Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The World Cup declaired a "colonial crusader scheme" by a Islamist group in the UK:
July 3, 2006 12:14 PM   Subscribe

Keep your balls in check: The Saved Sect Website calls for Muslims to stop supporting The World Cup, as "[...]soccer plants the seeds of nationalism, and is therefore part of a 'colonial crusader scheme' to divide Muslims and cause them to stray from the vision of a unified Islamic identity."
posted by naxosaxur (47 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
Golly.
posted by keswick at 12:16 PM on July 3, 2006


Just because it's not a conspiracy doesn't mean it's not true.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:17 PM on July 3, 2006


But also not
posted by elpapacito at 12:23 PM on July 3, 2006


They're just jealous because Iran, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia were knocked out at the group stage...
posted by clevershark at 12:24 PM on July 3, 2006


What, they couldn't execute on the pitch?
posted by fleacircus at 12:28 PM on July 3, 2006


But otoh, all these jihads and crusades totally get in the way of our good old nationalistic wars.
posted by washburn at 12:33 PM on July 3, 2006


I'd hate to have to be the Islamist PR guy given the job of convincing the masses that football is for the infidels. The results could get ugly.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 12:33 PM on July 3, 2006


"People will spend hundreds and thousands of pounds for this religion of theirs, traveling to other parts of the world in support of their team… showing affection, supporting and caring about… They will jump down the throats of those who so much as even dare to criticize their god rising to defend it at all costs."

The man speaks sense.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 1:00 PM on July 3, 2006


With football feet I desecrate your holiest (isreachrismoslislastrian) shrines. Desecrate! Desecrate! Desecrate! HA! haha. ha... sigh..... Desecrate!!
posted by longsleeves at 1:15 PM on July 3, 2006


You'd think they'd love the World Cup, considering how badly the U.S. normally does in it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:18 PM on July 3, 2006


it's hard to deny that, in the fundamentalist's pov, the obsessive soccer fan is worshiping a golden calf of sorts. all that time could have been spent praying -- the Taliban were famously sucky at sports, they were too busy praying. also, how can you respect ramadan if you're an athlete? remember Olajuwon's dietary troubles?
posted by matteo at 1:38 PM on July 3, 2006


Well, the Taliban did stage some impressive mass executions in the Kabul soccer stadium.
posted by bardic at 1:47 PM on July 3, 2006


"If only they can hold the peace for one month and allow us to watch football," Hassan Omar, a teenager in Jowhar told AFP

He was quickly gang raped, stoned to death and then set on fire to ensure the word of god was still all powerful in the face of his free thinking.
posted by 517 at 1:55 PM on July 3, 2006


I know for a fact that some local politicians in the Netherlands stimulated the orange decoration mania to stimulate some sense of unity around a common goal (sic) and common symbols.

So if the islamists are against that maybe that's an indication that football would unify us. Hooray for islamists for showing us the way. More orange lederhosen and orange wigs here please.
posted by jouke at 1:57 PM on July 3, 2006


What, they couldn't execute on the pitch?
posted by fleacircus

They pushed their strikers forward but it was suicide.
posted by surplus at 1:59 PM on July 3, 2006


it's hard to deny that, in the fundamentalist's pov, the obsessive soccer fan is worshiping a golden calf of sorts [emphasis mine]

Exactly. The fundamentalist POV is stupid and destructive at worst and misguided at best in the Western world and the same is true of the Muslim world. I see no reason to treat it any differently.
posted by jonmc at 2:01 PM on July 3, 2006


I don't much care for the World Cup, nor for crazy islamicists, but I do enjoy it when naxosaxur talks about my balls.
posted by jonson at 2:02 PM on July 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


People, people, can't we just agree to hate equally on sports fans and religious nuts?
posted by signal at 2:16 PM on July 3, 2006


*hits signal on the head with souveneir Mets hat*
posted by jonmc at 2:23 PM on July 3, 2006


Soccer v. religious zealotry
Does this prove Newton's law about action/reaction, or validate the prediction that the 21st Century would see an increase in splinter religious sects?

