Buganda is a kingdom located on Lake Victoria; it is believed to have been established in the 16th century. Over time it expanded by means of conquest; in the 19th century it covered a large part of what is Uganda today, including the site which was to become Uganda's capital, Kampala. Arab traders first reached Buganda in the 1860es. In 1867, the King of Buganda nominally converted to Islam. In the 19th century, Buganda was visited by western travelers : J.H. SPEKE (1862), HENRY MORTON STANLEY (1876). Their reports picture a state of considerable size and authority, the capital at LUBAGA HILL a town of 40,000, the armed forces consisting of 125,000 troops and a 'navy' of 230 war canoes. http://www.geocities.com/namirembediocese/Kings.html

Salafi_Online, Iblis' mission is to lead people astray, so he wouldn't be giving good advice. Didn't you know that? What he told Adam and Hawa (AS) to do was not in accordance with what Allah SWT had ordained them. Like I said earlier, I don't know what religion you adhere to because Islam emphasises in seeking knowledge.

Shujui, I know, I am smiling Milan are strong even when they are weak. Remember the time when Baresi retired? Milan were doing badly (am still traumatised by the 6-1 hammering by Juve :mad: Baresi looked like his shadow) but still had Davids, Kluivert, Reiziger and other big names. Best Milan team ever? They are always good, lol. Have you heard of MilanLab? Milan is the first team to have such a project. Besides the strong side and a decent coach, I think MilanLab has a lot to do with the success they have enjoyed lately. Check it out... http://www.acmilan.com/MostraInfo.asp?id_info=18932

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry!

Nugaali, I know, I am being idealistic in thinking that it is possible. It does sound very naive of me to think the gluttonous west could help repair some of te problems caused by their forefathers, but we are just talking different solutions. Nothing concrete, but IF! Waaq, This helps to keep that tragic event in the minds of the whole world, and allows Jews to assert a monopoly on suffering. In Swedish secondary schools, some 'holocaust survivors' go around and talk about their suffering. They implant on the minds of the youngsters that Jews are still victims of the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany. I remember once the discussion of the suffering of Jews came up in school, I told them that they had not been through a tenth of the shit Africans had gone through but noo ne talks about them. Slavery and colonialism combined has cost Africans unimaginable pain and misery, yet we keep hearing about the holocaust. Thoth, It does sound like an impossible feat, but what to do if it is clear that there are people benefitting from crimes committed before 1865? Africans won't get any reperations just because they aren't negotiating from a power position. The Jews were given Palestine as 'plaster on a wound' after WW2. The Jews also made major Swiss banks pay huge compensation becasue they claimed that their people had a lot of money and jewelery there before the war. They even asked BMW, Benz and Volkswagen to cough up some dough because their people were used as "involuntary labour" during WW2. These people have some major backing, that's why they have been successful in getting reperations. Where there's a will, there's a way. If the Americans are willing to compensate the descendants of slaves, there's numerous ways of doing so.

It is amazing how people accept or distance themselves from being African. The word AFRICAN has different meanings and that could explain all the hassle. I had to look it up on the Merriam-Webseter dictionary to confirm my thoughts; and indeed, the word AFRICAN has two meanings... 1 - a native or inhabitant of Africa 2 - a person and especially a black person of African ancestry We definately fit in the first category BUT can we define ourselves as black people of African ancestry? NO! Somalis are hamtic people classified as people with cocasoid (NOT NEGROID) features. This is one of the reasons Somalis don't see themselves as AFRICANS, they have not negroid but caucasoid features. Somalis often look only at the second definition and therefore decline being referred to as African. Look at this link and you'll see Somalis and North Africans categorised as caucasians... http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/subraces.html Dr Ali Mazrui talks about the TRIPLE HERITAGE that Africans have and said that... When I was growing up in Mombasa, Kenya, I crossed those three civilizations to and from several times every twenty-four hours. I was getting Westernized at school, Islamized at home and at the mosque, Africanized at home and in the streets. A very interesting concept that many Africans relate to; Could it be that Somalis were not "Africanized" but instead 'Somalized' at home and in the streets? PS: Somalis who think that they are superior to Africans with negroid features are just bigoted imbeciles.

