally accepted betrothal of Ayesha to the Prophet 622 CE: Hijrah (emigation to Yathrib, later renamed Medina) 623/624 CE: Generally accepted year of Ayesha living with the Prophet EVIDENCE #2: The Betrothal According to Tabari (also according to Hisham ibn ‘Urwah, Ibn Hunbal and Ibn Sad), Ayesha was betrothed at seven years of age and began to cohabit with the Prophet at the age of nine years. However, in another work, Al-Tabari says: “All four of his [Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wives during the pre-Islamic period†(Tarikhu’l-umam wa’l-mamlu’k, Al-Tabari (died 922), Vol. 4, p. 50, Arabic, Dara’l-fikr, Beirut, 1979). If Ayesha was betrothed in 620 CE (at the age of seven) and started to live with the Prophet in 624 CE (at the age of nine), that would indicate that she was born in 613 CE and was nine when she began living with the Prophet. Therefore, based on one account of Al-Tabari, the numbers show that Ayesha must have born in 613 CE, three years after the beginning of revelation (610 CE). Tabari also states that Ayesha was born in the pre-Islamic era (in Jahiliya). If she was born before 610 CE, she would have been at least 14 years old when she began living with the Prophet. Essentially, Tabari contradicts himself. CONCLUSION: Al-Tabari is unreliable in the matter of determining Ayesha’s age. EVIDENCE # 3: The Age of Ayesha in Relation to the Age of Fatima According to Ibn Hajar, “Fatima was born at the time the Ka`bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet was 35 years old... she was five years older that Ayesha†(Al-isabah fi tamyizi’l-sahabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Vol. 4, p. 377, Maktabatu’l-Riyadh al-haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978). If Ibn Hajar’s statement is factual, Ayesha was born when the Prophet was 40 years old. If Ayesha was married to the Prophet when he was 52 years old, Ayesha’s age at marriage would be 12 years. CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar, Tabari an Ibn Hisham and Ibn Humbal contradict each other. So, the marriage of Ayesha at seven years of age is a myth. EVIDENCE #4: Ayesha’s Age in relation to Asma’s Age According to Abda’l-Rahman ibn abi zanna’d: “Asma was 10 years older than Ayesha (Siyar A`la’ma’l-nubala’, Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2, p. 289, Arabic, Mu’assasatu’l-risalah, Beirut, 1992). According to Ibn Kathir: “She [Asma] was elder to her sister [Ayesha] by 10 years†(Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 371, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933). According to Ibn Kathir: “She [Asma] saw the killing of her son during that year [73 AH], as we have already mentioned, and five days later she herself died. According to other narratives, she died not after five days but 10 or 20, or a few days over 20, or 100 days later. The most well known narrative is that of 100 days later. At the time of her death, she was 100 years old.†(Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 372, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933) According to Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani: “She [Asma] lived a hundred years and died in 73 or 74 AH.†(Taqribu’l-tehzib, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, p. 654, Arabic, Bab fi’l-nisa’, al-harfu’l-alif, Lucknow). According to almost all the historians, Asma, the elder sister of Ayesha was 10 years older than Ayesha. If Asma was 100 years old in 73 AH, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of the hijrah. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha should have been 17 or 18 years old. Thus, Ayesha, being 17 or 18 years of at the time of Hijra, she started to cohabit with the Prophet between at either 19 to 20 years of age. Based on Hajar, Ibn Katir, and Abda’l-Rahman ibn abi zanna’d, Ayesha’s age at the time she began living with the Prophet would be 19 or 20. In Evidence # 3, Ibn Hajar suggests that Ayesha was 12 years old and in Evidence #4 he contradicts himself with a 17 or 18-year-old Ayesha. What is the correct age, twelve or eighteen? CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar is an unreliable source for Ayesha’s age. EVIDENCE #5: The Battles of Badr and Uhud A narrative regarding Ayesha’s participation in Badr is given in the hadith of Muslim, (Kitabu’l-jihad wa’l-siyar, Bab karahiyati’l-isti`anah fi’l-ghazwi bikafir). Ayesha, while narrating the journey to Badr and one of the important events that took place in that journey, says: “when we reached Shajarahâ€. Obviously, Ayesha was with the group travelling towards Badr. A narrative regarding Ayesha’s participation in the Battle of Uhud is given in Bukhari (Kitabu’l-jihad wa’l-siyar, Bab Ghazwi’l-nisa’ wa qitalihinna ma`a’lrijal): “Anas reports that on the day of Uhud, people could not stand their ground around the Prophet. [On that day,] I saw Ayesha and Umm-i-Sulaim, they had pulled their dress up from their feet [to avoid any hindrance in their movement].