Newcastle's Muslim Players may not play in Wonga Shirts

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/newcastles-muslim-stars-told-dont-play-in-new-wonga-tops-8204411.html
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-10-09/newcastles-muslim-warned-against-wearing-wonga-sponsored-shirts/

Essentially, the religion of the eternally offended, er... I mean the Muslim Council of Britain, have warned Newcastle's Muslim players (Cisse, Ba, Ben Arfa, Tiote) to not wear the new shirts as it infringes Sharia law. I wonder how this will all pan out, thoughts?

Can't wait to qualify and go Oz!!
My youngest is 4 and dread to think of how things will be when he's bringing up a family.
No doubt I will be classed as a modern day version of Alf Garnit, but I much prefer him to any of the Hamza type people we seem to have an abundance of nowadays.

Must add that I have met a fair amount of muslims, and never had a bad word to say about any of them. Just seems that muslims with a bit of power seem to spout rubbish that always gets sympathy from the powers that be.

I would be surprised if something as serious as this has not already been considered before signing the deal.

Players in question are probably cheesed off that some self elected soandso has chosen to speak on their behalf, putting pressure on them.

I can't find it anywhere. what exactly is the thing thats wrong here? What law in Shariah law are they breaking by being sponsored by Wonga?

Under Shariah law Muslims can't be associated with anything that charges interest. Obviously in today's world I believe they are slightly more lienient however with this being a pay day loan company that charges upwards of 50% then I believe this is why it is being brought up.

I don't think the actual rule is not to be associated with them, just not to use them. That's why I don't think this is a real thing.

It's more media propaganda.

Like the outrage of signing a deal with Wonga, conveniently forgetting that they have already been sponsoring Blackpool and Hearts. They talk about the influences on children, yet, 5 premier league clubs advertise gambling, one advertises beer.

I fail to see how this causes as much outrage when Rooney swears into a camera, or knocks off a granny.

Certain Muslims are so bloody sensitive. It's almost as if they go out of their way to be offended or are looking to be offended. I'm sure any "offended" players aren't complaining about their vulgar salaries though are they or do they care about when the league was being sponsored by Carling?

I wish they'd just grow up and get on with it. Life's too short and this is such an insignificant matter to be upset about, ditto Prophet cartoons.

Hashim Amla will not wear the South African sponsored shirt as its sponsored by Castle beer. No-one seems to mind so much.

It's utterly pathetic though. Seems the primary aim is to find something to be offended about. Another reason why religious people should be locked up.

Not really. It is well known that muslims do not associate with usuary. People should be glad anyway. Who wants their club to be associated with a company like Wonga? Vile Shylock type company.

I wouldn't either, but it shouldn't be a players place to make a scene out of who sponsors them. They are merely employees, don't make business decisions and therefore expendable.

azania wrote:Not really. It is well known that muslims do not associate with usuary. People should be glad anyway. Who wants their club to be associated with a company like Wonga? Vile Shylock type company.

I don't really care who sponsors the club. It's up to the board to make those decisions. They may rip people off, but if it was breaking any laws they'd be shut down.

When making such a decision, the board should take into consideration the company's assets. Players are part of that asset.

azania wrote:When making such a decision, the board should take into consideration the company's assets. Players are part of that asset.

You can't please everybody all of the time. They should simply tow the company line like every other employee in every other business has to do.

Why do these footballers think they are a special case. If they don't like it they can go and move to a club that is sponsored by something else.

These players are being really petty and frankly embarassing themselves. Seriously, how could anyone be so small minded as to let something like that bother them.

The footballers haven't said anything. Personally if they feel offended, they should refuse to wear the Wonga shirt. I can't see how they are offending themselves if they are acting in accordance to their religion. Jonathan Edwards refused to jump on a sunday in accordance to his religious beliefs. No-one criticised him for it.

Mike Jones the great All Black flanker refused to play on a sunday and it included missing a rugby world cup final. People respected his decision without making a song and dance out of it. Were Jones and Edwards embarassing themselves?

The SA cricket team respects Hashim Amla's decision not to wear an alcohol logo on his shirt in accordance with his religion. Didn't prevent him from scoring 300+ against England. Was he embarassing himself?

Frankly I think you're embarassing yourself.

I just think if you play sport, you are there to play the game and not make political or religious objections.
I think Wonga are a pretty wretched company, but if I was a Toon player I wouldn't object to wearing the logo. It's part of your job, and only a really pedantic religious maniac would let it affect them.

Why wearing it puts them up or down is beyond rational thought.

I find religion irrational at the best of times. But I respect people who are religious and wouldn't do anything to cause them offense. That's just me though. Money will never be my god. If the players take a religious stand, then it is also a principled stand. Why should they sell out on their beliefs? No-one criticised Edwards or Jones for their beliefs and stand. In fact the opposite. They were applauded for it. Different rules for muslims it seems.

Az, I don't distinguish between religions, they're all mental as far as I can see.

