Mostafa Mohamed

[Berkshire Blade]

This is the sort of stuff I'm used to Berkshire! A classic example of someone totally disrespecting a Christian faith or for that matter anyone of a religious faith as brainwashed and fairy stories. You're entitled to your view, don't get me wrong and how you express it, but I think there's a much better way of expressing it.

Guess I am as big as bigot as you then

 

[dc_blade]

Thanks for the reply DC and for it being well made; no I don't believe adulterers should be stoned to death, you may also recall Jesus said in such a circumstance "those without sin cast the first stone" at what was an adulterer. We could spend a long, long time debating the Bible, or any faith, my my point is that I think that the footballer, as it is in this instance, should have the right for people to respect his view based on his faith, but tolerance for people with a different view on LGBQT rights seems to be lacking - in my view.

I think if we met in a pub before a Blades match would be a much better place to discuss faith or gay rights, not that I'm saying lets do that, but I know when I put my point on about my faith that naturally many won't agree and it was my choice to put my view on the forum. I think my main problem with the LGBQT movement is that in my experience (it appears to me anyway particularly within the media) that they don't want respect, they want agreement with their view and if I can't offer that then I'm a homophobic bigot. Can't people agree to disagree as long as we respect the views of the other person, assuming they're well made and reasonable - I know that is subjective!

I have to accept that with my faith that some people think I'm wrong, that's their right to think that, why can't people accept that this footballer has a different view, he doesn't wish to wear the Rainbow badge on the shirt, is not freedom of speech/actions allowed anymore? I'm not a Brexiter, right wing voter just in case you may think the type of person I am, I just feel passionately about my faith; if I didn't then I wouldn't consider myself a Christian. I just believe in the Bible, yes you might say my interpretation of the Bible (that's a very long debate in itself) and I don't see it as a cop out, but I get where you're coming from, even if I don't agree.

I’m not making any assumptions about the sort of person you are—I don’t think what someone posts on a football forum is a great way to form that judgment but from what I’ve seen you’re a good poster and a decent guy. I do happen to think you’re wrong on this one.

I’m not going to turn this into a General Chat ding-dong so I’ll just say that in my view LGBT people are asking to be treated as equals and for the rest of us straight folks to make some very minor changes in the way we conduct ourselves in order to accommodate that. Some people seem to deeply resent being asked to make those changes, which I find hard to understand. Cloaking that in religious faith doesn’t make it any more palatable to me.

I’ve said my piece on it now and won’t contribute to the thread again.

 

[Tongeincheek]

Its not like anyone asked him to fully bum another man!

He was asked to wear something that is intended to symbolise that you recognise the humanity of others regardless of their sexual orientation… and he went AWOL.

Lightweight, shirking, bigoted dickhead can stay where he is with his crappy goal-scoring record in bloody farmers leagues en all.

 

[Freddy Dunning-Kruger]

All societies have blasphemy laws.

 

[Booker4]

I’m not making any assumptions about the sort of person you are—I don’t think what someone posts on a football forum is a great way to form that judgment but from what I’ve seen you’re a good poster and a decent guy. I do happen to think you’re wrong on this one.

I’m not going to turn this into a General Chat ding-dong so I’ll just say that in my view LGBT people are asking to be treated as equals and for the rest of us straight folks to make some very minor changes in the way we conduct ourselves in order to accommodate that. Some people seem to deeply resent being asked to make those changes, which I find hard to understand. Cloaking that in religious faith doesn’t make it any more palatable to me.

I’ve said my piece on it now and won’t contribute to the thread again.

I didn't want that either dc_blade and to be fair think we've avoided that. I've often said in previous debates of this nature on here that it's my last post and then someone says something I really want to reply on so I'll not say that, but I've pretty much said my thoughts on it and vice versa.

Guess I am as big as bigot as you then

I did laugh at that Berkshire, not so sure you were trying to make a lighter comment but I'll take it as that nonetheless and as I said, made me smile.

