"Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, assistant secretary general of the MCB, said: "There are two aspects to this. We have the rulings of the religious law and we have the individual's choice and decision on how they want to follow or not follow that rule.
"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."
So no one has told them not to wear the shirts and none of the players have said they won't.
Johan Cruyff refused to wear identifiable adidas shirts when playing for Holland - he took off the logo and removed one of the stripes. No one made a fuss about this. FWIW if I was lucky enough to be a sports person I would not weant to wear alcohol or cigarette or political or charity advertising and I would hope I'd be strong enough to make a stand about it. I see that there are a few sports teams in europe wearing stuff sponsoring brothels - would this be ok? It wouldn't be with me. It is a moral minefield that needs more thought than has been displayed by some on here..
Johan Cruyff refused to wear identifiable adidas shirts when playing for Holland - he took off the logo and removed one of the stripes. No one made a fuss about this. FWIW if I was lucky enough to be a sports person I would not weant to wear alcohol or cigarette or political or charity advertising and I would hope I'd be strong enough to make a stand about it. I see that there are a few sports teams in europe wearing stuff sponsoring brothels - would this be ok? It wouldn't be with me. It is a moral minefield that needs more thought than has been displayed by some on here..
you are paid to play football. you wear a kit so you can identify other players on your team. just crack on and play the game, stop worrying.
Johan Cruyff refused to wear identifiable adidas shirts when playing for Holland - he took off the logo and removed one of the stripes. No one made a fuss about this. FWIW if I was lucky enough to be a sports person I would not weant to wear alcohol or cigarette or political or charity advertising and I would hope I'd be strong enough to make a stand about it. I see that there are a few sports teams in europe wearing stuff sponsoring brothels - would this be ok? It wouldn't be with me. It is a moral minefield that needs more thought than has been displayed by some on here..
you are paid to play football. you wear a kit so you can identify other players on your team. just crack on and play the game, stop worrying.
It's the shirt that counts - not the sponsor. So not wearing the sponsors logo wouldn't make you unidentifiable.
Johan Cruyff refused to wear identifiable adidas shirts when playing for Holland - he took off the logo and removed one of the stripes. No one made a fuss about this. FWIW if I was lucky enough to be a sports person I would not weant to wear alcohol or cigarette or political or charity advertising and I would hope I'd be strong enough to make a stand about it. I see that there are a few sports teams in europe wearing stuff sponsoring brothels - would this be ok? It wouldn't be with me. It is a moral minefield that needs more thought than has been displayed by some on here..
Johan Cruyff refused to wear identifiable adidas shirts when playing for Holland - he took off the logo and removed one of the stripes. No one made a fuss about this. FWIW if I was lucky enough to be a sports person I would not weant to wear alcohol or cigarette or political or charity advertising and I would hope I'd be strong enough to make a stand about it. I see that there are a few sports teams in europe wearing stuff sponsoring brothels - would this be ok? It wouldn't be with me. It is a moral minefield that needs more thought than has been displayed by some on here..
We are a very diverse country. Muslim countries are not. Fair play to the players of they don't want to wear certain sponsors due to religious reasons.
'There is nothing illegal about Wonga’s enterprise, but the firm’s charge of 4,214% APR on its internet-based payday loans has been criticised by local MPs, consumer groups and trade unions.' .....................................
I was rather hoping that Wongas financial dealings might have offended a few Christian footballers as well.
Personal choice on the part of the individual. If they were good enough and played for Charlton I wouldn't want to see them sacked, and if they were good enough they wouldn't be.
No matter what happens, its all publicity and no-one is going to change their minds about Wonga one way or another anyway.
Yeah, bunch of bastards. Kidnapping people off the street and forcing them to borrow money.
Fair enough, nobody is being forced to borrow anything. But a business model based on a representative APR of over 4000%, while perfectly legal, is not really cool. I wouldn't want them sponsoring Charlton, personally.
