Justice Kenyan style! Corrupt leaders amass wealth and walk free while a kiss lands him ten years with hard labour. Man jailed for ten years over stolen kiss loses appeal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Joseph Murimi A man handed a 10-year jail term for forcibly kissing a schoolgirl was stunned when a judge threw out his appeal. After waiting for two years in remand, Isaac Gitau Karanja was told by Justice Onesmus Mutungi that he had to serve the remaining eight years, with hard labour. Karanja was accused of grabbing, hugging and kissing Tabitha Wanjiru Wang’ombe on her cheeks at Ongata Rongai in August 2003 and later convicted by a Kibera court. Wanjiru, then 16, was walking with her classmate Ruth Wambui from school to church when Gitau emerged from her right side. He grabbed her and kissed her on her right cheek, then walked away. The judge’s ruling, delivered on May 16, means Karanja will spend the next eight years in the company of rapists, some of who are serving lesser sentences. For what has been described as Kenya’s most expensive kiss, Karanja will also share prison cells with robbers, muggers and drug traffickers. The judge said the sentence given to Karanja was fair as the maximum jail term is 21 years for indecent assault. He told the convict that a person’s private parts include "the cheek and the entire human body". He also warned men against touching women without their consent. "Touching any part of one’s body without consent constitutes indecent assault," he said. He said limiting private parts of a person to any part of the limb of one’s body misses the sensitivity that go with privacy. Justice Mutungi said the whole of a person’s body should be private, and to continue with hangover of sexual connotations or associations with the touching misses the sensitivity which goes with privacy. "Can it be seriously contended that a woman’s breasts are more private or sensitive in terms of arousing feelings than the lips, cheeks, or the back of her buttock? I hold not,’’ Justice Mutungi said in the judgment delivered on May 16. He went on to say that his fear and concern was that continued hanging onto traditional perceptions of what constitutes private parts can lead to impunity to touch other persons bodies. The judge said if touching the breasts of a female constitutes indecent assault, he saw no logical distinction with touching her lips or cheeks. After the forced kiss, the girl and her friend proceeded to church and returned to school – Magnata High School – at around 1 pm but her father, who is the principal of the school, was not present. She reported the incident the next day. Karanja was arrested after the girls identified him. In her evidence, Wanjiru testified that touts at the bus stop sexually harassed them whenever they went to church. After trial, Karanja was convicted of indecent assault and jailed for ten years and hard labour. It was then that he moved to the High Court seeking to have the sentence set aside, arguing that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence and that the charge of indecent assault had not been proved. Karanja argued that his conviction was unlawful, as he was not properly identified. He said the sentence of 10 years imprisonment with hard labour for kissing the girl on cheeks was not only excessive but also unwarranted. Karanja said the trial court should have preferred other modes of sentencing such as probation or discharge for a period on condition that he did not commit any other crime for a certain period or fining him because he was a first offender. The judge said calling for probation or discharge for a period would send the wrong message about the seriousness of he offence committed. "The human rights of women, and young persons as in this case, call for firm stand to all those who think that some human beings are better than others,’’ the judge said as he dismissed the appeal. Source

I think Mutakalim is criticizing the Literalists who claim that Allah SWT is literally sitting on a throne, has hands, a face etc. I also (like Mutakalim) find it ironic that they can criticize the illogical reasonning found in other faiths when their intepretations are in themselves very absurd! They fail to see the Mutashabihat verses for what they really are, allegorical.

Afro, There was a similar discussion some time back, read Selfish! and see if it offers further elucidation.

nuune, The Swedish team is quite balanced and doesn't have a lot of flair like most teams. Their goalie Andreas Isaksson is world class, he was at Juve a couple of seasons ago and left because of lack of first team football (plays in France nowadays). The defence is made up two players from the Swedish league; Lucic who used to play for Leverkusen and Alexandersson who used to play for Everton. The other two are from the Premiership; Edman of Tottenham on the left and Mellberg of Aston Villa in central defence. Their strength is really in midfield; they play the diamond formation like no other team in the world. Sven even brought this style to England but the English journalists don't like it. It might not be fancy but it is always difficult to beat a team with a functioning diamond formation. They have three key players in midfield; Wilhemsson (Anderlecht), Ljungberg (Arsenal), these two are very offensive on the flanks and Källström (Rennes of France) who plays very similar to Scholes, behind the forwards. Linderoth (Everton) is the natural defensive midfielder for the Swedish team, he plays in front of the defence. The forwards are also good, usually spearheaded by Zlatan (of Juve) and Larsson (of Barca). These two are the first choice but there are three other quite decent forwards who are ready to come in like Rosenberg who went to Amstserdam today to sign for Ajax and Elmander who has played for both Feyenoord and also Bayern Munich. This team might not look very good on paper but they work very hard together and are very difficult to beat. Look at a team like Spain, they have world class players on almost every position but they the Swedes always do better than them in major tournaments because they are a better unit. Most of their players play much better with the national team than they do for their clubs, the only exception is probably Ljungberg who plays better with his Arsenal. I know this is more info than necessary but what the heck... PS: I saw the Brazil-Paraguay game today, can't wait for the Brazil-Argentina game this week. Argentina are under pressure after losing in Equador. The altitude is so high there that most teams can't cope. Peace.