I've far more respect for people who abstain due to their belief rather than just object and fake offence when it suits them, which is what people here appear to be doing here.

How can you be certain that they are faking offense when Islam is very clear about usuary? These guys play through Ramadan which is difficult enough without adding anything physical into the equation. Yossi Benayoun gets time off the jewish religious holidays and it doesn't raise eyebrows.

Interestingly, South Africa didn't have a problem in Amla's refusal to wear the Castel logo. People applaud him for it over there.

It's "usury" Azania. It's also clear about Alcohol too but I didn't see them crossing out the Carling logo on the league sponsor on their sleeve on their old shirts when Carling was the sponsor.

Barclays is the sponsor now, do they object to them? Also various clubs are associated with betting firms too. I don't see people up in arms about that.

The players aren't up in arms about it, and that's why you're making yourself look incredibly ignorant. The players have not publicly taken offence or said they won't wear the shirts. They have been warned by the Muslim Council not to.

You also seem to assume they're taking false offence, when I imagine if they do feel strongly enough not to wear the shirt then it is more than just "false offence". It should be irrelevant why they hold the views that it is offensive, whether through religion or another form of moral code, the fact that they might hold these views should not be so easily dismissed.

Thanks for the spelling correction. I presume that in this instance the logo will be very prominent and the company in question is quite unsavoury. But again, its not the players but the MCB. No idea why you are highlighting the players.

Irrespective, its a personal choice and allowances should be made for their religious beliefs which is also a principled stand (should they object to the logo).

azania wrote:Thanks for the spelling correction. I presume that in this instance the logo will be very prominent and the company in question is quite unsavoury. But again, its not the players but the MCB. No idea why you are highlighting the players.

Irrespective, its a personal choice and allowances should be made for their religious beliefs which is also a principled stand (should they object to the logo).

Whether it's the MCB or the players (who will no doubt be put under pressure) it's cherry picking what you choose to object to. As I said, loan companies are a mere drop in the ocean of all the sponsorships they could potentially object to associated with Muslims (or any other religion) in professional sport.

The FA Cup is prominently sponsored by Budweiser, I presume all Muslims will be withdrawing their playing services from this competition. Nah, thought not.

Oh come on. There is a massive difference between playing in a competition sponsored by an alcohol company and wearing a logo by loan sharks. Moreover not all muslims think alike. In Edwards and Jones' eyes, christians should not compete on a sunday. Does that apply to all christians? Jews shouldn't compete on the sabbath etc etc etc.

The loan company will not be a drop in the ocean for newcastle either.

Why single out muslims?

I'm not singling them out. I've already said I think religious beliefs are mental, I'm saying that the MCB (and players by association who accede to their requests) are cherry picking where they want to show their offence and objection to something.

What about all the clubs sponsored by alcohol companies or betting firms? Why are these groups not saying players should object to those sponsors on their shirt.

They are not cherry picking. What if those players in question decide to make a principled stand? It is their decision and theirs alone. What other muslims decide is up to them. You seem to be looking at muslims as one monolithic group and ignoring individuality.

What happens in other clubs with muslim players has no bearing on this. It seems you are cherry picking.

The MCB are cherry picking though aren't they.
IF they are going to be consistent about things that muslims shouldn't be associated with then they ought to be decrying the clubs like Wigan, Sunderland and Wolves who are sponsored by betting companies but they only seem to be concerning themselves with Newcastle.

Therefore, can anything they say be taken seriously?

My opinion is because it is a company like Wonga. They are loan sharks when its all said and done and that could be a step too far. Its not a simple"one size fits all" as you seem to be portraying. Some things can be excused, but perhaps not this.

I wouldn't want my club associated with loan sharks. It legitimised them in the first place.

Why didn't they pipe up when Hearts and Blackpool were sponsored by them, or are those teams not big enough to bother about? Wasn't their offence quite as big then?

Again, cherry picking to suit their agenda.

Do those teams have muslim players?

Moreover, how do you know if they didn't object? Perhaps its the media spin once again.

I'm sure they have some.
However I've just looked the story up and it seems that the MCB was asked their opinion of Wonga/Newcastle and they stated their stance rather than they made a request. I presume if they have decency/consistency they would say the same about Alcohol or Betting but it seems they weren't asked.

Still think that certain Muslim's look for an excuse to be offended and are way too sensitive about trivial things like what is on your shirt.

I presume they would say the same about alcohol and betting. But Islam also states that followers should obey the laws of the land they live in and practice their religion in private.

As for certain muslims looking for an excuse to be offended. That applies to all groups of people. And more importantly, its a very small minority. The media plays it up all the time and suckers buy into it.

But for some muslims (Amla) it is not trivial. For some christians, competing or working on a sunday is an important moral issue. It shouldn't be trivialised by people who choose not to respect private and well thought out principled beliefs and acts.

I don't think beliefs are well thought out, well intentioned I would say, but not well thought out. You need facts for that and there is not a shred of fact in any religion.

How much is an over-reaction or fake offence overplayed by the media. I'll ask the guys in Embassy's in the middle east who suffered due to a bloody cartoon.

