first and foremost i am here to assure u brothers and sisters that i am not shiate as some of u suggested i am rather a moslim who eagerly wish to see the moslim unity.a mosllim who like to find comprehensive solution to the moslim widen division. i know that it is very hard and long way.i know also many tried and alot of moslim scholars around the globe are puting their upmost effort to calmly finnd long lasting harmony, peace and understanding between moslim communities. secondly i am very angry to see that we moslim do create such division among us and widen it in such a way that we argue all time about shiate and sunis ,i am sure we have more to do ,there alot of important issues waiting us .acytualy we are giving the enemy the opportunity and chance to pull themselve together ,we can't accept another bloody battles like that one happened between ali and muawiya.we can't acept the idea of if i have 10 sticks i will use 9 to fight against the shiate and one agaist gaalo . we better use all the stick agaist those who want to depress the moslim,, agains those who already cuase so much destruction and division among the moslims. thirdly: i consider very narrow way of anlyising this issue, one to qoute from one side source,i mean do we consider ahlul sunah books as the only valid referrence and source for soluving islamic issues? we have to remember that moslim communities are like circle ,and any circle can has mistake, . fourthly:about the muta. this is fiqhi matter it is for the moslim fuqaha to say their opion about but not to forbade it.it is well known that omar bin khatab said, in a public that is is forbadinng two mutas: 1- one muta alziwaaj( means muta of marriage) 2- muta al hajj ( mean muta of pilmigraage) sory for mispelliing) today mosllims untill now disagree with omar radiyalahu canhu about the two mutas,definetly sunis practice muta al hajj.and shiate practice both. it is also well qouted that some shaba said the practiced muta after prophet paased away (p.b.u.h.) among those ( i am not quite sure) jabir binu abdilaahi) the main daliil that we sunis have for the prohibition of muta is that some sahab narrated as prophet said after battle of khaybar that muta and meant of donkey are prohibited.now why have to prohibited it if all moslim new this? finaly: i think we should use the holy quran as the main balance . what i mean by this, is that any hadith that do not go with the holy quran should be considered as invalid.alot enemy of islam used the hadith as a weapon to destroy moslim. and in it their alot of invalid hadith,as we all know every time we hear that sheikh so and so invalidated hadith so and so.even today. like shiekh albani god belss him. of course sunah is second main source of islam bhowever sunaah must alway be compatble with quran. QAc QAC: bro thanx for great advice but i am sure we should all learn and not charge and look the things from one angle.

