The problem with that is when some countries refuse to allow Israeli players and fans to enter their country, the only option is to award the game to Israel 3-0, but that schewes qualification tables as suddenly 1 country starts winning enough games to qualify for Would Cups and Asian Cups but likely only play half the number of games that everyone else has to play.
time to treat Israel as the rogue nation that they are.
The events in Netherlands illustrates perfectly the absurdity of the reporting.
- Playing Ajax a club historically known as a Jewish club, with Jewish ties
- Lots of videos of Maccabi fans chanting racist songs "There are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left.ā "Let the IDF win to Fuck the Arabs!ā
- Booing the minutes silence for flood victims in Spain.
- Acting as hooligans and destroying property
- Taxi set on fire.
- Several videos of locals attacked, abused and beaten (4 or 5 on one)
- Reports from Jewish outlets before the game, that Mossad/IDF soldiers were being sent āJust in caseā
Just imagine they were British football fans. It would be a national disgrace having to send a rescue plane. Yet somehow again it is being reported as they are the victimsā¦ an illustrative example of antisemitism.
Rather than hooligans fucking around and getting found out.
If it was good enough for Mohammed ā¦
His wife (40) was older than him.
Aisha was betrothed at 7 , and at 9 or 10 the marriage was consummated. Mohammed was 53.
She was definitely young but itās wild to think people know exact age from way back then. Especially with a young girl.
And letās not forget that European royalty was marrying girls off at the sign of their first pube.
Why ? I think most people know how a nine year old looks.
We donāt have any genuinely reliable record of those times. The Koran is very different from the Bible, despite being frequently compared - it is in no way telling a narrative the way the Old and New Testaments do. Most of what is known about Mohammed and those around him in his life comes from narratives that were set down over 200 years after the events based on oral histories.
To take a simple example, the Battle of Qadisaya broke Sassanid power and led to the collapse of a major world power. The tradition holds that it happened in 636, but there is quite a bit of evidence that it was a year later, and may even have been in 638. If we are +/- 2 years on a major world event, relying on oral histories captures two centuries after the event for the precise age of a girl is probably not sound.
Thereās a bit of a deep dive here into the veracity of the claim. Although it left me none the wiser , what is probably more pertinent (with reference to the original post about Iraq lowering the age of marriage) is the point made in the conclusion ;
āAlthough the Aisha hadith was produced for sectarian reasons, it would soon thereafter be used in a legal capacity to defend early marriage and circumvent the religious mandate ā also narrated in the hadith literature! ā necessitating a femaleās consent for marriage. Today, we may say the Aisha hadith has long since lost its original sectarian purpose and is now only used to defend the legality of child marriage. For this reason, many reformist Muslims will welcome Littleās conclusions and use them to push back against fundamentalist clerics who defend child marriage.ā
tl;dr - There is no mention of her age in the original Hadith. The 9yr old claim came 800 yrs later in another Hadith (In Iraq co-incidentally) and was thought to have been added due to sectarian reasons. i.e. the Shia / Sunni schism.
Thanks for looking that up. Didnāt know about this.
Yes itās the bare minimum research weāve come to expect on this āfootballā board
Thatās why I love it. If I wanted to see only mindless drivel Iād go to the Xhitter.
No surprise there.
Expect it to get worse with the incoming administration. But hey Dearborn, you knew what you were voting for, eh?
Weād do well to focus on our own government. Our prime minister is a Zionist scum bag
https://x.com/garyspedding/status/1856677077929370101?s=46&t=Tk6buFVfyHeITdfFRWCVMg
I think the second characterisation is a personal judgement, but I donāt see how you read Zionist from that. It is a dodge of an answer though, and it goes back to the question I originally had a while back in this thread. How much influence does the UK have in Israel? If the UK has a lot more to lose than it can realistically hope to gain by trying to leverage its influence on Israel, particularly with the stance of both the outgoing and the incoming administrations in the USA, then whatās in it for the UK government?
He could privately be all for a free Palestinian state according to the Oslo Accords, or even maybe think the creation of Israel is a historical travesty (doubt it though), but it doesnāt matter if itās not in the interests of the United Kingdom, like it or not.