 

[NateDogg]

Ok, I'll probably regret saying this because it's my views won't be liked by many, but I think it should be up to the individual if they wish to participate with wearing rainbow laces, a rainbow lanyard etc. I'm a Christian and have said that on occasions like this because it's what drives my belief system. I believe, someone can correct me if I'm wrong here, that Islam and Judaism also oppose for example same sex relationships, but I know in some countries being openly gay may well lead to all sorts of persecution which I totally oppose, but saying that being a Christian would also lead to persecution in many countries still today. Generally speaking when I speak to people face to face on my faith they'll say each to his own as a rule, just don't shove it in my face and many show an interest to know why I believe in God etc.

I have a different view to the LGBQT movement for want of a better word but as I said I believe an individual should have the right to decide whether they wish to take part in matters such as wearing a rainbow lanyard at work but I would be fearful if I refused to wear one because I know it would possibly cause problems for me personally. I hope this doesn't offend anyone. I should also point out many Christians are not agreed on this, it's split the Church of England for example so not all Christians will agree with me, but many would also.

The whole point is that everyone should have a right to live and love whoever they wish as long as it isn't hurting anybody or taking advantage of the vulnerable in society.

The part I don't agree with in any situation is where people are forced to do anything. Where i work we are encouraged to be inclusive in all ways but we would never be forced to do anything, and to me that makes the world a more tolerant and accepting place.

I don't believe you should be fearful to provide your opinion unless you work with some radical individuals. Sadly, the Internet and social media however are certain breeding more and more people like that on both sides of the camp.

 

[Barney]

They do have the right to decide. And I believe there ought to be consequences for the decisions they make. In this instance: not playing for Sheffield United.

Issue is pal, is that not fascism?

'Agree with this otherwise you can't do that'.

Neither side of the argument should demand agreement.

 

[dc_blade]

Issue is pal, is that not fascism?

'Agree with this otherwise you can't do that'.

Neither side of the argument should demand agreement.

No, Barnster: saying there should be consequences for your actions is not fascism. In fact that’s utterly asinine isn’t it?

 

[Champagneblade]

Thanks for the reply DC and for it being well made; no I don't believe adulterers should be stoned to death, you may also recall Jesus said in such a circumstance "those without sin cast the first stone" at what was an adulterer. We could spend a long, long time debating the Bible, or any faith, my my point is that I think that the footballer, as it is in this instance, should have the right for people to respect his view based on his faith, but tolerance for people with a different view on LGBQT rights seems to be lacking - in my view.

I think if we met in a pub before a Blades match would be a much better place to discuss faith or gay rights, not that I'm saying lets do that, but I know when I put my point on about my faith that naturally many won't agree and it was my choice to put my view on the forum. I think my main problem with the LGBQT movement is that in my experience (it appears to me anyway particularly within the media) that they don't want respect, they want agreement with their view and if I can't offer that then I'm a homophobic bigot. Can't people agree to disagree as long as we respect the views of the other person, assuming they're well made and reasonable - I know that is subjective!

I have to accept that with my faith that some people think I'm wrong, that's their right to think that, why can't people accept that this footballer has a different view, he doesn't wish to wear the Rainbow badge on the shirt, is not freedom of speech/actions allowed anymore? I'm not a Brexiter, right wing voter just in case you may think the type of person I am, I just feel passionately about my faith; if I didn't then I wouldn't consider myself a Christian. I just believe in the Bible, yes you might say my interpretation of the Bible (that's a very long debate in itself) and I don't see it as a cop out, but I get where you're coming from, even if I don't agree.

I think the point also is that you can accept someone else has a belief, be that religion or LGBTQ+ rights and mean them no harm at all without then having to adopt or have that belief system imposed upon yourself.

Though sometimes it doesn’t end well.

I’ll give an personal example. Years ago, I used to have a girlfriend who was Muslim. I supported her in her beliefs, was flexible through Ramadan and tried to understand what was important to her and wasn’t. But that didn’t make me a Muslim. Having been brought up Christian, I’d say well meaning to my fellow man, but not strongly religious, I couldn’t go beyond that point of support.