originaly posted by: it this very strange views of ursbut i am not suprise becuase this kind of false accusation is not something new.we all know it, and their are those who eagerly wished to see moslim in situation fruaght of division. i would like to ,however, say this few comments: shaitae as sunis beleive the none-existance of any alteration to holy quran and unlike sunis they believe that quran was recorded and wrriten at the prophet's life time,and believing in this they have very strong and reallistic evidence,becuase if we say quran was recorded after prophet(p.b.u.h) death as we sunis say and it was collected by zayt and other sahabas,then, we won't be able to establish concrete answer to the question of why there so many arguement about which book are we practicing ( the book of fatima,the book of othman,the book which collected by abaa bakar.) 1.They commit shirk in that they give their imams, the Khomeinis divine powers such as claiming that they have knowledge of the cilmu qayb which we all know only Allah has knowledge of. It is shirk for us to even claim that Rasuallah has knowledge of them, what about these mere human beings? i do not agree with u one moment,shiate do not claim that their immams know the cilmu alqayb,that is i think complete unrealistic,how that is possiple while we know all culima of shaite(of course except some exremist)agree with us that only God knows the qayb. 2.They curse the companions of the prophet s.c.w, they do not recognise the first three rightly guided khulafaa’ (Abu Bakr, Cumar and Cuthmaan) and even worse yet they label our mother, the mother of believers, the blessed wife of our prophet, Cai’sha R.A as a prostitute. Can this get any worse, Subxanallah. These are the people who were granted paradise and here are these people cursing them, remember the words of the blessed prophet who said whomever curses my companions is not part of me. i challenge my sis to show us where she got those kind thing, it is true that shiate do not recognise abaa bakar cumar and othman as rightly caliphas but is that only their view? we sunis argue about who do we put first othman or ali.by the way even of they do not recognise those leader as the right ones does that makes them out of islam. i think this is more related to thinking (ijtihaad ).there is now concrete evidence (daliil) from the quran or even suna which shows that those particualr leader are rightly.do we have any hadith that tells us who comes first and who comes second and so on? moslims are so divided on this issue even within one circle like sunis. 3.They do not recognize the authentic hadiths (not even those in Bukhari and Muslim). We all know Islam is based on the Qur’an and sunnah as the first three generations understood it. Therefore, can we call those who reject the sunnah of Rasuallulah Muslims? Allah has said in His Qur’an: this kind of khuzacbalaat that we all have,i thought we all today have easy access to more information and datas than our past generations,sisi have u ever been in shaite libarary?i advice u to see thierlabararies,it full of all sort of hadith books,and more over they unlike thier sunis brothers,have all sunis hadith books,where sunis keep away shiate books,i remember my lecturer in college use to tell us not to read the shaite books.by the way bukhar and muslim were like any other moslims muhadith man.who could be influenced by their views.they served for us and compiled us this huge information.may God bless them. 4. They practice muta (temporary) marriages which we all know it xaraam and has been abrogated. The list can go on and on but I think that these four points are proof enough. Trust me walaal, it could be that you have encountered that small percentage that the scholars consider as Muslims, but believe me the deviant ones outnumber them. I have encountered so many of them, so many of them who have told me to my face I was not a Muslims because I did not recognize their imams as successors of the prophet. Weird, but alas these are there beliefs. this is also very disputed topic among sunis.alot of sahab do bellieve that muta was halal and it was only prohibited my omar binu khatan.this well-known,now can someone disagree with omar?wel sahabah did disagree with him. by the way this is fiqhi issue and moslim scholars have hundered of such isue they disagree.look the four modhabs.are they same?

originaly posted by jawaahir. And its sad life for that person...because to me the most beautiful people are those men and women who wear the religious/traditional clothes. does islam has distinctive clothin code? i mean is there certain or particular type of clothe that we regard as islamic clothe? i think alot of people misunderstand, do u guys want the somali religous women who live in western, generaly and in cold countries in particular, to wear the clothes of saudi women? i live in dublin and there are alot of muslim women from far asia like malaysia,those women wear head carves and long jeans skirts and may be heavy coats.i consider them as muhajabats.and they are realy muhajabats.why not?as long as they covered themselves as per sharia required then,what is the proplem. we should not obligate our girls the clothes that does not suit,culturely and even clamtely.

terror who does't know what terror means?anyone who unnessarely kill,murder and genocide innocent women and children is a terrorist.i said unnecessarly cuz some times one may consider to hit hard his enemy and make him feel what it like killing innocent people, or retaliate as eye to eye,mouth to mouth and inocent to innocent.if one slape u ,slape him.and that is right although is better to forgive.

what can i say!! niiko(enjoyable) caano mise hilib

30 pages very long to read all.any way, somaliaonle.com. hey i love the web. barbaar mise gashaanti?

inaa lilaahi wa inaa ileyhi raajicuun. my God bless the soul of abdirahman ahmed ali. and samir iyo iiman ilaah hakasiiyo aheladii iyo qaraabdii u katagayba. we will however post an article about SNM and their political ideology to divide somali.purchasing the suport of ethiopia at the expense of somali destruction.we can't forget their role in somali politics.that will be later in shaa'alahu.but at the moment we all share grieve with his famliy and freinds.

