Hello fellows, today i am kinda in a good mood but yesterday i was really pissed off. First we fans of Manchester United are disappointed on the team perfomance. Mostly in the list is the 75 Euro  millon boy Romelo Lukaku, he is worthless the money he was bought because of his bad appearance in the derby match between man utd vs man city. Which ended 1-2, the city won. Both city goals were the Belgium bluffs, i am so disappointed on my trusted forward. But we all know it is just football we both have three sides win, loss or draw. And who doesn't agree to the results he is not a competitionor. So we believe to be better than yesterday for the next coming matches, though we are behind eleven(11) point to reach city now. We'll pull up our socks, reds, reds forever. 
Continue »

The decades-long rule of President Robert Mugabe appeared to be over Wednesday after Zimbabwe’s military took over state television to announce the autocrat was in custody.

Army chiefs told viewers that the 93-year-old despot — the world’s oldest head of state — and his family were “safe and sound” as tanks were seen on the streets of the capital, Harare.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and his wife Grace.

The U.S. Embassy was closed to the public Wednesday and encouraged citizens to shelter in place, citing "the ongoing political uncertainty through the night."

Neither Mugabe nor his wife Grace, who has been controversially trying to succeed her husband as president, have been seen for several days. However, the military insisted there had not been a coup.

"We wish to make it abundantly clear that this is not a military takeover," Maj. Gen. Sibusiso Moyo said in a national address Wednesday after taking control of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation.

"We are only targeting criminals around [Mugabe] who are committing crimes that are causing social and economic suffering in the country in order to bring them to justice,” he continued. “As soon as we have accomplished our mission, we expect that the situation will return to normalcy.”

Continue »

SHERIA ZA KIMILA TANZANIA/CUSTOMARY LAW CASES

SHERIA ZA KIMILA TANZANIA/CUSTOMARY LAW CASES

CUSTOMARY LAW CASES
5/2/2011

1. ADAMU MTONDO v. LIKUNA OMARI (1968) HCD 289 – Hamlyn, J.

Divorce –Islamic Law – Divorce Normally Must be Pronounced three times – Revocation of Divorce – Unaffected by Fact Dowry not fully paid.

Appelant orally pronounced a divorce from his wife. Somewhat less than a month later, presumably in a period of “tuhr”, he orally revoked the divorce. The PC held that the divorce was complete and, on appeal, the DC affirmed acting on the advice of an assessor that the revocation was of no effect because the dowry had not been fully paid at that time. Neither court specified the school of Muslim law which the parties adhered.

Held:
1. Under the more common interpretations, divorce is effected only by three pronouncements and was not effected here, where only one pronouncement was given. Trial courts should specify the school of Muslim law which is applicable; in the absence of any indication to the contrary, it should be presumed that the more common interpretation applies.
2. Even if the single pronouncement was effective, the fact that the dowry had not been fully paid did not affect the validity of the revocation and the oral divorce was rescinded. Appeal allowed and respondent declared to be still the lawful wife of appellant.

2. MAHUNDYA MBURUMATARE v. MUGENDI NYAKANGARA (1969) HCD 7
26/11/2968 - Seaton, J.
Customary marriage – Validity depends upon the issue of a marriage certificate.

The respondent claimed compensation for adultery allegedly committed by his alleged wife. The question turned on the proof of marriage. The respondent argued that he married the woman in 1964, and that the marriage certificate was not regarded as necessary under the local customs.

Held:
1. The case falls to be determined under the Declaration of Customary Law, GN 279 OF 1963. Sec. 86 provides that the marriage must be legalized by the issue of a marriage certificate. The traditional ceremonies have no legal force.
2. IN the instant case, besides the non-production of the marriage certificate there were other discrepancies in evidence which indicated that there was no marriage between the respondent and the woman. Appeal allowed.