Ultimately, I think this is where the relationship came to a natural conclusion. If I’d gone all in and converted then perhaps things would have turned out different but that wasn’t me.

Same with you here. If you mean no harm to the LGBTQ+ community, that doesn’t also mean you have to be a front foot advocate. Maybe it makes you feel uncomfortable because of the norms of your religion. You can’t change how you feel and you’ve got to be true to yourself.

For all the stigma this lad has received, perhaps due to how he would be viewed through his own religious contacts in his home country, he couldn’t be seen to be an advocate. In a world where so many people are professionally offended at anything him not being seen to advocate something doesn’t necessarily translate to him being anti-something either. Put in a with me or against me camp, the guy probably chose what personally he perceived as the lesser of the two. Only he knows how he feels or how he may have felt threatened if he took the other stance.

These things are not always black and white.

 

[Harrisblade]

Why do we have to give special attention to any group? I go to watch football not political and / or social agendas. Ask my views on the street outside but everyone and everything can feck reyt off when I’m watching me footy.

Why not just stay in the bar/pub until just before ko - it seems to work for lots of supporters

 

[Stevo]

Not good for the Rainbow Blades then. If they’re his views on the LGBTQ+ community he isn’t welcome here imo and it undermines all the great work they’re doing.

He so apparently assulted zippy and bungle too

 

[BrisBlade]

I respect the considered view of Booker4. I also understand the argument it should just be about football. However, we are a club (players, staff, and fans) and that should mean we support each other. Players and staff are paid to represent the club, and that means more than just playing football. We shouldn't sign a player who refuses to support our LGB+ community. He shouldn't want to play for a club where that is expected. Hence, I don't think we are a good fit.

 

[robbiez666]

Simply put, individuals have their own opinions. Free country. But players putting on our shirts represent the club, not themselves.

There's no place for that kind of belief at our club. We have LGBTQ+ fans and they deserve better than having to support a team with a player who thinks they're an abomination. I'm assuming his archaic beliefs stretch to women not being allowed to be uncovered or outside without their male keeper, not to mention playing football?

 

[Freddy Dunning-Kruger]

Simply put, individuals have their own opinions. Free country. But players putting on our shirts represent the club, not themselves.

There's no place for that kind of belief at our club. We have LGBTQ+ fans and they deserve better than having to support a team with a player who thinks they're an abomination. I'm assuming his archaic beliefs stretch to women not being allowed to be uncovered or outside without their male keeper, not to mention playing football?

All societies have blasphemy laws.

 

[jt64]

Simply put, individuals have their own opinions. Free country. But players putting on our shirts represent the club, not themselves.

There's no place for that kind of belief at our club. We have LGBTQ+ fans and they deserve better than having to support a team with a player who thinks they're an abomination.

That is quite the exaggeration, he merely appears to have chosen not to appear in a virtue signalling fest that is contrary to his beliefs. What he thinks is small cheese compared to what Marlon King has actually done, which was regarded with an astounding "meh, if he scores it's fine" when he made his debut for us

 

[brownblade]

Oh God.

 

[Booker4]

I respect the considered view of Booker4. I also understand the argument it should just be about football. However, we are a club (players, staff, and fans) and that should mean we support each other. Players and staff are paid to represent the club, and that means more than just playing football. We shouldn't sign a player who refuses to support our LGB+ community. He shouldn't want to play for a club where that is expected. Hence, I don't think we are a good fit.

In my view BrisBlade I totally get as a club how it should be that we support LGBQT people when you consider the awful abuse and homophobic chants for example that are heard in football, then there's the treatment of gay players which I'm sure hasn't always been ideal to say the least. I would never join in that that sort of stuff of abuse, not that to be fair that I've heard that at the Lane. I believe, as it says in the Bible love your neighbour and treat everyone as you would wish to be treated yourself; I think we'd all agree with that aspect. I do think that people of faith should be able to object to wearing the rainbow as that's their personal right to do so - in my view based on their understanding of sex and sexuality in my case within the Bible.