to SOPHIST. THANX for ur freat effort to try enlight us about what happened between sahaba which of course we can't by pass,walaal i think the history is quite an informative lesson that we should all learn from it,mistake happened but the history is there for us inorder not to repeat these mistakes again. Brother you threading a dangerous road that may lead to precariousness situation. The question who was right and who was wrong (the fight between the Sahabah) is quietly rightly answered by the Ulumaa'u Salaf Saalih. walaal agree with u that so many ulima spoke about things that happend between sahaba,so many of them adviced the people not to speak or even interfair with this matter,however there are quite large number of moslims scholar who openly discuss and debate the issue in lengh,among those who conperensively and detailey talked about these matter is sheikh sa'iid ayuub .in his book ma'aallim al-fitan he talked in lengh what happened and why and how?i am sure as everyone do that sahaba were not macsuumiin they were people who can make mistakes,they did make mistake.the battle in which thousands of moslim lives were lost was part of their mistakes.the battle of jamal,the battle of sifeyn,the battle of karbala in which prophet's grand son husein killed!!!!was this all happened just like that or it was as a result of policies and rules being emplemented by some and opposed by others? and here comes aquestion if the sahaba were right on whatever they did,why do we have to oppose the somali civil war?was there any justfication of what happened? What makes you think you can judge the matter better that those Uluma who came before us? The whole of Salaf kept quite about this, and called it wasqtu Fitna. We the current Muslims have other matters far important to discuss then what went between the Sahaba, that is history and unlike the history that is taught in western insttutions, this is one that needs not any speculation. There is no need to formulate any hukum on this brother. walaal i never claim to have more right or entitlement to judge the maater,i am rather seeking enlightment and knowledge, i am mere student who eagerly wish to know why and what lead those early moslim to disaster.what can we learn about it?if we quitte about it then what is the benefit of history?i do not however agree with u that salaf kept quite about the matter.the sahaba theymselves talked about this,they agreed and disagreed. we live in world of illusion about our history where we can't quite sure why some thing happened.and what who did it and why he did it?some few scholars want people to remain that way.(of course almost all of them debated and eblighted the people about this mater) On the matter of who elected Abu Bakar, you can read the detailed account in all the books of History of Ahlu Suna Wal Jamaaca, Taariikhu Dabari, Albidaaya Wanihaaya Ibnu Kathiiir. Ali was not even in the picture, the seat was between Omar and Abu Bakar. Further, when the prophet SCW was ill, he asked Abu Bakar to lead the Prayer, this was indicative of his sucession. Brother, walaai this khatar. Just read those authentic books and the matter will be cleared Insha Allah. i am not suprise of ur comment about abaa bakar's election,becuase u are like any other suni taking ur views from ahlul suna sources,walaal when we are talking aboutabaa bakar election and saqiifah,we have to rememeber the circumtances that surounded it.could ali even attend the conference in which as u said abaa bakar was elected?if he did not why?who elected abaa bakar?was there any division between the attenders of that conference?between who and who was the comptetion?was it between ansaar and muhajiriin? was ali?was the prophet p.b.u.h buried at the time of conference? if not why?could alli leave the prophet p.b.u.h unattended and lobby for leadership? walaal there hundreds of question we need to acurately answer if we want to establish the truth of the matter.and unless we find concrete evidence and dalliiilis then will remain in illusion, and solution of molism division will be far and unrepairable.it is in fact hard and long way,but we have to try.moslims sufferd so much,tens of moslims are daily losting their live as a result of shiateism and sunism.many scholars spend all their energy jsut to aprove or disaprove the otherside's claim. we pray GOd to guide us all to right path. amiin apologise if any find this comment offended,and i would like to hear from my fellow nomads.