3. MATIKO CHABHA v. MATHIAS MWITA (1969) HCD 8 - Saidi, J. – 4/11/1968
Divorce – Return of dowry – When permissible.

This was a claim for the return of dowry. The parties were married under customary law, and the Husband had paid dowry. On divorce, normally dowry is not returnable once the children have been born, which was the case here. However, the wife has since remarried, and her father had received a second set of dowry.

Held:
1. Under Clause 52B of the Customary Declaration Order 1963 the claim for the return of dowry b y the husband on dissolution of the marriage cannot be entertained if the wife has borne him children. The Declaration does not touch on the relevant issue raised in the instant case, namely whether it is fair to bar the husband from recovering the dowry or a proportionate part thereof where the wife who has borne him children is divorced and having been re-married dowry is paid again to the father. This way a father could get several sets of dowry for the same daughter. In such a case the former husband is entitled to receive a substantial part of the dowry he has paid.

Note from Blogger:
With due respect to his Lordship, this decision makes the wife look exactly like a commodity on the marketplace and not a human being. It is not fair and I think this was an erroneous decision, even then (1968). The dowry from the first husband or any subsequent husband for that matter was not supposed to be paid, with or without the appearance of children in the marriage!

4. RALANG MUMANYI v WAMBURA MWITA (1969) HCD 9 – Seaton, J. –

The appellant sued the defendant in the primary court in North Mara District for the return of bride wealth. There was evidence that after several years of marriage, the plaintiff’s wife (the defendant’s daughter) had deserted the plaintiff, but there was no evidence that the plaintiff had obtained a divorce. At the trial the plaintiff and the defendant gave evidence but were not allowed to cross-examine one another. It was not recorded whether or not they were allowed to call other witnesses. No issues were framed by the court, nor were the opinion of the assessors recorded. The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff, relying on ss. 133, 134 and 140 of Law of Persons GN 279/1963, which provide that desertion is a ground for divorce and that the Husband may claim divorce and seek a return of bride wealth without legal obligation to search for his wife.
HELD:

1. After the Plaint had been read and the defendant’s statement in reply recorded, the court should have framed the issues in the case and determined whether or not the defendant admitted or denied the plaintiff’s allegations. [Citing r. 44-47 Magistrates Courts [Civil Procedure in Primary Court] Rules, GN 310 of 1964.
2. The trial court should have recorded whether or not the parties had been given opportunity to cross-examine and to call witnesses.
3. Although a primary court has discretion as to whether or not to sit with assessors [s.8 MCA Cap. 537], once the court decided to sit with assessors it must record their opinions and, if he disagrees with them, give reasons for his disagreement.
4. The section of the law of Persons cited by the trial court must be read together with s. 37A which provides that bride wealth may be required to be returned “in case of divorce.” In the present case, there was no evidence of a divorce and the award cannot be sustained.

5. ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL, ZANZIBAR, ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE OF TOPAN KARSN RAMJI alias RASHID KARSAN RAMJI, DECEASED v. KULSAM FADHIL MUSSA & 5 ors. (1969) HCD 80 - 7/2/1967 – Kimicha, C.J.

The parties, children of the deceased, claimed a piece of property formerly belonging to the deceased. The Administrator General is the plaintiff in form only, belonging the action in court for instruction on the question of which of the disputants should receive the property. Mohamed Hussein claims the property by way of a deed of gift, made to him by the deceased, his father, in 1960. The deed gift was duly witnessed, but the deceased died without registering it as required by Zanzibar law. Mohamed’s sister argued that the gift was invalid for non-registration, and therefore that the property was properly part of the deceased’s estate, to be distributed among all the heirs.

One Ahmed Juma testified that he had been a tenant on the property since 1960, that the deceased in 1960 told him that he had given the property to his son and that the rent should thenceforth be paid to the son, and that he had since that time paid the rent to the son who issued receipts in his own name. One of the witnesses to the deed of gift testified as to its genuineness. The parties were Muslims, members of the Shia sect.