Salafi, If a Jehovas Witness came to me and told me to be kind to animals, I would appreciate the advice and thank the person simply because being kind to animals doesn't go against my beliefs. So sxb, if the message I conveyed (not wasting your time, seeking knowledge and improving your life) is against your deen, then we do not belong to the same deen. If you are a sane adult, then you should be able to distinguish distinct virtue from vice. The persecuted reformer, Weyne 24 and Waryaa dude, YOU ARE WELCOME.

The best of creation, our Noble Prophet SAWS, cried. Why then should we adhere to jahiliya cultures that make men cold beasts? A man's should use his strengths to hold together the family but that shouldn't stop him from feeling pain. Pain (or emotions) so intense that you have to release it somehow, for it is unhealthy to hold all that inside. I personally do ocassionally cry, not at grievances but sometimes when praying or making du'a. There was an imam who twice (in two different occasions, jum'a prayers) after fatixa read from sura Al-Ankabut 29.57... ÙƒÙلّ٠نَÙْس٠ذَائÙقَة٠الْمَوْت٠(Every soul will taste of death). Tears just ran down my cheeks, on both occasions, and there was nothing I could do to hold them back. For some reason, I don't look forward to hearinag someone reading that verse. Sura Al-Zalzala (sura 99) also terrifies me and shakes me to the core when I hear or read it; the reason is, I saw something similar in a dream once and it was the most horrific dream I have ever had.

Thoth, It is an old article I found on the net and wanted to share it with other Nomads. If some want to debate, Alxamdullilah. Why do you find it unrealistic? A way to do it would be for the wesetern world to cancel all debts help eradicate malaria, combat AIDS, improve trade conditions etc etc.

For us Muslims, there is now way of seperating politics from religion, and even religion from sports. I attended a lecture by Sheikh Quick recently where (among other issues) he talked about the olympics. He applauded the Iranians and also warned us to beware of the 'illusion' that these games seem to spread, making billions of people forget about the real life. He said that we should tell our children about how idolatry of the Greeks was well integrated in these sports. He talked about Eros, Nike and other Greek idols that are present in these games. He talked about the all important role of Eros in these games and how we should not forget to lower our gaze.

Nur, Bro, the verse you quoted from sura Al-Tauba, atleast as I understood it, referred to the time our Noble Prophet PBUH went to Madinah and brought together the Ansar and the Muhajireen, joining them as brothers in Islam. The following verse was revealed just before our Noble Prophet PBUH made his speech in Ghadir Khumm. "O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don't do it, you have not delivered His message (at all);and Allah will protect you from the people ..." (Al-Maidah 5:67) The Prophet PBUH later said... "Man kuntu mawlahu fa hadha 'Aliyun mawlahu." If I have intepreted or understood this historical day wrongly, please enlighten me. Why is it you attack Shi'a when they use the Sunni Hadiths 'when it suits them' and then (you) go ahead and do the same thing? You use quotations from the Nahj al Balagha which you have repeatedly said that you didn't believe it to be the words of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Do you really believe those words (in the Nahj) to be uttered by Ali ibn Abi Talib or are you doing what you accused the Shi'a of (to suit your needs)? Plus, there are some other parts of the sermon (Shiqshiqiya) which say quite the opposite. I agree with you that Ali ibn Abi Talib did not fight the nomination of the Caliphs. This is how I have understood it and please correct me if you think I have got it all wrong... -For the appointment of the first Caliphate (Abu Bakr's), Ali wasn't present when he was nominated because he was busy making preparations for the burial of our Noble Prophet PBUH who had just passed away. The matter had been resolved in his absence. -If I am not mistaken, Abu Bakr nominated Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). -And during the nomination of the thrid Khalifah, AbdulRahman's vote had a condition tied to it that Uthman agreed to (Ali didn't) and thus won the nomination.