But why use a long term year rate, when they are for short term loans? The APR has to be quoted as yearly rate, but is irrelavant for short term loan.
You borrow £100 quid off a mate for something and agree to pay him £110 the next week. Sounds reasonable to me.
But hold on - that is 10% for a weeks loan. Add another compounded 10% the next week, and the week after, and week after that and after a year you owe approximately £14,000 - your mate is a thieving bastard preying on your financial difficulties lending you money at 140,000% APR
Surely enough to be mentioned on the Dissowned a friend thread.
Being religious is a personal choice, which people are entitled to. However that doesn't stop me from thinking that they are all absolutely mental. As for that quote about this ruling to stop "the rich and powerful exploiting the weak". Look at your religion's history and it exists TO exploit the weak. Complete non story but still utterly ridiculous.
you get rid of one of our most powerful clerical leaders, we'll try to stop players wearing stripey shirts.
tit for tat.
Sorry mate but I think that statement is total bollox! Hamza (scumbag that he is) does not represent all Muslims in the same way that George W Bush or Tony Blair do not represent all Christians.
you get rid of one of our most powerful clerical leaders, we'll try to stop players wearing stripey shirts.
tit for tat.
Sorry mate but I think that statement is total bollox! Hamza (scumbag that he is) does not represent all Muslims in the same way that George W Bush or Tony Blair do not represent all Christians.
you get rid of one of our most powerful clerical leaders, we'll try to stop players wearing stripey shirts.
tit for tat.
Sorry mate but I think that statement is total bollox! Hamza (scumbag that he is) does not represent all Muslims in the same way that George W Bush or Tony Blair do not represent all Christians.
Think this could be a whoosh moment.
( oh no, I haven't made myself look a fool have I? *waits with burning cheeks and quivering bottom lip*
I'm glad so many on here have acknowledged what a complete non story this is. Until one of the players comes out and says themselves they refuse to wear it then there really is nothing to discuss.
As for another discussion on pay day lenders, do we need to go through it again? Think that one is best left well alone.
Comments
"Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, assistant secretary general of the MCB, said: "There are two aspects to this. We have the rulings of the religious law and we have the individual's choice and decision on how they want to follow or not follow that rule.
"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."
So no one has told them not to wear the shirts and none of the players have said they won't.
Non-story
NB most muslims in the world aren't Arabs
FWIW if I was lucky enough to be a sports person I would not weant to wear alcohol or cigarette or political or charity advertising and I would hope I'd be strong enough to make a stand about it.
I see that there are a few sports teams in europe wearing stuff sponsoring brothels - would this be ok? It wouldn't be with me.
It is a moral minefield that needs more thought than has been displayed by some on here..
I'm just wondering whether that woulb be against Shia Law?
'There is nothing illegal about Wonga’s enterprise, but the firm’s charge of 4,214% APR on its internet-based payday loans has been criticised by local MPs, consumer groups and trade unions.'
.....................................
I was rather hoping that Wongas financial dealings might have offended a few Christian footballers as well.
No matter what happens, its all publicity and no-one is going to change their minds about Wonga one way or another anyway.
And before moaning about sharia law, I think you will find the same is in the catholic faith as well.
The APR has to be quoted as yearly rate, but is irrelavant for short term loan.
You borrow £100 quid off a mate for something and agree to pay him £110 the next week.
Sounds reasonable to me.
But hold on - that is 10% for a weeks loan.
Add another compounded 10% the next week, and the week after, and week after that and after a year you owe approximately £14,000 - your mate is a thieving bastard preying on your financial difficulties lending you money at 140,000% APR
Surely enough to be mentioned on the Dissowned a friend thread.
Sorry to be pedantic.
Well hang on, where does it say that the players have actually agreed to this?
*waits with burning cheeks and quivering bottom lip*
As for another discussion on pay day lenders, do we need to go through it again? Think that one is best left well alone.