saudi arabia and almost all arab countries are muslin countries but not islamic states.the different being that islamic states is a state that employes all it's efforts and resources for the sake of islam and muslims,a states priortise islamic issues and values more than other issues.the role of an islamic state is to preserve the islamic values and to prevent vices(like inequality,injustice,immoral behaviours and e.c.t) and promoting virtues( helping weak moslims,supporting islamic cuases and so on) Saudi is a complicated country and one post from myself will not pinpoint what and why the rulers of the country act islamically in some aspects and unislamically in others. You can say in those areas where they don not act islamically, ie education for the nationals only, that greed and pride comes into contention as they dont want the foriedners taking all the jobs and businesses etc. This leads onto the Saud family being able to control who has the highest places of authority which is also influenced by the US. i think suadi royal famaliy(i never live in saudi arabia)acts the way they are acting because of one main reason,which the people they rule are moslims and unless one falsely act as an islamic ruler he will sooner or later fail take as example our late president siyat barre,had he acted like a guardian and costodian of islam we won't have raised agaisnt him,had he not adopted the leninism marximism,we would have at least given him longer than we did.by the way this is very old way in which after fall of khlifah alraashid moslims rulers began adopting and usingd to supress the ruuled(dadka).i talked about this last topic history of islam the rules and policieslayed and promoted by second generation of moslims rulers are largely practiced today by those in power in moslim countries.wearing islamic shirt and decieving the people by the name of guardian of islam is typical trend.ayaat and ahaadiith of the prophet had been used to serve for that purpose the sunnah which openly and clearly obligates moslims to raise gainst all dictators and agressor regardless of their names, had been misinterpreted as only when the ruler openly cross islamic line(alkhuruuj cini al- islam).misinterpritation of these hadiths and ayaats contributed more, dividing the moslims and naming them diffrent names are also factor,this gives chance the ruler,moslim scholars argue and spend all their energy to aprove or disaprove other side's claim, stead of thinking the unity and bring moslims together.for example moslims scholar getherd after first Gulf war to discuss whether it was islamicaly lawful to seek the suport of americ against brethren moslim country(iraq).they were not asked to debate this issues before the war!!!!why?!!!.sheikh mohamed ghazali said why.he said o mosli scholars we are debating and wasting our energy and world will move on as usual.(i did not heard that from the sheikh but i was told so by my friend) .unless we understand well and go back to the roots of islam the crisis will remain forever.it is time we have to move and rally for justice.

Originally posted by Mujahid: Lucky, Its not our position to debate whether they Muslim or not. Fact of the matter is that these folks are dangerous, armed and willing to do any thing it takes to achieve their goals. Patience :cool: Peace, Mujahid. i absolutely agree with u lucy it is not our responsibllity to debate whether they are moslims or not, but one is absolutely for sure they are dangerous,their victimes are children and moslim people, even if the victimes are kufur it is not still islamicaly right.killing innocent people no matter who they are is prohibited in islam.

it is been so long since mr bush and his friend blair claimed that iraq posed very immediate threat to united state and uk, they took action against acountry tha t they accused of posessing weapon of mass destruction now since they tried they best to find the smoking gun but return empty-handed all time. what was the reall agenda behind the attack of iraq? was it becuase of security reason? or there was something else going on behind the scence? was there any link between iraq dictatorial regime and so-called al-qaeda? what is the main evidence for that if any?was there any that irraq could do to delay the attack? these are some question which requires an accurate and straight answers.there is nothing that can justfy to attack any country in world without clear mandate from united nation that that particular country pose danger to the security of the world. as we know the was no united nation resolution to disarm saddam's regime by force.the majority of the security councill members were against the attack.however Bush and blair insisted attcking iraq even though warned by their intellengence, community that war on iraq may increase the insecurity of the world.so what was the agenda behind the attack? as we all know bush has very strong ties with jewish lobby in u.s.a who in their part played very significant role in the preparation of the war and making the case for it. one thing which i think was bushing bush to this deadly war was his view and believes that there are bad and good and that u.s.arepresent the good in this world and saddam and so called terror groups represent the evile in this world.;and that is one thing that Bush and Blair are in common. the second thing is that they want the christainisation of arab world and exportation of american cultures to rest of the world especially arab world, there are tens of christain organisations in iraq currently,their main aim is to grap as many people as possiple to christainity,that is what one of them said:we will not only provide clothes and food only but with bible and christain teachings, this explains the reall intention of american insistance to invade iraq,it is painfull and absolutely unacceptable;and what is more the first word mr.Bush uttered after 9/11 was america will crusade.

2-yassir arafat 3- all those faceless and nameless muslim ikhwan who have dissapeared, and been killed in all the foreign controlled muslim lands. i agree with u bro third rank all those faceless and nameless muslims as u said, and i am realy big fun of sayid qubi and his brother mohamed qudbi plus all those open-minded ikhwan and above all the late ikhwan founder sheik hasan albana,however i won't agree whith u puting arafat at second rank,i mean how?i think although he was great leader in the past but that legacy ended cuz he copletely change.he is bit kind of dictator,i would defintely put his position sheikh ahmed yassin the founder of hamas.