Boolbaro, That sheikh is messed up big time and shouldn't be giving sermons. The verse you are talking about is in sura Ar-Rahman... Lord of the two Easts , and Lord of the two Wests! (The Holy Qur'an 55:17) This verse refers to the rising and setting of the sun during the winter and summer, a phenomenon known as 'equinox'. In the summer, the sun rises from one extreme east and during the winter, it rises from the other extreme east. Likewise, during summer, the sun sets on one extreme west and on the other extreme west during the winter. This is the two (extreme) easts and two (extreme) wests that Allah SWT is referring to in sura Ar-Rahman. So this verse is not about an alien planet but OUR own earth. professer, If you fly east and continue flying, would you end up where you started or would you hit a wall like Jim Carey did in the Truman show?

Slavery: Africa's case By Baffour Ankomah, in New African A Ghanaian friend recently reminded me of how "history" basically means "HIS-story" - the story of the conqueror, not the vanquished. In Africa's case where oral (as against written) tradition has always been the norm, there is no written record of Africa's side of the slavery story. It has all been a one-sided story told through the eyes of the white man, a point finely put by Adam Hochschild in his recent book, King Leopold's Ghost. "One problem, of course," Hochschild writes about the history of Congo, "is that nearly all of this vast river of words is by Europeans or Americans...and this inevitably skewed the way that history was recorded... Instead of African voices from this time, there is largely silence." For example, the very important point of "what might have been" has been swept under the slavery carpet. If the Africans had not collaborated with the Europeans, what would have happened? The answer is not far fetched. The record of European conquests around the world is enough indication. First, there is unanimity among historians that the Portuguese who started the Transatlantic Slave Trade, used kidnapping as a way of getting their first African slaves. Gomes Eannes de Zurara, the Portuguese chronicler attached to the court of the Portuguese king, Henry (the Navigator) wrote that the Portuguese first used "war on the blacks" in 1444 to capture the first slaves. "[The Portuguese] shouting out 'St James, St George and Portugal', at once attacked [the Africans], killing and taking all they could," Zurara wrote. "Then might you see mothers forsaking their children, and husbands their wives, each striving to escape as best as they could. Some drowned themselves in the water, others thought to escape by hiding under their huts, others stowed their children among the sea weed, where our men found them afterwards." In his 1997 book on the slave trade, Hugh Thomas records correctly that, "West Africa had known slavery on a small scale before the coming of Islam", and before the coming of the Europeans. Hochschild even puts it better. "The nature of African slavery [before the arrival of the Europeans]," he writes, "varied from area to another and changed over time, but most slaves were people captured in warfare. Others had been criminals or debtors, or were given away by their families as part of a dowry settlement...In other ways, African slavery was more flexible and benign than the system Europeans would soon establish in the New World. Over a generation or two, slaves could often earn or be granted their freedom, and free people and slaves sometimes inter-married." The Africans never sold their slaves as "commercial items" until the arrival of the Arabs, and later Europeans. For the Africans to change their mind and "sell" slaves on the huge scale as we see in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, means something dramatic happened to their mind-set. Zurara chronicled that from 1444 onwards, the "Portuguese caravels, sometimes four, sometimes more, used to come to the Gulf of Arguin [in modern day Mauritania] well armed, and, landing by night, surprised some fishermen's villages". Over time, the Africans decided to fight back and defend themselves "with considerable intelligence", and inflicted heavy casualties on the Portuguese. As