Shouldn't these Muslim lads be praying instead of engaging in decadent frivolous infidel diversions like soccer?

Shame on them for this near-apostacy and un-Muslim behavior!

Back the the mosque to repent!

Engage in inner jihad and eschew the corrupting influences of the kafir!

Rah-Rah-Inshallah! Boys! Rah-Rah-Inshallah!

Posted by: BigSleep at June 15, 2005 12:15 PM

Yes, indeed, BigSleep. They might accidentally come into contact with najis. What would their imam(s) say?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 15, 2005 12:21 PM

Slow news day? The whole point of this site is to counter dhimmitude, ie a legal framework that enshrines the inferiority of certain non-Muslims in law (certain other non-Muslims just get killed). The FA policy doesn't do that, it gives all religions equal status. Jewish players no longer have to play Saturdays. Once again I'm left wondering: where's the beef?

Posted by: Viking5 at June 15, 2005 12:54 PM

Muslims never sweat. They are experts at running around in the heat all day conserving moisture. It's the way of the desert. It's biologically impossible for a muslim to dehydrate. That's why they always look and talk bloated. All pumped up, not with bravery, but by backed up, pressurized urine, with no where to go. Thats why they pace so much and always seem to be in a lousy mood. I bet that hurts a lot.
They do need special rules for muslims in contact sports. Could you imagine being tackled in such a condition.
I think the FA was wise in this decision. I'm sure allah was consulted, and is in agreement, as we all know, Allah knows best...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 15, 2005 1:05 PM

I'm with you Viking, what's the beef ? However, they need to change their name from Warriors to something else. After all I am sure there would be a stink if they had to play a team called the Cardiff Crusaders.

Posted by: TooBad at June 15, 2005 1:19 PM

I have to echo Viking and Toobad here - this item looks incongruous. The FA have an existing policy on religious observance, which in this case is being applied to Muslims.

Let's wait for the story about non-Muslims being banned from their local swimming pool during certain hours so that Muslim women can swim in private...

Posted by: Effractor at June 15, 2005 2:34 PM

Nice one, good ole F.A. - how about a Muslim Premier League? That's probably the only chance a team full of "British" Muslims has to get into the top division anyway.

My motto remains: "Don't take Muslims as friends and don't play football (soccer) against them. They might want to cut your head off if they lose."

Posted by: disillusionised_german at June 15, 2005 2:45 PM

Such well-known guides to the conduct of a correct Muslim life, such as that of Qaradawi on what is halal and what haram, suggest that sports are only to be engaged in when they are akin to military training -- that is, the physical training they offer can be employed in the path of Allah. Wrestling would be good, tennis not so good. Soccer is played in many Muslim countries: is it encouraged, or discouraged, in such places as Iran, the Sudan, and Saudi Arabia? One would like to know. And further like a list of those sports which, like the martial arts, are considered halal because they train the body for other things, bigger things, more important things.

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2005 4:35 PM

Hugh,

Soccer is very popular across much of the Muslim world. It would be a brave imam that ruled it un-Islamic in Somalia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4171973.stm

The mullahs used to in Iran:
http://www.prima-news.ru/eng/news/news/2001/10/26/18240.html

Not anymore:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1499893,00.html

Posted by: Effractor at June 15, 2005 5:16 PM

Effractor
Thanks for the link to the story about Iranian women allowed into the grounds at last, albeit in segregated areas under "supervision". The last I heard was that FIFA was investigating the human rights issue when several women who attended the Japan match disguised as boys were badly beaten up. I used to get away with going through the boys entrance at my local team into my very late teens but that was to save money while a student. I was mistaken for a boy several times, much to the embarrassment of the person concerned.

I don't object to adjustments for ramadam in principle. I don't object to breaks for prayer, in principle. It's that arrogant attitude, demanding rather than requesting, and with the underlying objective of Islam ultimately dominating everything that I object to. Refusing to accomodate children in a sports activity would be churlish. Resisting their father's desire to rule the world is imperative.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 15, 2005 5:56 PM

I remember when muslims stopped football players from pulling up their jerseys when they scored a goal.

I don't think that religions should force their rules on a secular game.

If you don't want to play during certain periods, then don't play at all.

Posted by: Voltaire at June 15, 2005 6:02 PM

My motto remains: "Don't take Muslims as friends and don't play football (soccer) against them. They might want to cut your head off if they lose."

Posted by: disillusionised_german
LOL! So they don't want to play during "ram-it-down"
"The club was worried players fasting for Ramadan would become dehydrated as they could not drink before sunset." They will more than make up for it after sunset. We've all read about how the slaves, er I mean women, have to stay up all night feeding the menfolk.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at June 15, 2005 8:24 PM

All the Brits need to do is what American "football" does:

pigskin balls.