LOL@ Sweden. I don't think they will win but they might go far. I'm hoping to see Ivory Coast in the WC, with Toure, Drogba et al. Brazil and Argentina look the strongest, if they could have two teams each in the tournament, the four would probably meet in the semis

Originally posted by SoMa_InC: I shall be watching the euro 2005 women football. I hope it will be exciting to watch. Kick off is on Sunday. I suggest you watch it as well as Somalia is playing Holland on Monday. I am sure our xalimos would make us proud and win the cup. I am looking forward to it too. I haven't got over the last final when Germany beat Sweden in extra time, the Germans were the better side but they won in a cruel fashion. Germany has also won the last three finals, beating Sweden in two of them. I still fancy Germany and Sweden to go far this time too, with Finland as outsiders.

Baashi, Blair will probably hold back and not want the people to decide anytime soon (because people will at the moment vote no like the French and the Dutch). The dream of a unified EU with a single currency, policy and parliament does not seem to have any chance of materialising antime soon. Somerican, Patriotism is actually frowned upon in Europe. People in Europe love life (and don't dream of welth like the Americans). That is why in France and other countries, people are fighting to work less than 8 hours a day, they want to have more time to live a more "fulfilling" life.

Caaqil, The WTO is one of the better instituions. Every country has one vote, the problem lies with the power of the "QUAD" (USA, EU, Canada and Japan) who decide the policies and the rest can only vote FOR or AGINST. They have no influence at all on the polices being formed. This institution can be worked on as it is the only platform where the voice of the weak has ahd an impact. The collapsed talks in Cancun was a clear message to the world that poor nations do not want to be bullied around and that they would fight back if given a platform. Another problem is, the meetings of the "QUAD" are held behing closed doors and are held in the secretive so called "green room". As the Somali saying goes, wixii la qariyaa qurun baa kujiraa. With transparency and less power to the QUAD, this platform can help the poorer nations; but this wouldn't be allowed by the four gluttonous wealthy nations. The media does not help either because it shows the WTO alks from the QUAD's point of view. It is made to look as if the poor nations are refusing some pretty good deals which can not be further from the truth. The Security Council is a big bully. They use a combinations of bribery, blackmail and threats in order to get the resolutions they need from the temporary members. Recently, when Yemen and Cuba voted against a UN Security Council resolution, the US cancelled it's $70million aid and almost a million Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia. The message is clear, if you go against the interests of the US, you get punished! (Laget ar bra sxb.) The rest (globalization and its fracas) is pretty much common. J11, Sxb, these things are not that 'common'. I often hear relatively intelligent people (and also govt officials) from poor nations speaking in favour of "globalisation" thinking that it solely refers to trading of goods between nations. Have you seen the fracas going on in Bolivia? The govt was forced to privatise the main water company some years ago. The private owners then decided to hike the prises in order to make huge profits (just as one might do with a private company). The sad part is taht the people of Bolivia are so poor that they could not cope. There have been mass demonstrations which have now moved to La Paz. There is massive awareness in that country at the moment about the ills of globalisation as they have experienced its adverse effects first hand.