their losses increased, Henry (the 'Navigator', the first in the line of European monarchs to benefit greatly from slavery), ordered his men to change tactics. Instead of seizing the Africans by force, they would now "buy" them. "A captain named Joao Fernandes apparently initiated this change, on the explicit orders of King Henry", writes Hugh Thomas. "He offered to stay on the coast of the Bay of Arguin in 1445 in order to gather information, in temporary exchange for an old leader of the region. Fernandes did remain in Africa for a year, [and] won over the local people..." Notice Hugh Thomas' use of "won over". You "win over" somebody when you gain his support or consent. The first move always comes from the one trying to "win over" the other. In the case of slavery, the Europeans used bribery and deceit to "win over" the Africans to "sell their own people". In modern parlance, one would say they took advantage of the nave African kings, as they still do with modern African leaders. In any case, if the Africans had not succumbed to the wiles of the Europeans, they (the Europeans) would have used their superior guns to subdue the Africans anyway, as they did during the years of colonialisation. The record is there. For example, when the Asantes in Ghana refused to come under British rule, Britain fought a series of wars (1873-74) to subdue the Asantes (finally in 1900). The Asantes succumbed not because they now wanted British rule, but because Britain's superior firepower overcame them. Britain used force! An African-American archaeologist, Theresa Singleton, who worked at a site in Elmina (Ghana) in the early 1990s, wrote recently: "In 1873, the Asantes marched toward the coast to confront the British invaders. To stop the Asantes and their allies - the Fantes inhabitants of Elmina - the British bombarded the town of Elmina from the ramparts of Elmina Castle and destroyed it. The part of the town immediately adjacent to the fortress was never rebuilt, and has been the focus of archaeological research since 1985." So, in effect, if the Africans had not "sold their own people," the Europeans would have used superior force to get the slaves anyway. Records show that before 1950, what the Europeans wanted anywhere in the world, the Europeans got it; first by stealth and deceit, and that failing, by force. Take the Americas (especially USA, Canada, and Brazil), the Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand, (even South Africa and Zimbabwe) - the Europeans just seized the land by wiping out the native people (sometimes poisoning their waterholes or giving them "gifts" of poisoned blankets as they did in America). The natives who were fortunate not to be killed, were carted into "reservations" where they still live in America and elsewhere. So, in a way, one can say with some qualification, that it was somewhat a "blessing" that the Africans collaborated with the European slavers. The alternative would have been total catastrophe, a complete extermination of our people and seizure of our land as happened in the Americas, Australia New Zealand etc, and as the Germans tried to do in Namibia, where they wiped out nearly 70% of the Herero people between 1887 and 1907. Or as Belgium's "philanthropic" king, Leopold II, did in Congo where between three and five million Congolese were killed by Leopold's agents between 1890 and 1910. Today, neither Germany nor Belgium is offering any compensation for killing these African people in Namibia and Congo, yet Germany is happy paying compensation to the Jews. Therefore, the modern excuse that Africans "sold their own people", and, thus, do not deserve reparations, is neither here nor there. The Europeans would have had their way, anyway. Then comes the vexing question often asked by both white and black anti-reparationists: Who is to receive compensation? And how much is human life worth? The answer is simple. How much are they paying to the Jews? It's just a simple matter of multiplication. And who should receive it? They know where they "bought" the slaves! They know where the descendants and heirs of the slaves live. And this must be paid by both the Arab and Western former slaving nations. Another