HELD:-
1. The validity of gifts and the distribution of estates is governed by Muslim law, where the deceased was a Muslim. “In civil matters the law of Islam is and is is hereby declared to be the fundamental law of the republic, under Cap. 3, s.7.
2. Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, para 150 (3), states: “If it is proved by oral evidence that a gift was competed as required by law, it is immaterial that the donor has also executed a deed of gift, but the deed has not been registered as required by the Registration Act.”
3. According to Shia Law, the requirements for a valid gift are:-

(a) A declaration of the gift b y the donor;
(b) An acceptance of the gift by the donee; and
(c) A delivery of possession to the donee. Since these requirements were complied with here, the gift was valid, and Mohamed Hussein is entitled to the property.

7. SHABANI v. SOFIA (1971) HCD 5 -/11/1970 - Kwikima, AG. J.

The respondent who used to live in concubinage with the appellant’s father sued the appellant for compensation of shs.9.120/= for evicting her from the deceased’s house which she used to occupy in his lifetime. The primary court dismissed the claim because the respondent and the deceased were Muslims and according to Islamic law, a concubine has no right to inherit part of the estate which a legally wedded wife is entitled to. Even under Chagga law which could be applicable were the respondent married to the deceased, Chagga widows do not inherit when there are male issues surviving as in this case. The district magistrate felt that the respondent was entitled to some of the estate after staying with the appellant’s father for 19 years and awarded her a quarter of the amount claimed.
HELD:-

1. With due respect this decision cannot be in accordance with the law. In suing the appellant, the respondent necessarily meant that the appellant had wronged her by depriving her part of the inheritance. How could this be if she was not entitled to any? Both Chagga and Islamic law exclude her from inheriting. According to Chagga law, she would not inherit in the presence of the appellant even if she was legally wedded to the deceased. She could not inherit under Islamic law either, being only the concubine of the deceased.
2. As this suit is not an administration of deceased’s estate matter, the appellant cannot be sued by the respondent. “Compensation” is payable by the husbands who divorce their wives or men who forsake their concubines with whom they have worked together and accumulated some wealth to be shared. In this case the appellant was the son of the man who kept the respondent as his concubine. The respondent could not therefore be heard to sue him.
3. Appeal allowed.


8. MANYASA v. MWANAKOMBO (1971) HCD 13- 20/10/1070 - Georges, C.J.

A divorced wife sued the husband for maintenance of three children. The husband died before the case was finalized. The district magistrate substituted the surviving widow for the deceased husband and made an order of maintenance against her at the rate of shs.50/= per month. On appeal, the learned judge set aside the order because the liability for maintaining the children of the broken marriage rested on the deceased husband and not on his surviving widow. The judge however, awarded the children a house allegedly owned by the deceased. When the divorced wife sought to execute the order, a claimant appeared who asserted that the house was his as it had been transferred to him years ago b the deceased. The chief Justice in this Inspection Note outlined the proper procedure to be followed,
HELD:
1. The divorced wife should have been advised to apply for execution under the MCXA [Civil Procedure in Primary Courts] Rules, 1964, s. 58. The Claimant could then appear and show cause why he should not be evicted. If the court rejects the claim, then the matter would be at an end, the order executed. If the court holds that the property in fact belongs to the claimant, then the divorced wife can appeal if she wishes.

9. IN RE: SALUM OMARI MKEREMI (1973) LRT 80, Mfalila, Ag. J. 14/5/1973.

1. The Law applicable to a “deceased native’s estate” [under Cap 30] is the tribal customary law of the deceased unless he had professed the Mohammedan religion and the court is satisfied from the written or oral declaration of the deceased, or his acts or manner of life, that he intended his estate to be administered according to Mohammedan law.
2. The deceased manner and way of life was far removed from his tribal customs, consequently the deceased estate should be administered in accordance with Mohammedan law of succession and not Hehe customary law of succession.
3. A Christian widow can inherit in the estate of her deceased Mohammedan husband and take 1/8th share as provided for by Mohammedan law as long as their marriage was one recognized under that law. [Administrator-General applied u/s 88(1) (b) of Probate and Administration of Estates Act.]