As Ibnu Qayim RHC famously said, Al-Fatwaa ta taqayar bi taqayuri Asminati wal Amkina= the Decree alters with the time and the place. This does not mean the principles change, but the furuuc shariica as far as Ijtihaad is concerned espouses its current circumstance without shaking off any foundations. that is actualy what many people did not understand,islam is very flexble diin,it is a religone for all centuries,generations and every continent, be it asia,america europe and africa who obviously practice different cultures. the main important thing we realy need to remember though is the achievement of islamic objective.what i mean by this is any islamic rule has an objective behind it,for example outlawing the khamra or even so called"dating" the hikamda here is to avoid occurence of unlawful physical contact between male and female,in case of datting,and brain disorder in the case of khamra. so in this matter i think it doesn't matter what means we use to prevent occurence of that. one more question which i think is worth asking is,is it only women whom should be acompanied with or it applies to both sex?

originaly posted by fly-stil Thats the goal Gediid but you men waa kirif kirif badan tihiin axsaanka aaba idinkaga sii daro! loooooooooool ............i think women has more kirif kirif than men,and when ever we show them the mercy side of our habit they take the opposite side, i mean come on why not say honestly what ladies want in face to face with man, all we see aftooor and way cadhootay........how many times,

ok let move on, and my question is, in the battle of mu,atah who was the first leader?the second leader and the third leader in line? what name did prophet p.b.u.h gave the first leader? my second question, who torndown the declaration of makkah,in which qurash sanctioned the prophet p.b.u.h? goood luck

Secondly, who brought this topic up?!? Arabs and Somalis? We have nothing in common with those people! i have got no time to read all post and replies in this topic, but the littlei read give me an idea about somalis,we somli are so much connected to arabis in two ways: 1-religone 2-originality, so many historian believe that somalis are originaly from arab or at least half arab,what i mean by half arab is that somali come into being as a result of inetmarriage between africans and arabs. but this idea has it's shorts not least that somalis are from diffrent ancestors, some of them india others from iran , and some from acient phoaras.but what about this name: binti ? this is acient name of somalia,acient chines,indians and egyptian called our country binti. but one thing worth remembering is,we can only be proud of our past and our originality when develope,modernise our society,otherwise what is importance of being acient.guys wake up and pull up ur socks .and lets jointly work towards common goal. thanx

To the poster, yes, it is highly recommended in Islam to have a third party present when conversating with someone whom you're "considering" (more appropriate than "dating"). This is mainly for the reason that the probability of shaydaan joining that conversation is very high when you're alone together (including any form of internet chatting as well as the phone) as opposed to when you're in public or in the presence of a 3rd party. For example, my best friend has an older sister who always got her little brother to listen to conversations when men who wanted to propose to her called. Masha'Allah, she has great Imaan, her sister and I always asked her how she was capable of doing this because it's just very impractical for many of us...esp for those of us who don't want our brothers or male family members to even know that we're talking with "strangers". However, we still have to do our best to avoid the possibility of a sin. Hope that helped i agree with u as far as recommendation of third party presence in any conversation between oppose sex,however, i think the third party must be a male from the ur family member,(that is if u are woman)the hadeeth was , if i recall it correctly ( a man should not lonely stay with a woman unless there is thee mahram.) the meaning of thee mahram is a male of woman's family memeber.as for the chatting through internet or telephone conversation i think there is no need of third party cuz the logic behind the presence of third party is to ensure no unislamic activities take place.one thing else i would like to sress here is if one is incapable of having male famliy memeber with her then she/he might just have coversation behind close veils. God says in holy quran( and if u want to ask them -women- somthing then do so behind veils ).

originally posted by conquest How can have the Ummayyad created the dictators of today? What about the Caliphates after it, the Ottomans, the Mughals, the Safivids, are they all,(sorry except the safivids ofcourse), also responsible for our backwardness? or maybe you are saying it was the ummayads who invented the Sunni branch of Islam? well i really do not like to create meanless argument in this nice thread,and i hve to say that i am against any argument of that sort.i would like however to shed light on one main thing, which i think,is not new to many of u,but i have this question which is,is the islamic religone something we create or it is teachings and guidiance that we follow accordly?we derive our islamic thought from two main sources namely:alquran,and sunah.if we do something out of this two source then our deeds are not islamicly correct.we have to face a very diffcult matter which is,do we keep silent about why and what happened between the sahaba for sake of unity which is not there?or we face the truth and say what happened and why?to hide the haq is by itself a sin,we must give the correct verdict of what happend.we are entitled to do so? i am sure as khayr said that many scholrs from ahlulu suna clearly tried to solve the proplem. jazaa humulaahu khayran of course conquest, the actions of those before us( -meant-umayat and those who followed-)has direct effect of our today's way of live if we do not change what they made wrong and follow what they made right.for one very important reason,which is the royalism system was initiated by umayts,an untouchable royals,what ever they do,is right.no one can question them of what theydo.is't that waht is happening now in many moslim countries?any rebelion agaisnt them is considered a step out of islam!!!!!!even if they are corup,my God is that what islam teaches us?all i want to say is let us not argue but let look for the reality. to QAC QAC: bro i am not shiate,nor my friends are,i do not like to call myself shiate or suni but a moslim.i am embrasse to hear diffrent names for one umah.and to tell u the truth i am from a family who are broud of their sunism,but let me tell u one thing sunimshor shiateism won'tsave one on the day of chagement,only God's grace and Good deeds can do so.and reality isthat prophet mohamed p.b.u.h did not leave his umah without caliphat.how can that be possiple while clear hear and reads that prophet use to say if three of u-sahaba- go somewhere one of must be leader ?did prophet did not undersatand what all his campaiond did?which is all of the caliphats did named their successors before they pas away? we won't reach the unity of this umah untill we say the truth,and of course many scholars from both side are doing exactly that.

Salaams you write a hadeeth that reads: " I will give the flag to some one who loves God and his massanger,and God and hismassager love him" Question: Are you suggesting that this hadeeth implies that Ali Radiyallahu anhu should have been the first Khalif, followed by his children and the 12 imaams of the Shia? bro nuur, thanx for the question and i realy like ur posttopic,any way the hadeeth is absolutely clear sign or evidence of ali's karamalahu wajhaha rank,the hadeeth gave him undisputeable recognistion for ali.that is something no one shares him.and especialy in context that abu bakar and omar failed to successfuly defeat the enemy in khaybar before ali lead the arm of islam and defeat the enemy.what was the is is porpuse that prophet want to clarify in this hadeeth? ( God knows ) but one thing is very clear,ali had been praised more than any other compaion.was he right caliphat after prophet? why did moslims did not support him?did all the mosllims of madina elected abaa bakar?and if they did on what basis?were there any opposition to the calliphat of abaa bakar?why if so?question after question.histroy must be rewrite. can any one tell why only after less tthan 30years of prophet's death moslim mascared each other?what was reason behind that battle in which thousands of moslims lost their lives? were both sides on right track? one thing is for sure one side was on wrong side,and was agressors and other side wa on the right track.which side is that? read the islamic history u will find surprise !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

definitely agreee with u kowneyn.it is big unfortunate that many moslims and even moslim scholars did not understand the importnce of this exceptional family.the only family who are part of our diin.and as u kowyneyn said no salat is complete if we do not mention the prophet and his family in last tahashut. some people compare ali with mu'awiye,other compare hasan and husien with yaziit binu mu'awiye.that so sad.why did muslims allowed banii umayat to curst ali and his family?did not they realise what we for sure know?or there alot hypacrocy going on?why did moslims seat back to defend hasan and husien?doesn't that indicate how umayat ruled the people with murders and irons. we have to think again about this,histroy is repeating itself once again. the rules that umayat layed down is still practiced in large part of moslim world. and subsequently created the totaltrianism and dictatorship in moslim world.or can u say anyother reason why 25 islamic states all economicaly politicaly and militry backwrd? i do not see. we need to change the systems

miz unique u answered first question correctly,however the prophhet(s.a.w.) said to ali on that dayi will give the flag to some one who loves God and his massanger,and God and hismassager love him as for what God prohibited in that battle it was the eating of the donkeymeat.and according to ahlul sunah the temporary marriage(mut'a.qac qac i think the last battle was huniyn,i am not sure. othe comments. yfullah, bro becareful all the umayyad leaders were not all bad, Muwiyah the 2nd, was a buis person too, he only had the rule for 6 months. because he was so religious that he left the rule. so pls bro make sure u know ur stuff. don't be like so emotional like the muslims are shown on cnn. talking out of anger and look bad. we are not talking about indivtuals here qac qac.we are talking about thier general policies and behaviours,were theypeople who followed the teachings of prophet (s.a.w)were theyeven the right people to lead the moslims?why did they legislated the cursting of ali and his family on the khutabas before omar binu abdi azizi?somany questions needs sasfactory answeres

hey conquest thansx for the correction although i do regard all umayad calipht as dictators with big EXCEPTION OF OMAR BINU ABDI AZIZ,HE WAS VERY HONEST AND DID JUSTICE IN MOSLIM UNLIKE HIS UMAYAS BEFORE HIM WHO AGRESSIVELY DEMOLISHID, KILLED,RAPE AND DICTATED THE MOSLIMS. MY QUESTION ISN NOW THIS: 1 who was the leader of molism arms in battle of khybar?and what is word that prophet said about that leader? 2 when it happened? 3 and lastly what thing God prohibited from moslim to do in that days ?.

i think (God knows )that as long as the telephone conversation do not contain prohibited discusstion then it is lawful to have it with any body,i mean there is no need to have family memeber preferably men to be with u.the reason why physical contact is prohibited in islam is cuz that may drag farther prohibited action like (God forbbide) fornication.in holy quran God says in suratul axzaab.and when u asking them-women-something do so behind veils (axzaab:verse 53)

this absolutely very intrestin topic.thanks for those who started it. i am not caalim or a person who can adequatelanswers for the questions posted in this topic, however, for my part in this topic i can say this. the question of pre-determination or destiny is absolutely important for one very important reason,which is ,the possibility one to use hi/her potential energy is highly dependent on whether that indvitual believes destiny or pre-determination the reason being that some believe that what ever happened was their destiny and subsequebtaly do not need to do some about it, this kind of behaviour is very popular in somalli community.obviously this kind of believe is totaly agaist the freewill of human,God give total freedom to human being to control hi action, that is why we are accountable for what we do in this world,had it been not the freedom it would have meant that we are accountable of deeds we forcely ordered.but God do justice. even some western philosophers believed that the reason why islamic impire vanished was purely thier bellive of destiny.of course muslim philosophers do not agree and rather have diffrent point of view.becuase if we go along with that view( islamic impire vanished because their believe in destiny ) we will end up with bigger scerio which is can one factor be both causer of vanishing and causer of development. any way the question is philosophical and requires much time to debate,but we must understand one this.thus is that there two types of destiny or pre-determinations: 1-absolute destiny or unchangeble. 2-none-absolute destiny or changeable. so what is the unchangeable?and what is changeable. to answer we say that changeable predetermination is all the action activities have more conditions rules and regulations, for example if jaamc want to become football player then he has to make sure certain conditions are met.if he fail this conditions then he can't succed his dream, now the failures of jaamac was changeable had he made the required steps,so the more conditions,rules.reason one action requires the more the actionn becaome changeable( what is mean by condition are shuruud.asbaab.and cilal also what i mean by changeable and changeable is, alxatmiyi wa ghayral alxatmiyi ) now what unchangeable is for example the death and birth.or i would have advice all nomad to read a book called the human being and destiniy it is written in arabic by Ayatolaah alshahiid almatharii

originaly posted by QAC Qac. under the Umayyad caliph Walid bin Abdalmalik, his time was considered the Golden times for the Umayyads, he had 3 GENERALS UNDERHIM, FAMOUS GENERALS i wonder if any moslim consider walliid bin malik's time as golden era?who does consider that way Qac qac?he was the murder of the hasan and husien the grand sons of prophet mohamed b.p.u.h. he was the man who aggressivly attacked the protected city of madina,he was the man behind murdering hundered of sahabas ?can any one consider man like that as hero or his time as golden era? i think we moslim all consider him as one of most totrious dictator,in moslim world. as for his general i think they were as follow: 1-ibnu ziyat i donot remeber the names of the other two. appreciated if eblighten us 2-