very important bit of slavery swept under the carpet is the "disappearance" of the descendants of African slaves in Europe and Arabia. Where did they go? At least, in the New World one can point to the offspring of the African slaves. The Arabs were the first, and last, to take African slaves out of the continent, long before the Europeans arrived and long before abolition in 1870. But today we don't see any large concentrations of blacks in Arabia. Similarly, the first millions of Africans enslaved by Europeans were taken north into Europe. It was not until 1530 that King Joao III of Portugal (he of Congo) agreed that slaves could be shipped directly from Africa to the Americas. So, where are the descendants of the African slaves shipped into Europe between 1440 and 1530? Records show that some were shipped down to the New World. But not all. In Britain (which became the biggest slaving nation), the lie is often told how black people started coming to the "mother country" in large numbers only after World War II. So where did the descendants of the African slaves shipped to Britain, go? The same question can be asked of Portugal, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands and Switzerland (even Switzerland!). In the 1780s, Jacques Necker, a Swiss economist who had recently been dismissed as minister did a study of Switerland's finances, and wrote a pamphlet denouncing Swiss hypocrisy: "How we preach humanity yet go every year to bind in chains 20,000 natives of Africa," Necker wrote. Historians record that his pamphlet sold like hot potato - 24,000 copies in a very short time. In the case of Britain, Peter Fryer reveals in his 1988 book, Black People in the British Empire, that black "presence [in Britain] goes back some 2,000 years and has been continuous since the beginning of the 16th century or earlier". Gretchen Gerzina, in her brilliant book, Black England, published in 1995, adds that: "By 1596, there were so many black people in England that Queen Elizabeth I [who herself participated in the slave trade and benefited greatly from it] issued an edict demanding that they leave. "At that time, slaves provided a lifetime of wageless labour for the cost of the initial purchase, and increased the status of the owner. Alarmed that they might be taking jobs and goods away from English citizens... the Queen issued another ineffectual edict, then finally commissioned a Lubeck merchant, Casper van Senden, to cart them off in 1601." Some of them were shipped out to the New World. But not all. As Gerzina's research showed, 167 years after Queen Elizabeth had shipped out the Africans, "in 1768 Granville Sharp and others put the number of black servants in London [alone] at 20,000, out of a total London population of 676,250." So where are the descendants of these African "servants"? Hugh Thomas tells how in 1799, the then British prime minister, William Pitt (a great abolitionist himself) had taunted the anti-abolitionists during a debate in the House of Commons: "On this occasion," Thomas reveals, "[Pitt] said ironically that the opponents of abolition evidently thought that 'the blood of these poor negroes was to continue flowing; it was dangerous to stop it because it had run so long; besides, we were under contract with certain surgeons to allow them a certain supply of human bodies every year for them to try experiments on, and this we did out of pure love of science'." There is the rub! The Africans were used for medical experiments by European surgeons! But surely not all of them disappeared under the surgeons' knives? So where are their offspring? All said and done, nobody gets reparations paid to him on a silver plate. To this day, Africa has done almost nothing about this matter. Bernie Grant, the Labour MP in London, laments the striking indifference of African leaders in the matter. "But I'm not waiting for [them]", he says. "I just carry on with what I'm doing. Because the issue at stake is more important than that. It's to do with the people of African descent, and not necessarily the people from Africa." BRC-NEWS: Black Radical Congress - General News/Alerts/Announcements Subscribe: Email "subscribe brc-news" to majordomo@tao.ca

One cannot help admiring the actions of our Iranians brothers at times like this. In Iran, maps don't contain the country "Israel" (it says Palestine) and that means that they don't recognise the Zionist nation. Then lady luck hands their judo champion an Israeli in the first round draw.... www.albawaba.com August 14, 2004 Athens 2004: Iranian world judo champion refuses to face Israeli judoka Iranian world judo champion Arash Miresmaili, who carried his country's flag in Friday's olympic games opening ceremony, has pulled out of the tournament because he refused to fight an Israeli. The 23-year-old, twice a winner of the flyweight (under 66kg) world title, opted not to take on first round opponent Ehud Vaks of Israel as an express of support for Palestine. "Although I have trained for months and was in good shape I refused to fight my Israeli opponent to sympathize with the suffering of the people of Palestine and I do not feel upset at all," Miresmaili told IRNA. Students news agency ISNA quoted Iran's sports officials as saying Miresmaili still deserved the one billion Rial ($115,000) prize the Iranian olympic medal winners were promised by the Physical Education Organization. "Miresmaili must receive a special prize as he was the prime candidate for a gold medal and I will do my best about it," said head of the Judo Federation, Mohammad Derakhshan. (albawaba.com) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 2004 The Daily Star Monday, August 16, 2004 Iranian under investigation after Israeli boycott threat Officials suspect Miresmaeili of intentionally failing weigh-in By Agence France Presse (AFP) ATHENS: Iran's world judo champion Arash Miresmaeili is facing an investigation into whether or not he deliberately failed to make the weight for his opening Olympic Games bout to avoid fighting an Israeli. "We are examining the case very, very seriously," International Judo Federation (IJF) spokesman Michel Brousse said. The IJF executive committee held a meeting Sunday and will meet again on Monday to discuss the controversy which has rumbled on for three days after the Iranian threatened to boycott his featherweight opener against Israel's Ehud Vaks. In Tehran, meanwhile, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami as well as the media were heaping praise of their fighter saying his protest was justified. Miresmaeili, 23, who carried his country's flag in Friday's opening ceremony, came to the weigh-in early Sunday but tipped the scale over the limit of 66 kilograms. He was two kilograms overweight, a source told AFP. "The IJF is very surprised that such an elite player could not manage to make his weight," Brousse said. "Maybe he has a diet problem. Maybe he could have had some problems in preparation. We have to know more about it," he said. "If a decision has to be made, a decision will be made." Heavily favored Miresmaeili, who could have become the first Iranian to win an Olympic judo medal, was drawn to take on Vaks in the first round, but was reportedly refusing to fight as a gesture of support for the Palestinian cause. Vaks said he felt sorry for the Iranian whom, he said, was forced to opt out of the match because of national policy. "It's horrible for him. I can imagine the way you feel when you lose but it is even worse because they don't let you fight," Vaks, 25, said after losing on points to Algerian Amar Meridia in his rescheduled first fight. "I admire him as a real good fighter and great judo player. On the personal level, I'm really sorry for him and on the national level as well." Miresmaeili had been quoted by the Iranian media as saying he would refuse to fight an Israeli as a gesture of support for the Palestinian territories. "Although I have trained for months and was in good shape I refused to fight my Israeli opponent to sympathize with the suffering of the people of Palestine and I do not feel upset at all," Miresmaeili told the IRNA news agency. However, on Saturday, the head of the Iranian judo federation insisted that Miresmaeili would go ahead with the opening round fight. "Miresmaeili will be on the mat in good time to fight against the sportsman from Israel," said Iranian judo chief Mohammad Derakhshan Mobarak. It is not the first time Iranian judokas have declined to fight against Israeli opponents. At the 2001 world championships, Mahed Malekmohammdi refused to face Yoel Razvozov while Asian champion Masoud Haji Akhoundzade also pulled out of a planned clash with Israeli lightweight Zvi Shafran. In Tehran on Saturday, it was reported that Miresmaeili was still due to receive a $115,000-dollar cash purse set aside by the Iranian authorities for gold medal winners. Meanwhile, Khatami came out in support of Miresmaeili. "The great act of our self-sacrificing champion, Arash Miresmaeili, who gave up the Olympic medal in protest of massacre, terrorism and usurpation will be recorded among our national glories," Khatami said, cited by state television. By Shigemi Sato, Agence France Presse Copyright © 2004 The Daily Star