Originally posted by Rahima: I’m sure if I were to ask a Sufi who they deemed the greatest scholars of our lifetime, certainly Sh. Albani and Sh. Ibn Baz would not be among the ranks ,. Why do you think the Sufis won't name them? It is because the Salafi scholars call anyone who doesn't agree with them heretics. Look at the "fatwas" Salafi (the Nomad) has posted on other scholars and you will understand what I'm talking about. He even said that Muslims should noit read the works of Al-Ghazzali (one of our greatest scholars who is even admired by non-Muslims for his wisdom). Originally posted by Rahima: but I speak in terms of those who claim to follow like I said the Quran and authentic Sunnah based on the understanding of the first three generations of Islam. Every group claims this...the Shi'a too claim to be the real ahlulsunnah wa Jamaca and claim to follow the authentic hadiths and the Qur'an. Any Muslim who claims otherwise has deviated from the teachings of our Noble Prophet SAWS.. Originally posted by Rahima: Scholars (this is a noble title, not any Maxamad with minimal knowledge is a scholar, with no direct pun intended, for example brother Xamza Yusuf is not a scholar, he a dacii- propagator of Islam) disagree and lay people, such as you and I are not in a position to discuss their personal disagreements. We can choose to uphold a particular opinion because we deem that it is based on proof which is stronger, but to attack a scholar is wrong, for every wrong ruling they still receive their reward. They are humans and hence are bound to make mistakes, but they should be safe from our tongues. If some people do it, then it is ultimately their issue and it is them who will be accountable. Such individuals do not necessarily represent “Salafiyahâ€. First of all, we have to be careful when determining who is a scholar and who is not. We are discussing in English and this is the defintion of a scholar... 1 : one who attends a school or studies under a teacher : PUPIL 2 a : one who has done advanced study in a special field b : a learned person 3 : a holder of a scholarship Surely, if we are using English terms, we can not deny that Hamza Yusuf can be referred to as a scholar. I'm gald to see that you dislike the criticizing of scholars, but if you read the fatwas of the "Salafiyah" scholars and observe the actions of their followers, you'd see that they are very harsh towards scholars who don't abide by their dogma. Many are referred to as heretics. Originally posted by Rahima: I think this has been done to death, but let’s get real. Wahabism is non-existent and to claim it exists is a joke. It is nothing more than a term coined by the kuffaar to divide the Muslims. For this reason it equates to vomit for it is a term used in a derogatory fashion. Where will you find a Muslim calling themselves a “Wahabiâ€? I have yet to meet one, have you? Till this occurs, this does not exist, i mean how are you going to have a group/idealogy with no followers? Who believes in it for it to exist? The "Salafiyyah" do not like the term "Wahabi" because this implies that they follow his footsteps rather than that of the Prophet SAWS. But, the reality is different. Almost all Muslims refer to them as "Wahabi" because they know that the teachings they follow (intially of ibn Taymiyyah) were revived by AbdulWahab al-Najdi and spread with the help of the Sa'ud family. The followers of Imams such as Malik, Hanbali, Abu Hanifa and Shafici are referred to according to the interpretation of the sheikh they follow. Even the Shi'a are called Shi'a because they are seen to be of "Shi'at Ali" (the party of Ali [RA]). The term "Wahabi" might seem loaded because the kufar use it to cause division (among Muslims) but the impact AbdulWahab al-Najdi has had on the dogma of the "Salafiyyah" movement can not be denied by any sane person. Originally posted by Rahima: As for Sh. Muhammad ibn Abdulwahab, he was a great scholar of Islam and did not bring in anything new to this religion. All he did was revive Islam as it had been lost from the practice of the people. This is what his followers say! But he was a Hanbali but has departed a lot from the teachings of Imam Hanbali. I can give you two examples that have been changed from Imam Hanbali by AbdulWahhab... 1. Having a beard is obligatory for men. 2. Congregational prayers are obligatory. Those who are NOT "Salafiyyah" do not follow these "new laws" but they know that both are very beneficial and are Sunnah (but NOT obligatory). They know too that congregational prayers have 27 daraja more than prayrs offered individually. Originally posted by Rahima: All in all, if we want to speak about a certain group of extremists who call them selves “Salafisâ€, then do so, but let’s not paint Salafiyyah as the problem. Sahal has been through this a million times (about the ills of the "Salafiyyah" sect) and there's no point in flogging a dead horse.

Originally posted by mizz_S.lander: viking; "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you ISLAM as your religion."- Al Ma'idah 5:3 yes it id true that allah has completed the religion fro us, and i aint trying to add anything. Personally i need help interrupting hadith and extended meanings of the quran, maybe you can do it ur self, but i can't. i also need guidance on things that have not been around at the time of the prophet, or things that have no clear distinct ruling on it; FOR example, communicating with the opposite sex over phones and internet, chat rooms, eating food with gelatine in it etc; if you viking can do all this on your own, then you can follow ur self, ur own interpretations, and guidance; i can't and i get the help i need from a specific ulum's, which are know for their reliability, trust worthiness and truthfulness; such as shik abdual wahab; which many people in this forum seem to have a problem with! mizz S.lander, AbdulWahab al-Najdi died in 1787. So he can not give you "guidance on things that have not been around at the time of the prophet". PS: I'm not against all scholars but rather the doctrines of the sects that divide us.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Wahabism is not a religious sect and Salafism is not different than Ahlu-Sunnah-Wal-Jamaacah. xiinfaniin, Then why did Salafi post "Our Creed and Call" and where did he get the list from? Where you also taught these things by your macalin dugsi? Do you agree with rule no 13 in bold below? We do not deem it correct to revolt against the Muslim rulers as long as they are Muslims, nor do we feel that revolutions bring about reconciliation. Rather, they corrupt the community. Iran is evidence that a corrupt leader can be removed through a revolution despite him being a "Muslim" and that a revolution does bring about reconciliation.

Originally posted by Rahima: Brother I don’t see how the fatwa you posted opposes the one I provided :confused: . The fatwa you provided does not deem it a sin to call yourself a Salafi-it is just a description, what is not allowed is when it is used as a way of unnecessary segregation. Rahima, It doesn't oppose it. It says... If anyone wishes to live in harmony with the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah then he/she should follow the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah and NOT oppose them in any aspect. By making ones own research and opposing the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah, a new group will come into being resulting in an increase in sects. The "new group" that the sheikh is talking about is the one referring itself as "Salafis". As you have seen, Salafai has posted even their rules which are coined by the monachy and the clerhy of Saudi Arabia. Originally posted by Rahima: As for this and that shaykh, like I said, all culama do not see eye to eye. Sh. Albani for example, probably the greatest scholar of our lifetime, deems it permissible for one to call him/herself Salafi but with the clause that once again it is not used for unnecessary segregation. It goes without saying that the Scholars don't always agree, but your view on ssheikh Albani is also very subjective. The "Salafi" always say that ibn Baz and Albani are the greatest sheikhs of our era but those outside their sect usually don't agree, but they have high respect for them. But the "Salafi" attack other scholars with fatwas usually from the two sheikhs above. Originally posted by Rahima: Either way, many have an obsession with this whole thing. Often it becomes apparent when they vomit “wahabism†:rolleyes: . After that, the view becomes very obvious This might seem as a joke to you but it is not. It's not an "obsession", our Diin that is in jeopardy here. Saying "Wahabism" isn't a "vomit" either. It is attributing the sect to the person who revived the thoughts of ibn Taymiyah and helped it spread. No one can deny the role AbdulWahab Najdi has had on the creation of this sect.

Milan didnt deserve to be in the final (PSV should won in the Semis)but Liverpool did! North, You are right when you say that PSV deseved to win, but when it comes to L'pool, your logic goes to hibernation. Did L'pool deserve to win the final because... - They played better? - They had more chances? (be honest now) Or simply because you support them and are blind when judging them? I think you know the answer. At least I'm not blind when judging AC Milan, I said (on many occasions) that they didn't deserve to get past PSV on many occasions. But you can't say that L'pool were extremely lucky to get past Chelsea and Milan.

Originally posted by Northerner: ^^^sour grapes saxib, sour grapes, AC Miland and Chelsea were beaten by the mighty reds, and you will never hear the end of it lol North, Walahi for me it is not sour grapes. I was happy to see L'pool win the trophy in the end. It means more to them that it would to AC Milan. Don't take this to be patronising in any way, the trophy will help L'pool come back as a force to be reckonned with (I hope) but for Milan it would just mean another trophy, no. 7, the FOURTH in the last 20 years while it is the FIRST in the last 21 years for L'pool. But, anyone who watched the game knows that... - Milan dominated totally and the L'pool players were cramping from chasing the ball for 120 mins. - They know that the ref made blunders that had a direct effect on the the results. - They also know that Milan created FAR more chances throughout the game. The same hapenned to Chelsea, they were the better side overall, but they lost! Be happy for the wins but don't make it seem as if the better team won, because that is not the case. Anyone who says that Chelsea and Milan didn't dominate L'pool in their games is very biased, but NONE in his right mind will deny that L'pool won. It is the results that count in the end. PS: Kudos to L'pool, but I don't think it is time to brag yet! You have to win clearly and in style before you get the right to rub it in our faces!

LOL@North, I just realised that we had the same answer to no. 8

1-Alex Ferguson is the most successful manager in England, does that make him the greatest manager ever in English football? He is. The English might want to say otherwise just because ferguson is Scottish. 2-Real Madrid got some of the best players that ever played the game, does that mean automatically they are the best team in the world (even though they haven't won anything for how long? Past three seasons?). The problem is that they have brought the DIVAS toegther. When this happens, no one is willing to work hard for the team but they instead tend to play more as individuals. They haven't won a darn thing since Makelele left (he was getting less than a half of what the "galacticos" were getting) and they fired him becauset hey didn't think he was worth a raise Chelsea gave him a good deal and he has played a major part in making them a massive team. Last 3 years? - 2002/03 it was Milan - 2003/04 it was Arsenal. Although they got knocked out of the CL quarters, they went the whole season ubeaten and played wonderful football. - 2004/05 the best team in Europe for me is Chelsea. They have been very dominant in every competition and it took a determined, defensive L'pool with the help of a garve (linesman) error to stop them in the semis. Real Madrid was without a doubt the best team for three years, 2000, 2001 and 2002. 3-Juventus won more Serie A titles than AC and Inter Milan put together but AC Milan won more European cups than both of them put together and its also AC Milan who command more respect than Juve, so who deserves to be crowned as the Kings of Italy (mind you, both Milan teams and many more in Serie A think Juve has the backing of the Italian Football Federation…and its tempting to agree with them) Many people don't really understand this. Milan doesn't play at all like an Italian team; it's style is more like a mixture of Ajax, Real Madrid and Barcelona. Juve on the other hand play typical Italian football. They defend very much and their midfield has 3 defensive players and 1 creative player whereas Milan has 3 creative players and 1 defensive player. This means that Milan are vulnerable in Italy because the teams they play against don't rely on talent that much but more on playing cautiously. When they go to Europe, they play teams that play an open game where they are allowed to showcase their talent and play open, attractive football. Look at how Juve won the Scudetto this year, they have been very defensive and negative during most games and grinded the results in the end; that is typical Juve. Champions of Italy are without a doubt Juve and second best team in Europe is Milan (after Real Madrid that is). 4-Liverpool won more trophies than Man Utd and Arsenal and yet they are the second fiddle to these two teams both inside and outside of England, shouldn't the world give credit where its due? Nottingham Forest won the European Cup twice (if I am not mistaken) and they don't get credit since they have not been up there with the best in the last 15 years. L'pool won their last (before 2005) European Cup 21 years ago and they have been replaced by Man U and Arsenal as the top sides domestically. This means that top players are not attracted to play for them. Teams that play a lot in Europe get millions of pounds every year and it enables them to get new top notch players. If L'pool stay in Europe, they'll make money and can strengthen the team and that would bring them back where they belong. Only then will they get the credit they deserve. 5-Barcelona consider themselves to be the world's premier football club as they have the biggest stadium in the world and have more supporters than any other team in Spain and some of the greatest players ever played for Barca yet they only won 1 European cup and 17 championship while Real Madrid won 9 European cups and 29 (is it?) Championships so who is fooling who here? With Barcelona, it is the spirit that drives them. Since they are Catalans, they have always had an awkward relationship with Madrid, the team of the capital, which is seen to represent the govt. Madrid has also been attractive to top expensive players whereas the players who come to Barca are seen as dedicated and not there for the fame or the money. Look at Ronaldinho, he had to the chance to go to Man U (the richest club in the world) or Real Mdrid, but he opted for Barca, a team which hadn't won anything the last 5 years. Eto'o also refused to go to Real Madrid and chose Barca. The two have been instrumental in securing the league title this year. These two epitomise the Barca spirit. For me, Barca has always been the best, not for trophies but for attractive football and a high spirit. 6-England is said to be the home of football, most of the world famous football clubs are found or established by English men yet they only won one world cup which to this day Germans claim otherwise and they have never won Euro Cup while Germany & Italy won more world cups than any other European team yet they never claim to be the kings of Europe, when will the English learn that you win trophies and football matches on the pitch rather than in the media or will they ever learn? The English invented football but they forgot to learn how it is played. Even AC Milan and Inter Milan were started by Englishmen. The English are champions of hype, they can defeat you before you get on the pitch but when the game starts, their inferior technique in the game shines through. I think it was Garry Lineker who once said; "Football is a game with 22 players and the Germans always win!" 7-If you were the president of one of these two great clubs Liverpool and Inter Milan how much money would you need to make them a champion in their domestic leagues and do they deserve to be called particularly Inter, the underachievers? Inter Milan have spent more money than Chelsea but they haven't got the results to show for. The problem has been that they have had poor coaches during the last 15 years. They have had the likes of Roy Hodgson, Lucescu, Zacheroni, Cuper etc. whereas Milan has had Capello (who wins a title everywhere he goes, won with Juve this year), Sacchi (current Real Madrid football director, the man who brought Luxemburgo) and Ancelotti (current coach). Liverpool has had a similar problem but their squad has was quite inferior when compared to other big teams. They also stuck with Houllier for a very long time (the man has a negative mentality in football). This man had Heskey as his center forward whereas Inter Milan had the likes of Zamorano, Ronaldo, Vieri etc. but neither got the results. For Inter it has ben coahing staff and for Liverpool both coaching staff and players. Now L'pool has finally got a top coach who has already improved the squad remarkably. I am sure he will make L'pool stay among the top teams in Europe the coming years. 8-If you were an Arsenal manager, yes Mr Wenger what would you do differently to win the Champions League? I would teach them to play differently in Europe. They cannot play against the likes of Bayern similar to how they play against Crystal Palace. They have to be more tactical. Look at L'pool, they adopted two different styles and succeeded in Europe. Although he has struggled to adapt to the Premier League, he has shown that football in Europe is won by the mind and not the heart (like in the Premiership). If they get that right, they will be go far. 9-Between Serie A and La Liga (sorry Premier League) which league do you think is the world's best? Definately Serie A. La Liga was dominant but has faded in the last three years. Spain had two teams in the final of 2001 and their teams have failed since then to reach the finals. I am a big La Liga fan too, entertainmanet-wise, I still prefer them. But I see Serie A as (once again) the best league in Europe. Premiership comes second with the emergence of Chelsea as a dominant team and the win of L'pool in this years final. I think Premiership will bcome more dominant because they now have 3 teams (depending on how L'pool play in the Premiershp next season) who are fighting for the league. Italy and Spain still have 2 teams each as we have seen this year. 10-When will we ever see a Somali player strutting his stuff on the world’s biggest stage, right now playing for Somalia seems a distant and very ambitious dream so which country is the odds on to produce the world’s first Somali superstar? I think England or Holland.