Re the Crusades: did the Muslims achieve control of the "Holy Land" bloodlessly and thus earn the right to criticize the Crusaders' method of trying to get it back?
posted by Cranberry at 2:39 PM on July 3, 2006


oh man. When oh when can islam just go back to being a regular cult we hear about once in a while like all the other major ones?
posted by Funmonkey1 at 2:40 PM on July 3, 2006


I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the reasoning. The World Cup does indeed propagate the nationalistic myth. Meanwhile, that ynetnews.com site contains some hardcore propaganda. I often wonder if there's some sort of unspoken agreement between the radical Muslims and the anti-Islam sides: we'll keep saying all this crazy shit if you promise to publish it, repeat it, and spread the message far and wide.
posted by nixerman at 2:40 PM on July 3, 2006


nixerman is right: there is some radical -- anarchistic -- thought strains in the essay. the WC promotes flags, anthems, and other militaristic imagery of "nation." to be against those portions of it does not a priori make you a fundamentalist religious nut.
posted by yonation at 2:47 PM on July 3, 2006


Muqtada al Sadr isn't keen either, apparently.
posted by flashboy at 2:59 PM on July 3, 2006


Re the Crusades: did the Muslims achieve control of the "Holy Land" bloodlessly and thus earn the right to criticize the Crusaders' method of trying to get it back?
posted by Cranberry at 5:39 PM EST on July 3


Eh? Literally no political boundary has been drawn 'bloodlessly'. The reason sovereignty is respected is that it leads to a better status quo (peaceful dilineation by historically settled boundaries) than continuous back and forth. To wit, you can take about 5,000 years of human history and argue that at any point of that time group X dominated area A by force, therefore it is ok to take it away by force.

(In my firmly non-nationalistic mind these are all archaic sorts of notions though, if you have a Republic in place controlling a political body then the (purely moral) questions of legitimacy have nothing to do with the ethnic makeup of the people in power.)

Regarding the Crusades, I can't speak for why they're such a deep cultural touchstone for Muslims today (if indeed they are)—they probably takes the same place that Napolean, Hitler, invasions from the east take in Russian thought—but much of the Western criticism focuses around the hypocrisy of arguing that the pillaging conquests were done in the name of Christ.
posted by Firas at 3:04 PM on July 3, 2006


"People will spend hundreds and thousands of pounds for this religion of theirs, traveling to other parts of the world in support of their team… showing affection, supporting and caring about… They will jump down the throats of those who so much as even dare to criticize their god rising to defend it at all costs," the Saved Sect website said.

So, are they talking about an increasing number of Muslims worldwide (the Hajj, the cartoon controversy), or about football fans? The Saved Sect website should be more specific.
posted by clevershark at 3:18 PM on July 3, 2006


I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the reasoning. The World Cup does indeed propagate the nationalistic myth.

There's a big difference for healthy regard for one's heritage and fire-breathing nationalism, I think any reasonable person would admit.
posted by jonmc at 3:19 PM on July 3, 2006


I would imagine, as a devout Muslim, that the crusades were the last time Islam occurred for the west. If I were to continue that exercise in imagination I might resume thinking the same way. Being a technical agnostic penalty shoot outs are abhorrent, tho, perhaps necessary.. a little like cheese analogues.
posted by econous at 3:20 PM on July 3, 2006


Clevershark: So, are they talking about an increasing number of Muslims worldwide (the Hajj, the cartoon controversy), or about football fans? The Saved Sect website should be more specific.

Own goal! Clevershark 1, Saved Sect 0
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:30 PM on July 3, 2006


Oh great, today's two minutes of hate.
posted by spazzm at 5:17 PM on July 3, 2006


Re the Crusades: did the Muslims achieve control of the "Holy Land" bloodlessly and thus earn the right to criticize the Crusaders' method of trying to get it back?