I agree about religion not being well thought out. Like your responses before you actually read the article. You went on your pre-conceived beliefs and ran with it.

How do you know it is fake offense re: the you tube video and the cartoons? Many muslims have strongly held beliefs about their religion. More use it as an excuse for a political agenda. I know many muslims who were offended by the Muhammed cartoons but were more offended by the protests which took a violent turn. Likewise I know many people who were opposed to the Poll tax and globalisation but were horrified at the riots that took place. Didn't a cop kill a bloke at one anti globalisation riot?

The US ambassador who died didn't die as a result of the protests but a pre planned hit on him. Moreover, how many people demonstrated. At a guess, across the muslim world, less that 100,000. Contrast that to the 1.5bn who didn't. Perspective is needed before brandishing a whole religion and followers as one.

Az, how could anyone seriously be offended by a cartoon enough to start a riot, it's merely an excuse, a bit like London last year with people claiming it was about a bloke getting shot, but in reality it was just a load of ne'er do well scum on the rob.


And no a cop did not kill a bloke at a riot.

99% of Muslims are good people, but blimey, are they sensitive.

You are not supposed to depict the Prophet in Islam. No drawings, flattering or otherwise. Some take it seriously. The anger was that it came from the west and that it is perceived that there is a war against Islam from the west. The riots were more than just people on the rob.

99% of them are sensitive also?

Anyway, back to the thread. I actually applaud the MCB for their stance in particular in Newcastle. It has the highest insolvency rate in UK and to have Wonga advertise their 4000+% interest p.a is gross and could drive people into using them and more insolvency.

From the article:

The idea is to protect the vulnerable and the needy from exploitation by the rich and powerful. When they are lending and are charging large amounts of interest, it means the poor will have short-term benefit from the loan but long-term difficulty in paying it back because the rate of interest is not something they can keep up with. The Islamic system is based on a non-interest-based system of transaction."

Well said. Hope the Newcastle board pay attention.

The riots weren't really more than people on the rob, they hide behind some sort of political motive, but scummy people just got involved for fun/robbing.

Morons, should have had the snipers out.

Well I suppose the govt and others shouldn't have commissioned studies about it. Just ask you and bingo.

Anyway, it's moving away from the OP. What is your opinion of the MCB being against Wonga in an area like Newcastle which has the highest insolvency rate in the UK?

I'm happy for them to disapprove of it, providing that they are consistent in that they are also critical of other sponsors which might be deemed offensive to their hypersensitive following.

They may well be, however, I am a little dismayed at how representatives of a religion should have any influence on anything outside the confines of their religious buildings.

Religion shouldn't really dictate anything in this day and age and should be kept private and not encroach onto others.

I suggest you read the Indy article. Its not only them who disapprove of it. But its the Islam angle that gets the air play. It states that Freddy Kanoute refused to play with 888.com logo for Seville with no problems.

But this issue is more of a campaign against Wonga in Newcastle accross the political spectrum

That's fair enough, I don't approve of those lenders either. I just wouldn't be so super-sensitive as to request the logo was removed from my shirt.

It appears you are the one being super-sensitive in being annoyed about it. It didn't bother the Saffers, Seville team, the All Blacks or UK Athletics. It seems to bother you though.

It doesn't really bother me, I just think they are being incredibly sad, petty and pathetic by suggesting the sponsor be removed.

It's not like anyone thinks they are directly endorsing it. The company just pays money to have it on their shirt. Not a single person will say, "I'm going to Wonga, because Ben Arfa endorses it" IF they do they deserve the 4000% interest rate.

Also, Newcastle probably have the two most high profile Muslim players in the Premier League. I believe both Demba Ba and Papiss Cisse encorporate their religion into every celebration, so the MCB are perhaps eager to see two high profile Muslim celebrities show their belief in Islam as a way to be role models to young Muslims.

super_realist wrote:It doesn't really bother me, I just think they are being incredibly sad, petty and pathetic by suggesting the sponsor be removed.

It's not like anyone thinks they are directly endorsing it. The company just pays money to have it on their shirt. Not a single person will say, "I'm going to Wonga, because Ben Arfa endorses it" IF they do they deserve the 4000% interest rate.

Yeah, but companies obviously believe it does make a difference. Companies spend millions of pounds to have their brand be put on a football shirt, so clearly they do believe it makes a difference.

super_realist wrote:It doesn't really bother me, I just think they are being incredibly sad, petty and pathetic by suggesting the sponsor be removed.

It's not like anyone thinks they are directly endorsing it. The company just pays money to have it on their shirt. Not a single person will say, "I'm going to Wonga, because Ben Arfa endorses it" IF they do they deserve the 4000% interest rate.

Crikey!!! So Wonga are wasting their money advertising their brand on Newcastle's shirts! Tell that to others who waste their money by sponsoring football clubs. Samsung must be kicking themselves for paying Chelsea tens of millions per year so that their brand can be ignored.