†Again, this indicates that Ayesha was present in the Battles of Uhud and Badr. It is narrated in Bukhari (Kitabu’l-maghazi, Bab Ghazwati’l-khandaq wa hiya’l-ahza’b): “Ibn `Umar states that the Prophet did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was 14 years old. But on the day of Khandaq, when I was 15 years old, the Prophet permitted my participation.†Based on the above narratives, (a) the children below 15 years were sent back and were not allowed to participate in the Battle of Uhud, and (b) Ayesha participated in the Battles of Badr and Uhud CONCLUSION: Ayesha’s participation in the Battles of Badr and Uhud clearly indicates that she was not nine years old but at least 15 years old. After all, women used to accompany men to the battlefields to help them, not to be a burden on them. This account is another contradiction regarding Ayesha’s age. EVIDENCE #6: Surat al-Qamar (The Moon) According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha was born about eight years before hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari, Ayesha is reported to have said: “I was a young girl (jariyah in Arabic)†when Surah Al-Qamar was revealed (Sahih Bukhari, kitabu’l-tafsir, Bab Qaulihi Bal al-sa`atu Maw`iduhum wa’l-sa`atu adha’ wa amarr). Chapter 54 of the Quran was revealed eight years before hijrah (The Bounteous Koran, M.M. Khatib, 1985), indicating that it was revealed in 614 CE. If Ayesha started living with the Prophet at the age of nine in 623 CE or 624 CE, she was a newborn infant (sibyah in Arabic) at the time that Surah Al-Qamar (The Moon) was revealed. According to the above tradition, Ayesha was actually a young girl, not an infant in the year of revelation of Al-Qamar. Jariyah means young playful girl (Lane’s Arabic English Lexicon). So, Ayesha, being a jariyah not a sibyah (infant), must be somewhere between 6-13 years old at the time of revelation of Al-Qamar, and therefore must have been 14-21 years at the time she married the Prophet. CONCLUSION: This tradition also contradicts the marriage of Ayesha at the age of nine. EVIDENCE #7: Arabic Terminology According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of the Prophet’s first wife Khadijah, when Khaulah came to the Prophet advising him to marry again, the Prophet asked her regarding the choices she had in mind. Khaulah said: “You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)â€. When the Prophet asked the identity of the bikr (virgin), Khaulah mentioned Ayesha’s name. All those who know the Arabic language are aware that the word bikr in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine-year-old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier, is jariyah. Bikr on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady without conjugal experience prior to marriage, as we understand the word “virgin†in English. Therefore, obviously a nine-year-old girl is not a “lady†(bikr) (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol. 6, p. .210, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-`arabi, Beirut). CONCLUSION: The literal meaning of the word, bikr (virgin), in the above hadith is “adult woman with no sexual experience prior to marriage.†Therefore, Ayesha was an adult woman at the time of her marriage. EVIDENCE #8. The Qur’anic Text All Muslims agree that the Quran is the book of guidance. So, we need to seek the guidance from the Quran to clear the smoke and confusion created by the eminent men of the classical period of Islam in the matter of Ayesha’s age at her marriage. Does the Quran allow or disallow marriage of an immature child of seven years of age? There are no verses that explicitly allow such marriage. There is a verse, however, that guides Muslims in their duty to raise an orphaned child. The Quran’s guidance on the topic of raising orphans is also valid in the case of our own children. The verse states: “And make not over your property (property of the orphan), which Allah had made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, clothe them and give them good education. And test them until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find them maturity of intellect, make over them their property...†(Quran, 4:5-6). In the matter of children who have lost a parent, a Muslim is ordered to (a) feed them, (b) clothe them, © educate them, and (d) test them for maturity “until the age of marriage†before entrusting them with management of finances. Here the Quranic verse demands meticulous proof of their intellectual and physical maturity by objective test results before the age of marriage in order to entrust their property to them. In light of the above verses, no responsible Muslim would hand over financial management to a seven- or nine-year-old immature girl. If we cannot trust a seven-year-old to manage financial matters, she cannot be intellectually or physically fit for marriage. Ibn Hambal (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hambal, vol.6, p. 33 and 99) claims that nine-year-old Ayesha was rather more interested in playing with toy-horses than taking up the responsible task of a wife. It is difficult to believe, therefore, that AbuBakr, a great believer among Muslims, would betroth his immature seven-year-old daughter to the 50-year-old Prophet. Equally difficult to imagine is that the Prophet would marry an immature seven-year-old girl. Another important duty demanded from the guardian of a child is to educate them. Let us ask the question, “How many of us believe that we can educate our children satisfactorily before they reach the age of seven or nine years?