So back to this player and I presume he has similar views to me on this but his may be stronger and I am aware that many Muslim countries outlaw homosexuality all together and I don't agree with that by any stretch, people should be able to make their own choices and lifestyle just as I have as a Christian. But I really do believe there's a lack of respect for different views in this country and probably every country in fairness, as I said before, I don't see the LGBQT movement ever accepting respect between different views if it opposes their views, it seems we have to agree and support it otherwise you're a homophobic bigot, that's the bit that I disagree with because there's little acceptance of an alternative view to say no like this footballer did, when he did he was fined by Nantes which I think is an utter disgrace if I'm honest! Some would say it was because he refused to play but we all know why he refused to play.

Nantes at the time came and said this:

"First of all, Nantes would like to repeat its commitment in the fight against homophobia," the club said on its website. "Mostafa Mohamed, a striker for FC Nantes, refused to play in the match against Toulouse for personal reasons. To this end, the Nantes directors decided to punish him financially."

Nantes added it will continue to "fight against all forms of discrimination, as it always has done."

The irony of the above statement on "fighting all forms of discrimination" is laughable given they've just discriminated against him for his religious beliefs. If people can't see the hypocrisy in this then with respect I'd have to disagree!

I read what he said when he refused to play and that takes courage to make a stand as he did in a very secular country like France and what he said was very respectful in my view:

Responding to the incident on Twitter, Mohamed wrote: "I did not participate in the Toulouse-Nantes match today. I don’t want to argue at all, but I have to state my position. Respect for differences means respect for others, [but also] respect for oneself. Respect for what is shared and what remains different. I respect all differences. I respect all beliefs and convictions. This respect extends to others but also includes respect for my personal beliefs. Given my roots, my culture and the importance of my convictions and beliefs, it was not possible for me to participate in this campaign. I hope that my decision will be respected, as well as my wish not to argue about this and that everyone should be treated with respect."[3]

There was also a player for Toulouse who refused to play on a similar basis. I can't really add anymore on it and don't wish to add anymore, but anyone can personally message me if they wish no problems. If you've read all this, thanks! I know it's a long post!

 

[LudlamBlade]

Would be interested to see the responses of some posters on here if we were linked with a player who was connected to a (for example) hard-right fundamentalist Christian sect who came from (for example) America, who refused to play if there was any "Kick It Out" or anti-racism messages on the kit.

Feel like a lot of these defensive reactions would be different were it a case of racial prejudice as opposed to sexual prejudice.

 

[Kev Gee]

Its not like anyone asked him to fully bum another man!

He was asked to wear something that is intended to symbolise that you recognise the humanity of others regardless of their sexual orientation… and he went AWOL.

Lightweight, shirking, bigoted dickhead can stay where he is with his crappy goal-scoring record in bloody farmers leagues en all.

Fuck you on about.
The guy has stated that he doesnt want to wear it due to his beliefs.
Would you rather he was FORCED to wear it even though he didnt want to?
And were and what would that say about Western society?
This is the same script of James Maclean gettng pelters for not wearing the poppy.

Keep politics and relgion out of football for fucks sake......

 

[DifferentClass]

You want to talk about homophobes in football, Brian Clough has to be up there.

His treatment of Justin Fashanu after he found out he was a "bloody puff" was shocking. How come nobody's called for his statue to come down or the A52 to be renamed? I know he said before he died he regretted how he treated Fashanu but it's still a fair bit more damning than refusing to wear summat with rainbows on (which more than a few athletes across many sports have done in recent years largely for religious reasons- not defending it though, and Clough was a staunch atheist!).

 

[brownblade]

This player might be religious but he knows, full well, that his stance signalled to everyone that he doesn't like/respect gay rights. Which is just unlikeable.

 

[Colombia Blade]

So...is this lad any good or what?

 

[Teddy]

Pretty sensible debate on both sides here - which is good to see.