Yes, Milan Baros/Cisse are better than Pele! I can't believe what lengths people would go to to praise a team. Maradona is junkie, he once said Aimar is the best player in the world a few years ago while disregarding others like Zidane, Ronaldo, Rivaldo etc who were at the top of their game. What he says has not much value. He was a wicked player but outside the pitch his opinions are worse than an ice-cream vendor. And Johan Cruyff was the coach of the much praised Barcelona with Romario, Stoichkov, Koeman and co. when Milan thrashed them 4-0 in the CL final of 1994. I don't think he has gotten over that! Liverpool have the best supporters in the world! Liverpool have the best anthem in the world! But only ONE player in Liverpool could get a place in the starting 11 of teams like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Chelsea, Milan etc and that player is Gerrard. So much for the team that is "better" than the 1970 Brazil!

Rahima, It all depends on who you ask. Look at the site islamq&a and you'll see how many fatwas they get from ibn Baz et al. This would explain why the aboveanswer was given. Question: According wahabis and salafis all the sects are wrong. according to other sects, salafi and wahabis are wrong, how come? why do people divide themselves into sects? Answer: 1) It is incumbent upon every soul to live a life in harmony with the dictates of the Qur’an and Ahadeeth which are the source of our religion, Islam. In both, the Qur’an and Ahadeeth there many laws which are totally evident and understandable, but there are also those laws which require extensive knowledge and expertise to be understood. There are also many other rulings which are not found in the Qur’an and Ahadeeth and therefore requires analogy. Therefore it is imperative for one to understand the Qur’an and Ahadeeth in light of the views held by the Sahabah and their actions. It is for this reason that Nabi (S.A.W.) mentioned that “the group that follows my way and the way of my Sahabah is successful.†This group is known as the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah. New groups and sects originate, for example, when a person is affected by the conditions in which he lives, and due to the various objections and arguments he is faced with from opposing parties he is left in doubt and confusion. He therefore studies the works of the Sahabah and Salaf-e-Saaliheen in order to combat these objections. However, he does not follow the trend laid out by the Sahabah, but instead tries to give answers based on his own conclusions and understanding. He regards this opinion of his, which is in complete contrast to that of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen, as correct and emphasizes on his point. As a result he starts criticizing the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah. At times he abandons the teachings of the Sahabah and early Ulamaa and propagates beliefs which contradict their teachings. People gradually become affected by his ideas, thus bringing a new group into existence. In this manner another person arises and starts to answer objections according to his speculations which contradict the teachings of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah. His beliefs are also in contradiction with that of the person formerly mentioned and he establishes a group following his conclusions. These two groups oppose one another while opposing the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah. They, therefore, attribute disbelief to all the other sects and consider it an act of reward to usurp their wealth and property. This is one of the many ways a new group comes into being. It is possible that a group starts with the intention of doing good, but regards themselves as being flawless and everyone else as incorrect, thus deviating from the straight path. The common aspect found within these different sects is that instead of following the Sahabah and Salaf-e-Saaliheen they rely upon their own knowledge and intelligence. They are therefore not regarded as Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah, but categorized as Ahle Bid’ah (innovators) or Ahlul Ahwaa (those who follow their desires.) 2) In your question, if the word Salafi is referring to those who follow the Sahabah and Salf-e-Saaliheen, then in that case the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah i.e. the four Imams and their followers are all Salafis. They (Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah) maintain great respect for the Sahabah and Salaf-e-Saaliheen and follow their ways. If you are, however, referring to a specific sect, then kindly inform us as to what views they maintain and in which aspects do they differ with the four Imams. If anyone wishes to live in harmony with the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah then he/she should follow the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah and not oppose them in any aspect. By making ones own research and opposing the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah, a new group will come into being resulting in an increase in sects. We advise you to associate with the Ulamaa of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah in your locality, rather then studying the views of other groups, and you should participate in their gatherings and do your best in doing good actions. and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best Mufti Muhammad Ashraf DARUL IFTA – JAMEAH MAHMOODIYAH, SPRINGS JOINT PROJECT WITH DARUL IFTA, MADRASAH IN’AAMIYYAH – CAMPERDOWN Source: http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=14084