Page 354 of the HCD Casebook: Mrs. Nelly Mkeremi according to the above para. is Kitabia, therefore her civil marriage under the Marriage Ordinance to the deceased was a valid marriage recognized by Mohammedan law. She is therefore a “wife” under that law. If this is so then she is entitled to her share as a wife in the deceased’s estate. MULLA:- P. 234, Para. 259:
“a Mohammedan may contract a valid marriage not only with a Mohammedan women, but also with a Kitabia, that is a Jewess or a Christian, but not with an Idolatress or a fire-worshiper.”

s.19 (4) of JALO? Or Probate? - Notwithstanding any tribal or Mohammedan law to the contrary (b) a person shall not be deprived of a right to succession to property by reason of that person having renounced or having been excluded from the communion of any religion.

10. MANUGWA LUTALAMILA & 2 ors. V. MARTHA LUTALAMILA (1982) TLR 98 – Mfalila, J.

See MCA, sec. 320/1964.

1. In the administration of estates where the law applicable is customary law the Chief Justice is empowered u/s 14 (2) of MCA, 1963 to confer jurisdiction upon Primary Courts to administer the same.
2. Where the matter in issue is inheritance in customary law, then irrespective of the nature of the property involved, the Primary Court has jurisdiction unless the High Court has directed under section 88 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance that the provisions of that ordinance shall apply to the estate in question.
3. Under s.57 (1) of MCA, 1963 THE District Court is denied original jurisdiction to determine a matter of inheritance arising out of customary law.
4. The District Magistrate was wrong in declaring the proceedings in the Primary Court null and void and quashing them; he should have decided the appeal on merits. Order accordingly.

Continue »

Dowry and Mahr

In the first era of Islam marriage was a simple affair, without pomp or ceremony. Any expenditure incurred in its performance was quite minimal, and not a burden on either family. Indeed, the Prophet stated: 'the most blessed marriage is one in which the marriage partners place the least burden on each other.' (al-Haythami, Kitab ab-Nikah, 4:255).

Nowadays, much difficulty and hardship can be caused by the setting and giving of dowries, bride-prices and mahr - not to mention enormous wedding feasts and celebrations in some cultures which bring a most unreasonable financial burden on the families concerned. Financially crippling celebrations are totally in opposition to the spirit of Islam, and are not necessary. They are purely a matter of the culture of certain regions. No Muslim should feel obliged to continue these unIslamic traditions, or be embarrassed about breaking with their old cultural traditions.

It is very important that Muslims themselves realize that there is an enormous difference between dowry, bride-price and mahr. Many books and articles on the subject confusingly use the word dowry to mean mahr, but in fact the correct word for dowry is jahaz, and its function is totally different.

What is a dowry?

The custom of giving dowry (jahaz) is not part of Islam, although it actually seems to be on the increase among several Muslim cultures, notably those of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, even when they have settled in the UK. In fact, it is a practice which has never been sanctioned by Islam and is not prevalent amongst Muslims of other cultures. It seems to be in imitation of ancient Hindu culture in which daughters were not given any share in the family property, but were given payments, part of which might be in the form of household goods, as a measure of compensation. Islam granted daughters a rightful share in their family property and inheritance.

A 'bride-price' is either : · an amount of money, goods or possessions given to the bride by the bride's family at the time of her marriage, in order to attract a good husband for her. It would in effect become the property of the husband or his family upon his marrying her. This is a totally unIslamic practice. In Islam, women are not 'owned' by their families and should not be 'traded with' in this manner. It is an insulting practice. Or · an amount of money demanded from the bridegroom or his family by the bride or her family, usually the bride's father, without which the daughter will not be given in marriage. In the jahiliyyah society before Islam, this money was regarded as the property of the girl's guardian.

The matters of fathers giving the bride gifts of money or property, or paying for an enormous wedding feast, or providing a home, or setting her up in her home with furniture and household effects are left to the discretion of the people involved in Islam. The Prophet himself saw to the marriages of his four daughters. He gave his daughter Fatimah various gifts when she married Ali b. Abu Talib, but there is no record of his having given anything to his other daughters on the occasion of their marriages. Had such gifts been a recommended sunnah, he would surely have given the others gifts as well. Moreover, the gifts given to Fatimah were extremely modest household articles - a sheet, a leather water-bag, and a pillow stuffed with grass and fiber.

Nothing could be more unIslamic than ostentation. It is ridiculous to attempt to justify flamboyant displays of wealth in lavish gifts or feastings by citing the Prophet's extremely modest gifts to Fatimah.

What is the Mahr?

The mahr is a compulsory part of an Islamic marriage contract. The other words for mahr generally used in the Qur'an are sadaqah and ajr, meaning reward or gift to the bride in which there is profit but no loss, and faridah, literally that which has been made obligatory, or an appointed portion. Allah commanded: 'Give women their faridah as a free gift.' (4:4) (Unfortunately the word is frequently incorrectly translated as 'dowry).

It is a gift of money, possessions or property made by the husband to the wife, which becomes her exclusive property. It is an admission of her independence, for she becomes the owner of the money or property immediately, even though she may have owned nothing before. It has nothing to do with either of their parents, except that a husband might need to take a loan. This should only be done with the intention of repayment. It is also intended as a token of the husband's willing acceptance of the responsibility of bearing all the necessary expenses of his wife.

Even if the wife owned no property or money of her own before her marriage, she is given this money or property when she marries so that she commences her married life in her new status with money or property of her own. The wife gives herself and her services to her husband, and in return he gives her property to own herself, even if she had nothing before, and pledges that he will maintain her. Muslim women are placed in charge of the internal arrangement of the household, while Muslim men are responsible for its financing (even if the wife earns her own money subsequent to her marriage).

The Prophet gave each of his wives a payment of mahr, ranging from token sums, the granting of freedom from slavery when being made a wife, to the payment of 400-500 dirhams. His wife Umm Habibah's mahr consisted of 4000 dirhams, this sum having been fixed by Najashi, the Negus (a Christian ruler) of Abyssinia. (Abu Dawud, Kitab an-Nikah, 2:235).

There was in fact no fixed upper limit for mahr. Allah required the provision to depend upon the circumstances of the husband:

'…the wealthy according to his means, and the straitened in circumstances according to his means. The gift of a reasonable amount is necessary from those who wish to act in the right way.' (2:236).

In a famous case, the second Caliph, Umar b. al-Khattab, once gave a public sermon in which he asked the congregation to refrain from fixing heavy mahrs, and stated that the Prophet had declared no-one should give more than 400 dirhams. A woman immediately stood up and challenged him, quoting the verse 4:20 from the Qur'an: 'But if you decide to take a wife in place of another, even if you had given the first a heap of gold (quintar) for a dowry, you shall not take the least bit back.' Umar went back to the minbar and withdrew his words stating 'the woman is right, and Umar is wrong. Whoever wishes may give as much property as he wishes to give.' (Ibn Hajar al-Athqalani, Fath al-Bari, 9:167).

Who owns the mahr? Can it be refused?

It is owned solely by the wife. The husband is not allowed to refuse to pay his wife a proper mahr or faridah. The settling of the payment is obligatory.

'Women are lawful to you….provided that you take them in marriage and not fornication. As to those through whom you profit (through marriage), give them their faridah as appointed.' (2:24).

