Plural marriage and fair treatment of co-wives, Dought & clear, - * He wants her as a second wife without telling the first; should she accept?

mwb

↓TRANSLATE THIS BLOG↓

I am divorced with children . somebody has proposed me to be his second wife without telling his first wife.. but i am afraid he wont be fair since he is already out of town a lot..
would it be permissible to me to inform the fist wife (since i know her) to let her know about the situation .. i feel is the only way i would accept this marriage.. knowing that he does not have to lie about where he is and so on..
please advice.
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
You should choose for yourself a man who is of good character and religiously committed, as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “If there comes to you one whose religious commitment and attitude pleases you, then marry [your female relative who is under your care] to him, for if you do not do that, there will be tribulation on earth and much corruption.” Narrated by at-Tirmidhi (1084) from the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him)’classed as saheeh by al-Albaani inSaheeh at-Tirmidhi.
This may be found out by researching about the man and asking his friends and neighbours, and the imam of his mosque; you should not base your decision on emotions or unverified claims.
If you are fortunate enough to find a man who is of good character and is religiously committed, then you have been blessed with something good. This is the one who is expected to be fair and just, and to fulfil duties and obligations.
Secondly:
You say that this suitor lives far outside the city and you are afraid that he will not be fair. This may be interpreted in two ways:
1. That you want your full right to a share of his time and you are afraid that he will not be fair, and that he may be unfair towards you with regard to this right. This possibility is very likely if he does not tell his first wife about the marriage, because it will be difficult for him to give you the rights that are your due and to explain why he is away from his home every day or night. This is what usually causes problems and conflict, and may lead to falling short with regard to your rights.
2. That you do not want your rights in full and you are content with him coming to you every now and then whenever it is easy for him. In that case not telling his first wife may be better, and in most cases it will be possible for him to organise his life properly with both of you, and he can use double entendres if he is asked about where he is going or why he is late.
You have to be clear about your attitude and your wishes. If you want to have your rights in full, then we do not advise you to get married until he tells his wife and you think it most likely that he is able to deal with problems and achieve fairness (in his treatment of both of you).
If you give up your right to a share of his time, then you can marry him without him telling his wife.
Whatever the case, you should not tell his wife anything; rather this is a matter to be handled by the man himself. If you tell her then it may spoil the relationship between them. Moreover, you have been entrusted with this secret that has to do with him only, and you do not have the right to disclose the secret without his permission.
You should be prepared, if the marriage takes place and you see some shortcoming in his giving his first wife her rights, to advise him to be fair, which is the way of earning Allah’s pleasure and attaining happiness and stability for you both.
And Allah knows best.

-
*AS'SALAMU ALAIKUM (WR, WB)*
-
-
Saturday - Aug - 8 - 2015
-
-
Shawwal - 22 - 1436
-
- * ! *
-
-:-

Plural marriage and fair treatment of co-wives, Dought & clear, - * Why did the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) not allow ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib to take a second wife when he was married to Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with them both)?

Share ::-

Why did the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) not allow ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl even though she was Muslim, and her father had also died by that time? Why did the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) forbid him to do that even though it was something that was basically permissible?
Praise be to Allah
The Muslim should accept everything that has been proven from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) of words and deeds, and should understand that all wisdom is in what the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said or did. Those who know that know it, and those who are unaware of it are unaware of it.
Plural marriage or polygyny is something that is well established in Islam on the basis of clear, unambiguous texts which cannot be undermined in any way whatsoever, no matter what skeptics and fabricators say.
However this marriage could have exposed him to problems and negative consequences that outweighed any benefits; in such cases plural marriage is disallowed, as in the case where the husband is not able to treat all his wives fairly, and he is afraid of being unfair or unjust towards them, or other cases in which the negative consequences outweigh any benefits that may be sought.
It is on this basis that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) forbade ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib to take another wife in addition to his daughter Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her), even though plural marriage was permissible in principle for him and for others.
It was narrated from al-Miswar ibn Makhramah that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib proposed marriage to the daughter of Abu Jahl, when he was already married to Faatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
When Faatimah heard about that, she went to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and said to him: Your people are saying that you do not get angry for the sake of your daughters, and ‘Ali is going to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl.
Al-Miswar said: The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stood up and I heard him when he bore witness, then he said: “I gave a daughter of mine in marriage to Abu’l-‘Aas ibn ar-Rabee‘; when he spoke he told me the truth and when he made me a promise he fulfilled his promise. Faatimah is a part of me, and whatever hurts her hurts me. By Allah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and the daughter of the enemy of Allah will not be joined together as wives of one man.”
So ‘Ali abandoned that proposal.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3110; Muslim, 2449.
The scholars mentioned a number of reasons for the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) forbidding ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib to go ahead with this marriage. These reasons all boil down to four things:
-1-
This marriage would be hurtful to Faatimah; whatever hurt her would hurt the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and whatever hurts the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is a major sin. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stated that clearly when he said: “Faatimah is a part of me, and whatever hurts her hurts me.”
According to another version: “She is a part of me; what disturbs her disturbs me and what hurts her hurts me.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5230; Muslim, 2449
Ibn at-Teen said:
The most correct way to interpret this story is that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) forbade ‘Ali to be married at the same time to his daughter and the daughter of Abu Jahl, because he gave as the reason for that the fact that this would hurt him, and hurting him is haraam according to consensus.
It would have been permissible for him if he had not been married to Faatimah; but being married to them at the same time, which would have been hurtful to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) because Faatimah would have been hurt by it, meant that it was not permissible.
Quoted from him inFath al-Baari, 9/328
An-Nawawi said: Because that would have led to hurting Faatimah, in that case it would have hurt the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) too, and the one who hurts him is doomed. For that reason he forbade him to do that, out of compassion towards ‘Ali and towards Faatimah.
End quote fromSharh Saheeh Muslim, 16/3
Ibn al-Qayyim said: By mentioning his other son-in-law (Abu’l-‘Aas ibn ar-Rabee‘), and praising him for having spoken the truth and fulfilled his promise, he hinted to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and encouraged him to follow his example. This gives the impression that he had made him a promise that he would not disturb her or hurt her, so he encouraged him to fulfil that promise, as his other son-in-law had fulfilled a promise he made.
End quote fromZaad al-Ma‘aad, 5/118
What is mentioned above does not apply to any woman other than Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her).
-2-
The fear that this would put Faatimah to trial with regard to her religious commitment
It was narrated by al-Bukhaari (3110): “I fear lest she be put to trial with regard to her religious commitment.”
According to Muslim (2449): “Faatimah is part of me, and I fear lest she be put to trial with regard to her religious commitment.”
Jealousy is something natural in women, and the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) feared that jealousy might push her to do something that would not be befitting to her status, as she is the leader of the women of the worlds.
Moreover, she had lost her mother and then her sisters one after another, so she had no one to comfort her and help to make things easier for her, or listen to her concerns if she became jealous.
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said: This incident occurred after the conquest of Makkah, at which time none of the daughters of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was still alive except her; after losing her mother, she had lost her sisters, and giving her cause to become jealous would have exacerbated her grief.
End quote fromFath al-Baari, 7/86
-3-
Objection to joining the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and the daughter of the enemy of Allah together as wives of one man.
As the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “By Allah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and the daughter of the enemy of Allah will not be joined together as wives of one man.”
An-Nawawi said: It was said that what is meant here is not the prohibition on them being joined together; rather what is meant is: I know by the grace of Allah that they will not be joined together.
It may also be understood as meaning that it was haraam to join them together… So one of the things that are haraam with regard to marriage is being married to both a daughter of the Prophet of Allah and a daughter of the enemy of Allah at the same time.
End quote fromSharh Saheeh Muslim, 8/199
Ibn al-Qayyim said: By disallowing ‘Ali to join together Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) and the daughter of Abu Jahl as co-wives there is great wisdom: because a woman will follow her husband and be at the same level as him in Paradise, but she may deserve to be of a high level by virtue of her own merits in addition to those of her husband. This is applicable in the case of Faatimah and ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both).
But Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, would not allow the daughter of Abu Jahl to be of the same status as Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her), whether on her own merits or those of her husband, when there was such a great difference between them. For her to become a co-wife of the leader of the women of the worlds would not be something appropriate, either in terms of sharee‘ah or in terms of the divine decree.
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) indicated that when he said: “By Allah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and the daughter of the enemy of Allah will not be joined together in one place.” This may refer to the Hereafter too.
End quote fromZaad al-Ma‘aad, 5/119
-4-
Out of respect for Faatimah and so as to highlight her great status.
Ibn Hibbaan said: If ‘Ali has done this deed, it would have been permissible, but the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) disliked it out of respect for Faatimah, not because this deed was haraam.
End quote fromSaheeh Ibn Hibbaan, 15/407
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said: The context indicates that it was permissible for ‘Ali, but the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) disallowed it out of care for Faatimah’s feelings, and ‘Ali accepted it out of obedience to the instructions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Thus it seems to me that it is not far-fetched to suggest that one of the unique characteristics of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was that his sons-in-law were not to marry other wives when they were married to his daughters. Or it may be that this is something that applied only to Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her).
End quote fromFath al-Baari, 9/329
In conclusion:
These reasons, as a whole or individually, explain why the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did not let ‘Ali go ahead with this marriage.
This story does not give the slightest support to those who try to use it to restrict plural marriage. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) dealt with this when he said, in the same story, “and I am not making any permissible thing forbidden, or any forbidden thing permitted.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3110; Muslim, 2449
And Allah knows best.

*AS'SALAMU ALAIKUM (WR, WB)*
-
-
Saturday - Aug - 8 - 2015
-
-
Shawwal - 22 - 1436
-
- * ! *
-
-:-

- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M

Da'eef (weak) hadeeths, Dought & clear, - * Refutation of the Ahmadiyyah sect’s quoting the hadeeth “IfIbraaheem had lived he would have been a man of truth, a Prophet”

mwb

↓TRANSLATE THIS BLOG↓

How sound is this hadeeth? It was narrated in Sunan Ibn Maajah that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “If my son Ibraaheem had lived he would have been a man of truth, a Prophet.” The Qadianis and Ahmadis use this hadeeth as evidence that the sharee‘ah ended with Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) but Prophethood did not end with him. What is your view? May Allah reward you with good.
Praise be to Allah.
We can sum up the answer to this specious argument in the following points:
Firstly:
The hadeeth mentioned in the question is not proven from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). It was narrated in a marfoo‘ report (i.e., attributed to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
When Ibraaheem the son of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) offered the funeral prayer for him and said: “He has a wet-nurse in Paradise, and if he had lived, he would have been a man of truth, a Prophet. If he had lived, his maternal uncles would have set the Egyptians set free, and no Egyptian would ever be enslaved.”
This was narrated by Ibn Maajah inas-Sunan(1511) via Dawood ibn Shabeeb al-Baahili. He said: Ibraaheem ibn ‘Uthmaan told us: al-Hakam ibn ‘Utaybah told us, from Miqsam, from Ibn ‘Abbaas.
This is a very weak (da‘eef jiddan) isnaad; there are two problems with it:
The first problem is Ibraaheem ibn ‘Uthmaan, Abu Shaybah al-Kufi. The critics are unanimously agreed that he is da‘eef. He was classed as da‘eef by Ahmad and Ibn Ma‘een, and Ibn al-Mubaarak said concerning him: Cast him aside. At-Tirmidhi said: His hadeeth is odd. An-Nasaa’i said: His hadeeth is to be ignored. See:Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb, 1/145.
The second problem is the break in the isnaad. They said in the biography of Ibraaheem ibn ‘Uthmaan that he did not hear anything from al-Hakam except one hadeeth, but they did not mention this hadeeth. And they said in the biography of al-Hakam ibn ‘Utaybah that he did not hear anything from Miqsam except five hadeeths, of which this is not one; in addition to that, he was well known for tadlees (using vague words to give a wrong impression). See:Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb, 2/434
Hence Ibn ‘Adiyy classed this hadeeth as da‘eef inal-Kaamil(8/507), as did Ibn Hajar inal-Isaabah(1/94), Ibn Katheer inal-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah(8/248, Dar Hijr edition), and as-Sakhkhaawi inal-Maqaasid al-Hasanah(p. 406).
Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
This is a very weak isnaad (da‘eef jiddan). The hadeeth of this Ibraaheem is to be rejected. It was narrated by Ibn ‘Asaakir via Muhammad ibn Yoonus: Sa‘d ibn Aws Abu Zayd al-Ansaari told us: Baqiyyah told us, from him... This Baqiyah is mudallis (i.e., he used vague words to give a wrong impression, in this case narrating by saying ‘from’ instead of ‘I heard’ or the like). It is possible that he took it from this Ibraaheem or someone else who is dubious or not reliable, then he used vague words to give a false impression.
Moreover, this isnaad also includes Muhammad ibn Yoonus – al-Kudaymi – who is a fabricator.
End quote fromas-Silsilah ad-Da‘eefah(no. 3202; See also no. 220).
The hadeeth has a corroborating report that was narrated by Ibn ‘Asaakir inTareekh Dimashq(3/138) from Jaabir ibn ‘Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him), a marfoo‘ report (i.e., attributed to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)): “If Ibraaheem had lived, he would have been a Prophet.” However this report is also very weak (da‘eef jiddan). Its isnaad includes Thaabit ibn Abi Safiyyah, Abu Hamzah al-Thamaali, of whom Imam Ahmad said: He is da‘eef; he is nothing. Abu Haatim and Abu Zar‘ah said: He is layyin al-hadeeth (a kind of weak narrator). An-Nasaa’i said: He is not trustworthy. Ibn ‘Adiyy said: His weakness is clear from his reports, and he is more likely to be weak. Ibn Hibbaan said: He often confused in his narration, to such an extent that he cannot be quoted as evidence if he is the only narrator of a report, in addition to the fact that he was extreme in his Shi‘ism. See:Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb(2/7-8).
Secondly:
A meaning similar to that of the hadeeth quoted above was narrated in the words of some of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them). There follows a discussion on the strength of the reports that were narrated:
~1~
Al-Bukhaari narrated in hisSaheeh(6194) via Ismaa‘eel ibn Abi Khaalid, who said: I said to Ibn Abi Awfa: Did you see Ibraaheem, the son of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)? He said: He died in infancy; if it had been decreed that there should be any Prophet after Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), his son would have lived, but there is no Prophet after him.
~2~
It was narrated that Ismaa‘eel ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan as-Suddi said: I heard Anas ibn Maalik (may Allah be pleased with him) say: If Ibraaheem, the son of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), had lived, he would have been a man of truth, a Prophet.
Narrated by Ahmad inal-Musnad(19/359, 21/402, and elsewhere). The commentators onal-Musnadsaid: Its isnaad is hasan because of as-Suddi. End quote.
To sum up, the meaning of the hadeeth is sound and is narrated in mawqoof reports from Anas and Ibn Abi Awfa; it is not the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
Thirdly:
The scholars differed concerning these reports that were narrated from the Sahaabah; there are two views:
The first view:
Some of the scholars rejected this idea and refuted what may be understood from them of Prophethood being inheritable.
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said, commenting on the words of Ibn Abi Awfa:
I do not know what this is. Nooh (peace be upon him) fathered sons who did not become Prophets, and those who were not Prophets did father Prophets; hence it is possible that a Prophet may father one who is not a Prophet. And Allah knows best. If a Prophet could only father a Prophet, then everyone would have been a Prophet, because everyone is descended from Nooh (peace be upon him). Adam was a Prophet to whom Allah spoke directly, and I do not know of any Prophet among those who were born from his loins except Sheeth (Seth).
End quote fromal-Istee‘aab(1/60).
Imam an-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
With regard to what is narrated from some of the earlier generations, “If Ibraaheem had lived he would have been a Prophet,” it is false and is speaking of unseen matters in an outrageous and audacious manner, rushing headlong into error. And Allah is the One Whose help we seek.
End quote fromTahdheeb al-Asma’ wa’l-Lughaat(1/103).
The second view:
Some other scholars accepted the reports mentioned above, but they said that the conditional clause in them is not binding and does not indicate that that could happen.
Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said, commenting on the words of Ibn Abi Awfa (may Allah be pleased with him):
Such a thing cannot be said on the basis of personal opinion. There were many scholars who narrated that – he mentioned the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas and the hadeeth of Anas, both of which are quoted above, then he said: There are a number of saheeh hadeeths from these Sahaabah, saying that they stated that. I do not know what made an-Nawawi object to that so emphatically. It may be that the reports from the Sahaabah mentioned above did not reach him, and what did reach him was from people other than the Sahaabah, who came after them, and that is why he said that.
Before him, this idea was rejected by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, even though those who narrated the reports from the Sahaabah mentioned it with the conditional phrase.
End quote fromFath al-Baari(10/578).
Mullah ‘Ali al-Qaari (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
It is not necessarily the case that what is mentioned in the conditional clause could have happened, so this does not contradict the fact that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was the Seal of the Prophets. That is similar to what he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said according to the marfoo‘ report narrated by Ahmad, at-Tirmidhi and al-Haakim, from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Aamir: “If there were to be any Prophet after me, it would be ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab.” Allah, may He be glorified, knows best what happened, what is happening, and what will not happen, and if it is to happen, He knows best how it will happen.
End quote fromMirqaat al-Mafaateeh Sharh Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh(9/3721 and 9/3932). See also an important footnote inal-Asraar al-Marfoo‘ah fi’l-Akhbaar al-Mawdoo‘ah(p. 290); andal-Haawiby as-Suyooti (2/119).
Fourthly:
In fact we are astounded by the use of this hadeeth – assuming that it is saheeh – to support the argument that it is possible for someone to have been a prophet after the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). The context of the hadeeth points to the exact opposite of that. It seems that what is intended by this hadeeth is to announce the end of Prophethood with the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and that that status will never be attained by any human after him; if that were possible, the most deserving of it would be Ibraaheem, the son of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). But Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, caused him to die for great reasons known to Him only, so he was not a prophet and no one else will ever be a prophet either. What clearer explanation can there be for one who seeks guidance? But the whims and desires of the heart and its blindness to the truth cause people to distort the words and misinterpret the text. Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):“So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places…” [al-Maa’idah 5:13].
Fifthly:
It is well known to the linguists that the wordlaw(if) does not indicate the possibility of a thing happening. The grammarians say that it is a word used to indicate that a thing cannot happen because another thing cannot happen. This occurs frequently in the Qur’an, as in the verses (interpretation of the meaning):“Say (O Muhammad SAW to these polytheists, pagans, etc.): ‘If there had been other aliha (gods) along with Him as they assert, then they would certainly have sought out a way to the Lord of the Throne (seeking His Pleasures and to be near to Him)’” [al-Isra’ 17:42]and“Had there been therein (in the heavens and the earth) gods besides Allah, then verily both would have been ruined” [al-Anbiya’ 21:22]. Would any wise person say that these verses indicate that it is possible for there be to other gods besides Allah?
Similarly, the context of the hadeeth clearly indicates that what is meant here is hypothetical. A hypothesis does not mean that something could happen; rather it may indicate that a thing is impossible according to the shar‘i text, but it is mentioned in order to convey an idea.
Sixthly:
By quoting the reports of the Sahaabah we find proof of the opposite of their argument. That is to be found in the words of Ibn Abi Awfa, quoted above from the report of al-Bukhaari: “but there is no Prophet after him”. This is a clear statement that no one who comes after the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) will be a Prophet.
Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Once this is understood, it will be clear to you that the Qadianis are mistaken in quoting the phrase, “If Ibraaheem had lived, he would have been a Prophet”, to support their false claim that Prophethood continued after the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), because this hadeeth is not proven to be soundly narrated from him (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). If they try to strengthen their argument by quoting the reports mentioned above, as we have done, that will refute their argument, as they indicate the opposite. These reports clearly state that the reason why Ibraaheem died in infancy was that there was to be no Prophet after him (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Perhaps they may argue about that – as they always do – and try to undermine the proof indicated by the reports by saying that they are not narrated from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him); but they can never escape what we have proven beyond any doubt, which is that their evidence is weak, even with regard to the first report, because it was never attributed soundly to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
End quote fromas-Silsilah ad-Da‘eefah(1/388).
Finally:
With regard to the Qadiani sect (also known as the Ahmadis), contemporary scholars are unanimously agreed that they are outside the pale of Islam, because their beliefs include things that constitute kufr and are contrary to the fundamental teachings of Islam. There have been dozens of fatwas and statements from fiqh councils, among the most significant of which is the statement of the Islamic Fiqh Council belonging to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (no. 4 (4/3)). This sect has gone against the definitive consensus of the Muslims that there is no Prophet after our Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
And Allah knows best.

-
*AS'SALAMU ALAIKUM (WR, WB)*
-
-
Thursday - Aug - 6 - 2015
-
-
Shawwal - 20 - 1436
-
- * ! *
-
-:-