Allah clearly said in Suratul Ma'idah... "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." Yet some people call themselves other names and construct other rules. Bad governance has been our achilles since the days of the Umayyads, Abasids until today. The Saud are much like the Umayyads and would like to maintain their corrupt leadership, this was cemented during the days of Abdulaziz al-Sa'ud and the kingdom uses its oil revenues to further its ideology. [13]: We do not deem it correct to revolt against the Muslim rulers as long as they are Muslims, nor do we feel that revolutions bring about reconciliation. An Islamic Revolution removed the Shah from Iran and if that wasn't done, the kufar would still be owning their country, selling pork, alcohol and encouraging what Allah SWT has forbidden. After the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Sa'ud monarchy, Saddam and all the corrupt leaders in the region were 'shit-ting' their pants so to speak. They turned to their helpers (America) who armed Saddam and encouraged him to wage war against the Iranians so that the revolution doesn't spread throughout the region (this was in the interests of the corrupt Arab leaders and also the Americans who rely heavily on oil from the region). They tolerated and funded this but when Saddam started acting independently and invaded Kuwait (on his way to Saudi Arabia), the face of the coalition changed and the Sa'ud and the Sabah (Kuwaiti ruling family) were working with their helper (Americans) once again, this time against another Muslim govt and the effects of that war has led (directly and indirectly) to the deaths of over 1 000 000 Iraqis. But hey, we should give them some credit for rule no 13; it is quite a smart move and intended to keep the Saudi people docile!

Sakina, There is a very important verse of the Qur'an that the so called "Salafi" are overlooking. "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you ISLAM as your religion."- Al Ma'idah 5:3 If a Muslim believes that Allah SWT has perfected our religion and called it ISLAM, should they be calling it anything other than that? It would be a major innovation.

187, Viking, Gatusso pulled down Gerard with his hands and that is why the ref gave a penalty. Gerrard actually took a few steps (where there was no contact with Gattuso) before he fell on his knees. But refs do make mistakes and this happens quite often nowadays because there is so much money involved in football. The ref would have awarded a penalty adn cech would have been sent off, I think he did chelski a favour. Chelsea got off quite easy, but they failed to score during both legs so they can't complain much. Milan cored three goals but two of them were cancelled through dubious goals. They got the chance to redeem themselves through penalties but fell short. Do you think Gooners deserved the FA Cup this year? I don't think they deserved it but no one can deny that they won it. Liverpool didn't "deserve" to win the game, but they won it anyway. They were dominated the whole game and a string of spectacular goal-line saves helped keep Milan out until the game ended. If we are talking about "deserve", Milan didn't deserve to lose the game, just like PSV didn't deserve to lose to them in the semis. But in football, the team that scores more goals in the end wins, no matter how well they played during the match.

Originally posted by STOIC: Viking you are my hero for quiting smoking!.Whenever i see youngsters smoking i tremble at the very thought of seeing them putting themselves in the harms way!.Many smokers after they quit smoking they do gain weight-i hope you have seen the difference infront of the mirror!.Quiting smoking will lower your chances of having heart attack,stroke or cancer.I bet you must have saved money after quiting because now all the loose change can be used in a constructive project!.Whenever you feel the urge to smoke-you may never know when it will happen-go for a walk or get bussy with some project. STOIC, I worked at an oncology wing some years ago where patients were dropping off like flies. I remember one Iranian lady who was only 35 years old and had smoked herself to death. It was tragic seeing her husband (who was a non-smoker) seeing his wife withering away at hospital. Many smokers usually look at people who smoke well into their 80's and comfort themselves by thinking they can last that long too. I once saw a man who was 97 years and smoked like a chimney. He had done it all his life he said and that was like music to my years. When you are in denial, you find solace in every way possible. I once heard someone say that smoking is like someone has fired a shot at you chest, but the bullet hits you after about 20 years. But we all know how strong the nafs is, you keep convincing yourself weird things just to give in to your desires. i'm not making a new statement, it is a known fact (at least in the UK) dat gurls are smarter than boys even in primary school. mizz lander, Girls in the UK also have the highest teen pregnancies in Europe, any connection with their intellectual prowess? You have to be sensible and stop this superiority comlex that seems to have overcome some young Somali girls nowadays. A man could argue that the Nobel Prize winners, Mensa, science faculties etc are dominated by men. But that doesn't mean they are smarter. Chill out walaashis.