The same applied when marrying Jewish or Christian women (5:5). If a Muslim man married someone 'whom his right hand possessed' (ie a slave or prisoner of war), the mahr was to grant her freedom and other payment was not required.

Caliph Umar ruled that if a woman had excused her husband his mahr, but later demanded it, the husband should be compelled to pay it on the grounds that the fact that she demanded it was a clear proof that she had not remit it of her own free will.

The case of a woman whose husband died before fixing the amount of the dowry or consummating the marriage was brought to Abdullah b. Mas'ud. He ruled that she should be paid according to the mahr of women of like status to herself.

The Shafi 'I school rules that a wife may refuse to consummate the marriage if the husband agreed to pay the mahr immediately, but did not do so. She may have the marriage annulled.

How much should the Mahr amount be?

It is unIslamic for a Muslim woman to set a huge demand for herself, with the intention of deterring suitors of humble means. Islam does not require husbands and wives to come from the same social strata or income brackets - although this may often seem to be advisable. Islamic compatibility is based on religious faith and mutual respect, not on money, caste (another Hindu custom), class, background, nationality, etc.

It is just as unIslamic to demand a huge mahr, generally beyond the husband's means, based on the intention of checking the husband from ill-treating his wife, or wrongfully or causelessly divorcing the wife, or preventing him from remarrying another later - the reasoning being that in cases of divorce the woman can demand the full payment of the mahr. The fixing of a substantial mahr for the above purposes rests on the supposition that the mahr has to be fixed at the time of marriage, but not handed over until divorce - which gives it a supposed 'deterrent' value. This is unlawful in Islam, for in this case the wife has no use or ownership of the mahr during the time of the marriage.

If the prospective husband is not a wealthy man, a generous wife may choose to accept very small mahr, but this has to be her own free choice. She should not be coerced or have pressure put on her in any way. Some of the Prophet's female companions accepted their husbands' conversions to Islam, or memorising of ayat of the Qur'an, or giving education to others as their mahr.

The mahr has to be fixed taking into account the bridegroom's position in life. That is, it should not normally be more than he is easily able to afford, whether it be a lump sum or some article of value. Jurists have different views on what the minimum amount should be, but all agree that it should be substantial enough for something to be bought against it. In other words, any amount which is sufficient for a purchase is acceptable as mahr.

The husband may be loaned money by his father or family, but it must be repaid. In the case of Nabi Musa (the Prophet Moses), when he left Egypt for Madyan he married Safura the daughter of the Prophet Shu'ayb. His mahr mu'ajjal was settled and paid off by binding himself to grazing his father-in-law's cattle for ten years without wages. Presumably Shu'ayb had paid Safura on Musa's behalf.

A good woman might agree on a low mahr if she wishes, or none at all, according to the circumstances of her husband. Once fixed it is fixed, and legally binding - so it is good practice to have it written down and witnessed on a document. The wife should take advice on her decision, and not be blinded by emotion, or coercion, or fear, or family pressure. If any person pressurises a woman into a decision she might not have otherwise made, that person will be held to account in the Life to Come, even if he 'got away with it' on this earth.

One recorded hadith suggests that 'the best woman is the one whose mahr is the easiest to pay.' (al-Haythami, Kitab an-Nikah 4:281).

However, it is sensible for a wife to accept a reasonable mahr, as this becomes her own property as stated, and is hers to keep should the marriage fail and end in divorce.

Under what conditions is it payable?

There are two main ways of properly presenting mahr to the bride.

The first way is to hand it over in full at the time of marriage, in which case it is known as mahr mu'ajjal, or 'promptly given mahr'. (Notice the ' . The word is derived from 'ajilah, meaning 'without delay'. This was the accepted practice during the time of the Prophet, and the amount fixed was generally quite minimal.

In the case of Fatimah and Ali, Ali informed the Prophet that he had nothing to give her. The Prophet reminded him of a coat of chain-mail he had been given. It was still in his possession, although in a dilapidated condition and worth less than four dirhams. The Prophet suggested he gave that to Fatimah, and this was done.