It’s a tough one for me - doesn’t sit right with me that someone would be forced to wear what is essentially a political symbol against their will. Okay so it really shouldn’t be a controversial symbol (everyone is equal regardless of sexuality and discrimination of this sort can fuck off, pretty simple) but where does one draw the line. Acceptability of any political symbol is ultimately subjective so surely you have to allow some individual discretion as to what you are or are not willing to actively support.

He is allowed to not personally be comfortable with modern views on, for example, homosexuality and feel it contradicts his religion. He is entitled to that personal freedom. He is absolutely not entitled to discriminate or go around espousing this view in a hurtful manner and if he did that would be a matter for the courts (quite rightly). But he hasn’t done this I don’t think.

Having said all that SUFC are under zero obligation to employ someone they feel is not in line with their own values. It’s the sort of signing that comes with a degree of toxicity and could really send the wrong signal to young LGBT fans (which would be really sad). So perhaps it’s best to just steer clear anyway.

PS: There’s another debate about what the club’s values actually are in this regard. I know we have a decent LGBT supporters groups and the Club does the usual media stuff on this front but my own experiences of Saudi Muslims would lead me to draw certain conclusions about our owner, for example, (but that’s a little unfair as I don’t know the man).

 

[robbiez666]

PS: There’s another debate about what the club’s values actually are in this regard. I know we have a decent LGBT supporters groups and the Club does the usual media stuff on this front but my own experiences of Saudi Muslims would lead me to draw certain conclusions about our owner, for example, (but that’s a little unfair as I don’t know the man).

You raise an important point here.

Our owner is a Saudi Muslim.

A Saudi Muslim who is happy for the club he owns to have a LGBT+ supporters group and publicly support related campaigns. We have no idea what his personal opinions are and he doesn't impose them on the club. He understands that the values in the country the club is in are different to the values of the country he's from.

Whereas the player wants to impose his own personal view on others. He's perfectly entitled to hold those views and we're entitled to decide they're not compatible with the views of our society.

 

[Champagneblade]

It’s an interesting topic because being all-inclusive whilst at the same time imposing an action on people is a minefield. Even at the Blades we’ve both taken the knee and not taken the knee when the opposition has. What if you have a week to support some of the different belief movements? How would that work out?

Week 1 - LGBTQ+
Week 2 - Gun Control
Week 3 - Christianity
Week 4 - Gun usage
Week 5 - Far right
Week 6 - Far left
Week 7 - Anti-Racism
Week 8 - Anti-Semitism
Etc

Would they all be fully paid up members of supporting each respective week?

I actually think the guy’s comment was probably as respectful as he could manage after probably being placed in a difficult position. We also don’t know what repercussions there would be back home had he also got involved. His comments certainly were not inflammatory or coming from an ‘I hate gays’ perspective.

Suppose he was more specific than less so? How would people react then? What if he said “I’m not wearing rainbow laces because I don’t want to be seen as an advocate for Trans men playing female sport or biological males using women’s bathrooms”. If he’d taken that stance then what would the reaction be? He’d still be not wearing rainbow laces, but would it be less easy for him to be perceived a bigot with those details?

As I said earlier it’s not so black and white and whilst it’s ok for the club’s ownership to have a stance, not all of their employees may be comfortable with it. I’m sure on this debate I may read views that are not my own but I can also appreciate why others may think differently. I’m personally in the camp of each to their own, respect your fellow man which is probably broad that most could subscribe to, but I’m also struggling with actively being made to demonstrate something. I’m Christian, I’m sure many are. Does everyone want to be forced to wear a cross? Not sure that inclination personally comes naturally to me.

In which case, as BrisBlade said, maybe the conclusion is as simple as ‘our organisation is not for you’.

What I do like about this board is that sensitive topics can at least be discussed without the whole place exploding. So well done us

 

[Teddy]

You raise an important point here.

Our owner is a Saudi Muslim.

A Saudi Muslim who is happy for the club he owns to have a LGBT+ supporters group and publicly support related campaigns. We have no idea what his personal opinions are and he doesn't impose them on the club. He understands that the values in the country the club is in are different to the values of the country he's from.

