Like i said. Where they allegedly sought refuge and where the refuged in is two seperate realities. The reality is that they migrated to Zeila Somalia and then thereafter to Aksum.So you are telling me this is the Migration to Zeila and not Abyssinia and that that is where the king was and they sought refuge?
My source states during the period in which the qiblah pointed towards jerusalem before being changed to mekha. Which was during the beginning of Hijra. Since the Mosque in Somalia undoubtedly points to Jerusalem its proof enough.You are funny . Your source states carbon dating for other sites, have you even read it properly? Site 80 (Zeila) on your source is discussed and it suggests through oral history.
So yes Archeological contruction of history proves it to be true.
Zeila in the grey circle, maybe you should go over geography as well, Somalia is not closer :
Totally plausible as the Somali coast is closest to the Southern Arabian border (Distance between the Gulf of Aden). Which could be the possible migration route taken.
Your source states
The ancient Qiblatayn mosque in Zayla/Zaila/Saylac (80) is believed to align in two directions, one facing Mecca and one facing Jerusalem. Earliest Muslims were praying towards Jerusalem. According to oral history, it is one of the earliest or indeed the earliest mosque in sub-Saharan Africa.
Combination of Archeological (Mosque towards Jerusalem) and oral history is a valid construction. You are not making a point."is believed to" " according to oral history". Stop talking about dating, no dating has been done.
This is what i call ''Confirmation Bias''. Which is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.And also stop sending that study because I have read it and quite embarrassingly, I don't think you have.
The migration was within that time frame. There was still several years left over. Find me another source apart from one of a lander using oral history to confirm this.
The simple fact that you ignore the reported archeological evidence which indicates that it points towards Jerusalem and emphasize ''oral history'' as means to decredit it.
Zeila was the crossing path to Aksum. So they landed in there first before they made their way to their pre-described destination.This was about the migration to Abyssinia where the king in Aksum (not saylac) allowed them to seek refuge... why have you even brought up Saylac overall????? I don't wish to discuss this with you anymore
How immature are you? The simple fact that you cannot entertain a single view or belief that contradicts your own shows how you are not an educated minded person.
For an educated mind can entertain a thought without accepting it..