Nur, Bro, as you may have noticed by now, not everyone is able to debate in a scholarly fashion. Offcourse, it would be ideal if she followed your structured discussions and participated by confirming or refuting your claims in an orderly manner instead of just posing questions. But we all, at some point, have questions that need answers. Sometimes people just wonder how and why certain events unfolded the way they did. The questions Sakina has posed are legitimate and deserve to be adressed, for her worries are not about the contents of al-Kaafi or the story of ibn Saba, but certain significant historical events. I have (previously) asked you about 'The tragedy of Thrusday' and the absence of Ali ibn Abi Talib and some prominent Sahaba from the nomination of the first Khalifah but don't recall ever getting any response from you. These are important events in the history of Islam that people could need clarification on, so please don't ignore her questions or doubt her sincerity. It is not to her (or others') benefit either when you answer a question with another question. The best thing I think would be would be to give her the benefit of the doubt and adress her queries to the best of your knowledge. What makes you think that suspecting a person to be a Shia is necessarily a bad thing? If she is a Shi'a, you are Shi'a, I am Sh'ia and everyone else is too, then there isn't a point in referring to her as Shi'a, is there? Unless you mean she is the 'deviant' type of Shi'a.

If four matters are exceeded in quantity, beyond what is necessary, the heart shall become hardened: Food, sleep, speech and sexual intercourse. A body afflicted by disease does not derive nourishment from food or water, similarly a heart diseased by desire does not benefit from admonishment or exhortation. Adultery and fornication is strongly prohibited and it is said that one gets rewards (thawwab) every time he/she copulates with a lawful spouse. How can it 'harden the heart' when one is (at the same time) getting a lot of thawwab from doin' it?

Luggoyyo, Welcome sxb, it's good to see you again. The link you posted 'could not be found', but I recognise the player (Wanderson de Paula Sabino Somalia) from his time at Feyenoord where he played for a couple of years. I know of a Somali family with females called Paris, Istanbul, Beirut, Berlin and Yurub (Europe). After all these years, I still find it peculiar.

SubxannAllah! Our Noble Prophet PBUH gave us golden advice that if we follow, this would not afflict anyone. We ought to divide our stomachs in three parts; one-third for food, one-third for drink and one-third for breathing. Non-Muslims can equallyu follow Jesper Carrot's (the english comedian) advice to the obese. He said... "This hole(pointing to the mouth) should not be bigger than that hole (pointing to his back-side)."

Discreet, A people usually adopt the term used by those who have invented or introduced a product to the rest of the world. Take tea as an example, it originated in China and is called chai in Chinese, almost every other language has adopted it (calling it cha, che, the, te, tea, chay, teh etc.). Language also very much depends on the environemnt and the things humans in that particular region encounter in their daily lives. If you go to northern Sweden, they have numerous names for different types of snow depending on its consistence, the direction it drops etc. It would be illogical to demand equivalent terms from a people who inhabit a semi-arid land. Bears are common in the northern hemisphere and I once curiously inquired if we had a name for it in Somali. I was suprised to find that we did, madax kuti. Apparently there lived a bear-like creature in our regions hundreds of years ago and are extinct today.

Perhaps. However, there are many areas where there arent any Muslim community centres and the Mosque is the only provider of these services. Aeryn Sun, When this is the case, there usually isn't any problems becasue the events are held after (in between) prayer times; women aren't confined to their quarters and all space available is utilised.

NGONGE, Your life reminds me of a movie I watched a few years ago called 'Office space'. Go rent it and tell me whether I am wrong.

"O ye who believe! Shun much suspicion ; for lo! some suspicion is a crime" (Al-Hujurat 49:12) Nur, Give the sister a break! You called her a Shi'a against her will, ignored her questions and instead chose to pose your own. I got the same treatment from you in the beginning and found it very unpleasant, especially coming from someone with a vast knowledge of our Deen.

Aeryn Sun, What you are talking about sounds like a Muslim commununity centre that might be anexxed to a mosque. I don't think that that was the post was about.

Very interesting read! Looking at Africa, one can see the demise in living standards from the 80's to today, there's an enormous difference! Tanzania was set on a good path by Mwalimu Nyerere but his dream of the socialist UJAMAA has been shattered by these Washington goons (IMF and WB). Now we have the issue of cash crops, major privatisation and loans with amazing riba for the African nations to deal with. Like the author said, multi-party politics and market economy should never have been introduced in Africa, we were doing well before that.

Aamin! May Allah SWT reward you for your efforts. It is never easy reading about the death of Our Noble and Beloved Prophet PBUH; May Allah SWT soften our hearts and lead us on to Siratul-Mustaqiim.