Whereas the player wants to impose his own personal view on others. He's perfectly entitled to hold those views and we're entitled to decide they're not compatible with the views of our society.

Its another interesting angle on the debate - his beliefs kick in when it comes to not wanting to associate with gambling (which most of us are happy about) but he doesn’t seem to mind the Club advocating LGBT campaigns.

Positive way of seeing it is (as you say) he respects that British values are different, cynical view is he knows the shitstorm that would come his way if SUFC didn’t do the “expected” stuff for LGBT.

There is a distinction between player and owner here though. No one is expecting PA to be on the pitch wrapped in a rainbow flag (my guess is he absolutely wouldn’t), whereas this player is being expected to physically adorn the symbol. That may come with baggage for him personally - disappointed family members, dodgy looks down the mosque etc… not saying that’s right or wrong but it’s easy for us to forget that people from a Muslim background are often in a minority in their community when they these things. It takes guts and is not a recipe for a quiet life.

 

[robbiez666]

It another interesting angle on the debate - his beliefs kick in when it comes to not wanting to associate with gambling (which most of us are happy about) but he doesn’t seem to mind the Club advocating LGBT campaigns

Slightly different, I think.

Not drinking or gambling are core beliefs of Islam. He owns a business and won't personally directly profit from companies in those fields, although we do from advertising in the wider game.

Fans in the ground though can do both, because they're part of our culture. there is also a strong moral argument, in this country, against gambling and alcohol advertising because they both ruin lives.

 

[Teddy]

Slightly different, I think.

Not drinking or gambling are core beliefs of Islam. He owns a business and won't personally directly profit from companies in those fields, although we do from advertising in the wider game.

Fans in the ground though can do both, because they're part of our culture. there is also a strong moral argument, in this country, against gambling and alcohol advertising because they both ruin lives.

Yeah I can see what you’re saying - there’s certainly a distinction in that PA doesn’t profit from LGBT output (like he does from gambling/drinking). Easier for him to distance himself and feel he is not “sinning” himself.

As for the “strong moral argument” I think we’re probably guilty of seeing this through the lens of our own liberal western “beliefs”. I think if you asked most Muslim parents if they’d prefer their kid to be a gambler, a drinker or a homosexual the sad truth is most would pick one of the first two. They would consider homosexuality to “ruin lives” just as much.

Can’t emphasis enough that none of that is my view (it’s absolutely mental to me!) but as a (very relaxed) Muslim myself I do have a degree of insight into the psyche of quite a few Muslim communities.

 

[robbiez666]

Yeah I can see what you’re saying - there’s certainly a distinction in that PA doesn’t profit from LGBT output (like he does from gambling/drinking). Easier for him to distance himself and feel he is not “sinning” himself.

As for the “strong moral argument” I think we’re probably guilty of seeing this through the lens of our own liberal western “beliefs”. I think if you asked most Muslim parents if they’d prefer their kid to be a gambler, a drinker or a homosexual the sad truth is most would pick one of the first two. They would consider homosexuality to “ruin lives” just as much.

Can’t emphasis enough that none of that is my view (it’s absolutely mental to me!) but as a (very relaxed) Muslim myself I do have a degree of insight into the psyche of quite a few Muslim communities.

I would say this. I have little time for people who use their religion to justify homophobic beliefs (and l'm talking about all religions) because a book written thousands of years ago by men says so, but then ignore other bits written in that book which don't suit them.

This next bit isn't aimed at you.

I'm also suspicious of people who use examples like this as a stick because I'm pretty sure they hold the same beliefs. You can see it across the forum from people hiding their own unpalatable views behind a veneer. Always fun seeing Islamophobes being pro Islam when it suits them.

I'm pretty sure if a Muslim player at the club refused to play in a game for us because of their personal beliefs, and we lost, there would be a different (very Daily Fascist) reaction!

 

[Davalon]

Are we even remotely interested in this player?