†The answer is none. Logically, it is an impossible task to educate a child satisfactorily before the child attains the age of seven. Then, how can we believe that Ayesha was educated satisfactorily at the claimed age of seven at the time of her marriage? AbuBakr was a more judicious man than all of us. So, he definitely would have judged that Ayesha was a child at heart and was not satisfactorily educated as demanded by the Quran. He would not have married her to anyone. If a proposal of marrying the immature and yet to be educated seven-year-old Ayesha came to the Prophet, he would have rejected it outright because neither the Prophet nor AbuBakr would violate any clause in the Quran. CONCLUSION: The marriage of Ayesha at the age of seven years would violate the maturity clause or requirement of the Quran. Therefore, the story of the marriage of the seven-year-old immature Ayesha is a myth. EVIDENCE #9: Consent in Marriage A women must be consulted and must agree in order to make a marriage valid (Mishakat al Masabiah, translation by James Robson, Vol. I, p. 665). Islamically, credible permission from women is a prerequisite for a marriage to be valid. By any stretch of the imagination, the permission given by an immature seven-year-old girl cannot be valid authorization for marriage. It is inconceivable that AbuBakr, an intelligent man, would take seriously the permission of a seven-year-old girl to marry a 50-year-old man. Similarly, the Prophet would not have accepted the permission given by a girl who, according to the hadith of Muslim, took her toys with her when she went live with Prophet. CONCLUSION: The Prophet did not marry a seven-year-old Ayesha because it would have violated the requirement of the valid permission clause of the Islamic Marriage Decree. Therefore, the Prophet married an intellectually and physically mature lady Ayesha. SUMMARY: It was neither an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as seven or nine years, nor did the Prophet marry Ayesha at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated. Obviously, the narrative of the marriage of nine-year-old Ayesha by Hisham ibn `Urwah cannot be held true when it is contradicted by many other reported narratives. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason to accept the narrative of Hisham ibn `Urwah as true when other scholars, including Malik ibn Anas, view his narrative while in Iraq, as unreliable. The quotations from Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim show they contradict each other regarding Ayesha’s age. Furthermore, many of these scholars contradict themselves in their own records. Thus, the narrative of Ayesha’s age at the time of the marriage is not reliable due to the clear contradictions seen in the works of classical scholars of Islam. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the information on Ayesha’s age is accepted as true when there are adequate grounds to reject it as myth. Moreover, the Quran rejects the marriage of immature girls and boys as well as entrusting them with responsibilities. ceel: http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/Ayesha.html

There's a unisex hijaab in Islam, that is the most important one. Both men and women are adviced to wear this hijaab. A god advice from our Lord. "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do." [Al-Qur’an 24:30] Since you are a woman.. " And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons..." [Al-Qur’an 24:31] Those are the most important parts if I'm not wrong. Then there are those of our sisters who wear a niqaab and try to cover their entire bodies. All in coherence with the hadith that says that the female body is awrah (not the voice)(Hadith - Bukhari 1:148 ex.) . These sisters are true mujahedeen, fighting everyday for their islamic right. We should support them and not side with the kaafirs as many of us do on this issue. And som of the khimaar wearing sisters, wear clothes that cover everything but the hands and the face (in coherence with a hadith from RasuluAlah that prohibits a woman to show anyhting but her hand and face to non-mahram men). Please correct me is I'm wrong. YahdiikaAlah

Salam Qac! I didn't mean the translations of the word holy, but the definition. Are there any qualifications? What does it take for something to be declared holy according to Islaam? YahdiikAlah