Originally posted by BOB: in my opinion AC MILAN lost the cup rather than Liverpool winning it as they threw it away, I am sorry but I can't describe it any other way AC MILAN just threw it away. Anyone who watched the game would agree that Milan threw it away. But the referee played a big part. Kaka was simply fantastic and he didn't deserve to end up on the losing side and I am sure had Milan won it he would've been the MAN of The Match instead of Gerrard. Kaka was by far the best player on the pitch, except for the English who rated Gerrard and Carragher as the best players. Carragher did make some decisive tackles, the man could hardly walk in the end with all cramps from the calves to the hamstring. But he worked really hard to keep Sheva out and he did it quite successfully. Viking, let's talk about the turning point of the match (in my opinion, anyway) the second goal Liverpool scored (Smicer goal) shouldn't have stood as the linesman had hid flag up for what seemed eternity and ref chose to ignore him at the most crucial moment of the match as Milan goal was under siege, BAROS was miles offside. Most L'pool fans said they were happy with Gerrard's goal as a consolation and never dreamt of levelling against a side like Milan. I know the Liverpool lads would argue the second goal that Milan scored came after they had a penalty appeal turned down, but Nesta, never touched it with his hand, I recorded the match and I played over and over again and he didn't TOUCH it at all. I don't know if the broadcast is the same, but he clearly touched the ball with his elbow in the pictures that were shown here. One commentator said that he was trying to avoid touching the ball. He is a top defender and would never touch a ball so blatantly because it would lead to a penalty and a caution (or even a red card). But the ref was in a clear view and saw it as accidental. it was simply not your night and I feel sorry for Milan players and their fans as they didn't deserve to lose like the way they did…Football is a Cruel Game Indeed. -Bayern didn't deserve to lose to Man U in the 1999 CL -Chelsea didn't deserve to lose to L'pool in the CL semis -PSV didn't deserve to lose in the CL semis, they outplayed Milan in both games and lost on the away goal rule. -Man U didn't deserve to lose to the Gooners in the FA Cup final, they dominated throughout. But in football you don't win by deserving results, you get them, and L'pool did that on the night. Dida, seems to be unbeatable whenever he plays against Inter but as soon as he sees English team he wets himself...remember Leeds Utd match? no wonder Inter fans wanted to burn him. I remember that goal; he let in an easy shot towards the end of the game. A goal which sent Leeds through to the semis. But he was still new in Milan and since then, he has won Copa America, the World Cup, Champions League trophy, the Scudetto and an Italian Cup. I can't think of a goalie active today who has won those five important trophies (besides Barthez that is - who is banned for spitting and we all know he has makes the horrible blunders)

Originally posted by Cabbaas Cusmaan: That's really great VIKS, how did you do it? cold turkey? because i been trying to quit for the longest time brah. Every night i go to sleep with the intention of quiting, but i wake up and look for it with my morning coffee. Allah yah diih Cabbaas, You can quit successfuly when you are really ready. Almost every smoker wants to quit, but most of them drag it on for years. I enjoyed smoking and even miss it sometimes. I initially had to give up coffee to avoid falling back and coffee isn't the same anymore; I went from having two-three cups of strong coffee a day to about once a week. I would advice you to seriously think about quitting and just make adecision one day. It is very helpful to start using patches or gum in the first days or weeks. STOIC, I've seen many threads where some girls are openly sexist and then turn around and accuse other men of doing the same. Quit ironic! Some are poking fun while others (probably) believe that their gender is intellectually superior. When it comes to smoking, I believe women should actually be "smarter" than men. Not because they are intellectually superior but because they are physiologically 'inferior' to men. Women have less heart and lung capacity than men and are more susceptible to the three major illnesses connected to smoking (emphysema, chronic bronchitis and lung-cancer). It has always been known that alcohol affects women faster than it does men but recent studies have showed that women's brain gets damaged faster. http://health.yahoo.com/news/62017

I quit a few months ago after many years of smoking, life is much better! Originally posted by mizz_S.lander: i though women were always smarter den men :confused: but wid some xalimos u can never be sure!! What a sexist remark! If a man said something like this then women would be all over him calling him a chauvanist. Why do we allow anyone to be sexist?