But I doubt the Brits have the (how shall I put it?) globular fortitude to do it.

Posted by: BigSleep at June 15, 2005 9:17 PM

Granny Weatherwax

I should have scrolled down a little further in that Guardian article - I didn't know Khomeini was a football fan.

Then again, Bin Laden is supposed to be a Gooner...

Posted by: Effractor at June 16, 2005 3:28 AM

As someone said, this is a slow-news-day kind of story. Just the FA applying already existing rules, that allow, for instance, orthodox Jews not to play on the Sabbath. Indeed, such a rule is the reason why most football matches in Britain used to be played on Saturday rather than on the more obvious Sunday.

Yeah... slow news day. No beheadings, no Saudi imams issuing calls for universal massacre from state-sponsored perches, no young girls doused in acid or beaten to death or shot for not carrying a glass of water. No gang rapes, riots, or threats to politicians or intellectuals. No known massacres of Christians in Nigeria or of wrongly-coloured Muslims in Darfur. Today, one day out of the month or year, the Muslim world has given us nothing to be revolted by.

Ought we to be grateful?

Posted by: Paolo at June 16, 2005 5:33 AM

Effractor, they were also my Dad's team, although he would take me to the lower homelier team nearer our then home in London as he deemed it safer for a young girl. Thus I grew up still supporting a team who rarely win anything.

It is said that Osama Bin Laden has been captured hiding out in the Manchester United 2004/5 trophy room. He said that it reminded him of the Afghan caves... cold, dark, empty and recently taken over by Americans.

Paolo, normal service will be resumed shortly.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 16, 2005 6:01 AM

Arguable whether it's a sport, but I like Al-Sistani on chess. It's 'absolutely' forbidden, apparently, because the act of checkmate is one that only Allah can bring about.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=167182005

Posted by: Effractor at June 16, 2005 6:16 AM

Interesting that he feels there is no objection to watching or playing cricket.

I read something years ago from an Imam in Pakistan (I think, may have been just over the border in Afghanistan) that cricket was blasphemous. The reasoning was that cricket is a pastime. To "pass time" is to waste time. Time is the gift of Allah and should be spent in prayer. Hence to waste time playing cricket is a blasphemy.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 16, 2005 7:39 AM

The Koran really is one big movable feast, isn't it?

Posted by: Effractor at June 16, 2005 8:08 AM

Thinking about this a little more, in answer to Viking5-

This rule change doesn't mean equality for the Muslim kids, but a HUGE advantage.

Thus, a perfect example of dhimmitude by those kowtowing to it.

They don't merely get a dispensation for ONE day a week (e.g.-not playing on Christmas, etc.), but for an entire lunar MONTH.

That's being 30 times MORE equal (as George Orwell would put it).

And the article notes that they kids did not want to play in the mornings, being worried about dehydration during the Muslim so-called 'fast' (only in effect during the daylight hours, so they can gorge themselves from dusk till dawn, if they chose). But they said that they were willing to play in the afternoons.

This makes no sense.

If they can eat up to just one second before sun-up, then they would be MOST hydrated in the early mornings, and LEAST so in the afternoons.

Did the reporter get something backwards here?

Or are the players so dehydrated they can't think straight?

What gives with this 'reasoning'?

(And what of the next group with religious' demands?

Like the WICCAN NUDISTS of Newcastle?)

Posted by: BigSleep at June 16, 2005 12:07 PM

"This rule change doesn't mean equality for the Muslim kids, but a HUGE advantage...They don't merely get a dispensation for ONE day a week (e.g.-not playing on Christmas, etc.), but for an entire lunar MONTH."

I don't think that argument holds. They didn't invent Ramadan to get an advantage over the other teams. It's just the obligation that they've been given. Atheists could complain that since they need zero days off, Christians are infinitely "more equal" than them. So unless you propose to do what Voltaire suggests and make everyone play all the time, it doesn't really make sense to say that one religion is unfair because it requires more time off than another.

"If they can eat up to just one second before sun-up, then they would be MOST hydrated in the early mornings, and LEAST so in the afternoons."

I'm a bit hazy on both the timing of Ramadan and the latitude of Manchester, but I think it gets dark in the afternoons at that time.

"And what of the next group with religious' demands?

Like the WICCAN NUDISTS of Newcastle?"

People always say this when religion comes up in a legal framework. If Sikhs can be exempt from wearing motorcycle helmets, the argument goes, then why not invent a religion of no helmets so that anyone can break the law. It almost always remains a theoretical problem. Pragmatism is a wonderful thing.

Posted by: Viking5 at June 17, 2005 6:04 AM