The second way of presenting mahr is to defer it, to hand it over to the bride after a certain period of time, the duration of which must be specified, fixed by the man and agreed by the wife. This has to be settled, with witnesses, at the time of the marriage. This form of mahr is known as mahr muwajjal. (the word implies 'in a period of time').

The five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence all agree that delay in handing over the mahr, whether in full or in part, is lawful provided that the fixed period for payment is not indefinite.

This method should never be used as an excuse to willfully postpone the payment. A definite date should always be fixed, witnessed, and adhered to. It should certainly not be left 'hanging' in case the marriage breaks down and the couple come to consider a divorce - because of the inevitable emotions, bitterness, arguments, hostilities and financial problems involved at that time.

If the husband died, or they got divorced, the mahr debt must be paid up immediately to the widow before his inheritance or other financial settlements are considered. It is her property, and not his.

Repayment of Mahr in cases of khul divorce.

A khul divorce is one in which a wife sues for divorce even though the husband has not driven her to it by his unreasonable behavior.

If there is no good reason for a wife wishing to divorce her husband, but it is a case in which she simply wishes to finish the marriage with no particular legal grounds against the husband, the husband may agree to grant her the divorce if she returns all or part of the mahr. This has to be agreed between them.

If the wife does have genuine grounds for divorce - such as cruelty, mental cruelty, breaking of the marriage contract, adultery, desertion, incurable insanity, long-term imprisonment, abandonment of Islam - then the divorce is not khul but a normal talaq, in which the wife has as much right to instigate proceedings as the husband. In these cases, she most certainly does not have to hand over any of the mahr.

If the wife has genuine grounds for divorce but the husband refuses the divorce, she may then approach lawyers for khul, and appoint an Imam to act for her. It is sensible to do this as well as having a UK lawyer. She is not required to pay back any of her mahr. Indeed, the lawyers may demand some further compensation for her if the husband is guilty. (She may have to prove his guilt, and should gather as much evidence beforehand as she can - such as signed and witnessed statements of witnesses, photographs of injuries sustained, etc).

Continue »

Hello guys! Whats up, today we'll take a look about how if the almighty football club Barcelona shift their capital from Spain to U.K, considering the chaos going on at the Catalonia City. Since the 02/10/2017 incidents which happened at Catalonia and the football club(Barcelona) fans didn't appear during the match between Barcelona vs Las palmas the match ended for the home stadium winning 3-0. What do you say if their have guts to shift to the most heavy live watched league in the world.   Freaky awesome right!!! Now by my point of view i don't think if their can make out right for like next season to three, cause of their performance this season.

Also my point of view on why F.C Barcelona can't keep up the pace at the Premier League, under this circumstance that the Premier League is one of the tough league ever appear to be, and the players in the league are also tough. For example you can't compare premier defenders with the La liga defense. That is my point of view though, no offense about it(democracy right). But for the Barcelona attackers may pull a little bit the team performance at the premier league. E.g we have Messi, Dembele and Suarez this are one of the most expensive players in the world one of them(Dembele) who just join the team for the 2017-2018 La Liga season. But currently the player is now injured, out of the squad for about 3 to 4 months.

My opinion on what if the team should shift to England is that we both know the sweetness and delightfulness of the La Liga league,is mostly the El Clasico and most rival teams like Athletico Madrid, Sevilla, Valencia etc. So take a look even on other leagues the most the rival teams in the league is what keeps the league alive.
Effects that the F.C Barcelona shift to England is that the fans will be few, lack of Madrid fans at the matches cause most of the season the team will be the only conquerer of the league winning the cup everyday and the Catalonia dream academic players will clearly disappear.
Please comment down on this, see if we can save the La liga from falling into England hands.. Welcome............ !!🔼        
Continue »

welcome to my site


Continue »