Well for one thing when the Muslims took Jerusalem it was bloodless. Whereas when the Franks finally took Jerusalem in 1099 "... [once] the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even any remaining Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence."

So one reasonable answer to your question is "yes", actually.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 5:20 PM on July 3, 2006


Why is it always about the sects with you guys?
posted by atchafalaya at 5:25 PM on July 3, 2006


Sects sells.
posted by brundlefly at 5:36 PM on July 3, 2006


Well for one thing when the Muslims took Jerusalem it was bloodless.

True. But that's because they surrendered. But the question was about the entire holy land, not Jerusalem. Before the Christians came, and the Muslims were fighting the various polytheistic tribes, there was quite a bit of bloodshed. Even a massacre or two. The Christians during the middle ages were obviously more bloody, but it's not quite accurate to say that the early Muslims didn't have a great deal of blood on their hands.
posted by unreason at 6:05 PM on July 3, 2006


Oh great, today's two minutes of hate.
posted by spazzm at 5:17 PM PST on July 3

*rolls eyes*
posted by Stauf at 6:21 PM on July 3, 2006


Methinks maybe some folks are just pissed about all the football/futbol/soccer themed porn that's showed up in the last month or so.

(Seriously. There's a ton of it. And some of it is awesome.)
posted by Cyrano at 6:38 PM on July 3, 2006


I think understanding this objection is understanding where the "islamists" are coming from to a large extent. It's a crazy place, but as mentioned above all fundies, of whatever stripe, are basically touched in the head.

I mean, nobody can really /disagree/ with the fundies on this matter, it's just a question of which world one wants to live in, the 21st century consumerist/capitalist/westernized one or the simpler and purer God-focused fundie one.

Some day all these fundies will wrap around and there will be an Orthodox Zensunni/Orange-Catholic flavor to treat all of them, and us secularists will be more marginalized than we already are.

We can laugh at the silly islamists, but how many of our US representatives are outright secularists?
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:51 PM on July 3, 2006


All I'm saying is, if you want a message to go through as intended you shouldn't be couching it in terms that make the message sound so appallingly ironic.
posted by clevershark at 6:55 PM on July 3, 2006


An own goal occurs in football when a player kicks or otherwise causes the ball to go into his own side's goal, thus resulting in a goal being scored for the opposition. [...] The term has become a metaphor in countries where football is a popular sport for any action that backfires on a person.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:10 PM on July 3, 2006


Indeed.
posted by clevershark at 7:41 PM on July 3, 2006


But, but... didn't that beard guy woo those Pakistani kids over using football?
posted by the cydonian at 8:20 PM on July 3, 2006


It's an irrelevant argument, anyway. The World Cup is obviously a capitalist-bourgeois strategy to use nationalism to divide the international proletariat.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:48 PM on July 3, 2006


If they are soo worried about nationalism, just wait till they hear about feminism.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:11 AM on July 4, 2006


when the Muslims took Jerusalem it was bloodless

Constantinople, on the other hand....

The Christians during the middle ages were obviously more bloody

More bloody than whom, and when? And where? Plenty of blame for all on the atrocity meter, of course, but Islam didn't go all defensive-warfare-only after they won the crusades.

But to return to the post- there is room for disagreement on Islam and the World Cup, if Der Speigel is to be believed, even among the fanatically devout
posted by IndigoJones at 10:52 AM on July 4, 2006


And he can relax while he enjoys the game.
posted by homunculus at 1:14 PM on July 4, 2006


Somali Islamists kill 2 at World Cup broadcast.
posted by joe lisboa at 1:25 PM on July 5, 2006


Update: The Saved Sect is now classified as a terrorist group.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 9:59 AM on July 17, 2006


« Older The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro...  |  "And in this corner, wearing t... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments