International Football Association Bans Islamic Women's Head-Scarves

[kdsingh80]

International Football Association Bans Islamic Women's Head-scarves

by THOMAS ERDBRINK

Not participating in the 2012 London Olympics is a nightmare for every serious athlete, but for the Iranian women’s soccer team the defeat was extra bitter after they were disqualified right before a crucial qualifying match because they wore Islamic headscarves.

Ready to play a crucial Olympic qualifying match with Jordan in Amman on Friday, the Iranian team was dismissed by officials of the international football association, FIFA. The officials decided just before the kickoff that the tight headscarves the Iranian players were wearing to cover their hair broke the association’s dress code, FIFA said on Monday.

After Jordan was awarded a 3-0 victory, Iran’s players took to the field crying, Press TV, Iranian state TV’s English-language outlet, reported.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran all women are obliged to cover their hair, neck, arms and legs according to the state’s interpretation of Shiite Islamic tenets. Female athletes who compete internationally have to obey the country’s dress code. Iranian women athletes have excelled during international events in sports such as karate and volleyball, but are notably absent from sports such as swimming and gymnastics.

“This ruling means that women soccer in Iran is over,” said Shahrzad Mozafar, the team’s former head coach. She said that now that FIFA is no longer allowing Iranian women to wear scarves, the Iranian government will no longer send them abroad for competitions. “Headscarves are simply what we wear in Iran,” she said.

In April 2010 FIFA announced that it was planning to ban headscarves and other religious outings during the 2012 Olympics. Following the ruling, Iran’s team designed special headscarves that players wrapped tightly around their heads and necks. The team said they were in line with guidelines set by the football association.

FIFA did not agree and told the Associated Press on Monday that its officials had been right to stop the Iranian women from playing the qualifier. Iranian officials were “informed thoroughly” before Friday's match against Jordan that the headscarf covering a woman’s neck is banned for safety reasons, an unidentified FIFA official said.

The Iranian football organization, which is lead by allies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is planning to protest the ruling.

Mozafar said the ruling killed professional athletic ambitions of Iranian women.

“When a serious woman athlete can’t participate internationally, which ambitions are left for her?” she said.

Special correspondent Kay Armin Serjoie contributed to this report.

[Courtesy: The Washington Post]

June 11, 2011

[kdsingh80]

Though there are no patka wearing sikh football players but it looks to me that this world is now not going to allow to wear Sikhs any head covering because of islam

[dalsingh101]

Though there are no patka wearing sikh football players but it looks to me that this world is now not going to allow to wear Sikhs any head covering because of islam

Why blame Islam for this? Why not blame the goray who make these superfluous rules up?

[kdsingh80]

Why blame Islam for this? Why not blame the goray who make these superfluous rules up?

I agree that blame should not be put on islam ,but fight between islam and west is going on and they will do anything to stop them

Anyway why blame goray why not blame militant secularism in which people of all race belong.You can even millions in India who support banning all type of religious symbols

[dalsingh101]

I agree that blame should not be put on islam ,but fight between islam and west is going on and they will do anything to stop them

Anyway why blame goray why not blame militant secularism in which people of all race belong.You can even millions in India who support banning all type of religious symbols

Okay but where did the ideas of 'militant secularism' stem from? Who developed and supported this ideology?

To me all you are highlighting is that these people have had a lot of success and can now count a lot of nonEuropeans as their converts.

[kdsingh80]

Okay but where did the ideas of 'militant secularism' stem from? Who developed and supported this ideology?

To me all you are highlighting is that these people have had a lot of success and can now count a lot of nonEuropeans as their converts.

In that case everything in world is developed and supported by White's. The concepts of secularism, socialism etc are developed by goray's .The scientific revolution is also happened because of Goray,why to blame them only for bad

Also islam has to be blamed because they hardly provide rights to others in their countries but start crying when White's take away their rights.

Edited June 13, 2011 by kdsingh80

[Mithar]

How are the headscarves of the ladies going to get in the way of them playing football? This is another bull$hit rule that dumb goray have managed to make. This is the kind of rule which will make Muslims militant because they will feel they are against the wall and have no other choice but to become more defensive.

[dalsingh101]

In that case everything in world is developed and supported by White's. The concepts of secularism, socialism etc are developed by goray's. The scientific revolution is also happened because of Goray,why to blame them only for bad

I'm not. But independently evaluating the good and bad is important, especially as to be frank, in their own eye's western Europeans seem to consider themselves as almost incapable of doing any bad.

Also islam has to be blamed because they hardly provide rights to others in their countries but start crying when White's take away their rights.

So what are you trying to say? That they are mirror images of each other? Plus let's define what we mean by 'whites' here. When I refer to them I'm talking about the ideology stemming from mainly western European nations (and now America) that seems to view the rest of the world as a field that they can interfere in and 'plough' at will for their own advantage. Where the inhabitants of these regions are an afterthought. The difference between Islam and this white ideology is that imperial [wahhabi?]Islam strain is openly barbaric to nonbelivers whilst the whites ideologues seem to hide behind a facade of good will and intention and still cause the death of hordes of them.

Anyway, back to main point, playing silly political games with headscarves/turbans etc. etc. in the way the OP highlights isn't necessary in my opinion. The motive is probably petty attempts to irritate the perceived enemies.

Edited June 13, 2011 by dalsingh101

[kdsingh80]

So what are you trying to say? That they are mirror images of each other?

Militant secularism and Islam are mirror images of each other,both try to destroy Religion,other Religions.

When I refer to them I'm talking about the ideology stemming from mainly western European nations (and now America) that seems to view the rest of the world as a field that they can interfere in and 'plough' at will for their own advantage. Where the inhabitants of these regions are an afterthought

You mean if tommorow China and India will start interfering In Africa as both of them are investing in it

you will also use word white's for them

The difference between Islam and this white ideology is that imperial [wahhabi?]Islam strain is openly barbaric to nonbelivers whilst the whites ideologues seem to hide behind a facade of good will and intention and still cause the death of hordes of the

It is not only imperial islam but moderate islam also fails to provide equal rights to minorities as far whites standing behind facade of good then it is people of world world to understand that whether they are really good or bad.Unfortunately they control the world's most media giants and in this age media is god

[dalsingh101]

You mean if tommorow China and India will start interfering In Africa as both of them are investing in it

you will also use word white's for them

Well they haven't yet but if they do start to act along openly supremacist and aggressive lines then I for one wouldn't be holding back condemning them for their actions. What would you do? Make lame excuses for it by the looks of it?

Over here people already talk about the relationship between India & Africa as well as China and Africa. Whatever else has happened, so far at least those nations can say that they never enslaved, raped and pillaged the place - which goes to their favour. You don't seem to have much of a clue about colonial Europes relationship with Africa by the sounds of it.

It is not only imperial islam but moderate islam also fails to provide equal rights to minorities as far whites standing behind facade of good then it is people of world world to understand that whether they are really good or bad.Unfortunately they control the world's most media giants and in this age media is god

Well we are living in a society with more freer communication than EVER before. We have wikileaks, the Internet etc. More literate and independent minded people than ever.

Seems like only those with motivated interests and those with no brains would swallow the official lines these days. Media is powerful but it isn't unchallenged like it was before.

This is positive.

[kdsingh80]

Well they haven't yet but if they do start to act along openly supremacist and aggressive lines then I for one wouldn't be holding back condemning them for their actions. What would you do? Make lame excuses for it by the looks of it?

If I am not wrong what I heard is that Indians always maintained supemacist attitude over blacks.Gandhi started its freedom movement from South Africa but blacks did not join him because Indians generally use to consider Blacks as inferior.I don't think Indians look Blacks in positive manner for most of Indians Blacks are still savages.

Over here people already talk about the relationship between India & Africa as well as China and Africa. Whatever else has happened, so far at least those nations can say that they never enslaved, raped and pillaged the place

Its true they never enslaved any nation but main reason was India and China were prosperous countries whereas Europeans were always running out of resources.

The Arabs at one time attacked islamised most of civilizations but today same Arabs can't even fight with Jews because Oil money has made them addicted to luxuries .

Well we are living in a society with more freer communication than EVER before. We have wikileaks, the Internet etc. More literate and independent minded people than ever.

Very few people prefer to do independent research and just fell for media propaganda.From Last 8 days Indian media is doing full swing propaganda against Ramdev ,why because Govt instructed them to do so .I have hardly seen any media showing his good work

[dalsingh101]

If I am not wrong what I heard is that Indians always maintained supemacist attitude over blacks.Gandhi started its freedom movement from South Africa but blacks did not join him because Indians generally use to consider Blacks as inferior.I don't think Indians look Blacks in positive manner for most of Indians Blacks are still savages.

And how much of that was buying into Eurocentric notions of white supremacism by Indians? You think they never picked up on cues to perceive/treat blacks as lesser beings from the masters? Plus we know how easily it was for whitey to push their notions on our lot - for example the Aryan and Scytian theories causing them to believe they were the spawn of white men, something still lingering in the mindsets of too many pendus till this day.

Plus it is not as simple as that, in South Africa Indians were apparently well involved in the fight against apartied sometimes fighting independently, sometimes in cooperation with black African movements. Who is Gandhi anyway in relation to Sikhs. What he did or didn't do over there doesn't have much bearing on our community.

Its true they never enslaved any nation but main reason was India and China were prosperous countries whereas Europeans were always running out of resources.

Well that gives them the chance for an infinitely more positive relationship between each other than the Europe-Africa dynamic. I like to think of it as a possible new era of cooperation myself. At least India/China pay for their shit and don't just grab it, and rape and enslave along the way too.

Can you imagine the powerhouse of Africa, Latina America and India? I think Che Guevera spoke of this as the 'tri-continent'?

Very few people prefer to do independent research and just fell for media propaganda.From Last 8 days Indian media is doing full swing propaganda against Ramdev ,why because Govt instructed them to do so .I have hardly seen any media showing his good work

India is known for it's lemmings so....

Eventually they may get to realise the exact nature between aahm populations and state manipulated media. Remember we've had a lot of very important literature about this matter in the west - read Orwell's 1984 as an example. People's consciousness will develop. It may take India 50 years or so, but they'll get there......probably. The rest of us just need to make sure we don't add to the existing problem.

Edited June 13, 2011 by dalsingh101

[kdsingh80]

And how much of that was buying into Eurocentric notions of white supremacism by Indians? You think they never picked up on cues to perceive/treat blacks as lesser beings from the masters? Plus we know how easily it was for whitey to push their notions on our lot - for example the Aryan and Scytian theories causing them to believe they were the spawn of white men, something still lingering in the mindsets of too many pendus till this day.

Well I think we all know How Indians particularly North Indians are crazy about white skins and we all know this has been going since ages.Fair skinned Girls in India were always are much more in demand for marriage than the darker one ,so it is is no wonder Indians looked down Blacks .

Even in Indian mythological texts asur(rakshas) were portrayed as Blacks While good people were mostly portrayed as fair skinned

I don't think Europeans have much influence here in earlier time

Well that gives them the chance for an infinitely more positive relationship between each other than the Europe-Africa dynamic. I like to think of it as a possible new era of cooperation myself. At least India/China pay for their shit and don't just grab it, and rape and enslave along the way too.

Are you trying to say Europeans and Africans can never be friends because in earlier times Europeans enslaved Africans.I am sorry but what kind of logic is this? If I apply this logic in India then RSS is 100% right that Hindu's and muslims can never be friends as Muslims raped,looted ,enslaved,converted Indians ffor 1000 years

Can you imagine the powerhouse of Africa, Latina America and India? I think Che Guevera spoke of this as the 'tri-continent'?

At present India and China are running out of food .South america and Africa can fulfill their this demand ,so What I see is developed countries will shift much work to them and India,China will Invest heavily in Africa and south america fo for feeding them.

In every discussion you forget that whitey's are dieing on their own because of their low birth rate,so their companies will either shift or import workers

Eventually they may get to realise the exact nature between aahm populations and state manipulated media. Remember we've had a lot of very important literature about this matter in the west - read Orwell's 1984 as an example. People's consciousness will develop. It may take India 50 years or so, but they'll get there......probably. The rest of us just need to make sure we don't add to the existing problem.

To be honest no one knows what will happen in 50 years in India the way Hindu-sikhs are adopting liberal low birth rate lifestyle while mussies are reproducing I find that the west Punjab type of situation will occur inmany parts of India where poor are going to be muslims and rich are going to be Hindu's.The rest you what will happen

Edited June 13, 2011 by kdsingh80

[dalsingh101]

Well I think we all know How Indians particularly North Indians are crazy about white skins and we all know this has been going since ages.Fair skinned Girls in India were always are much more in demand for marriage than the darker one ,so it is is no wonder Indians looked down Blacks .

Even in Indian mythological texts asur(rakshas) were portrayed as Blacks While good people were mostly portrayed as fair skinned

I don't think Europeans have much influence here in earlier time

Well Krishna looks dark to me. As does Kali. God knows how many of the Hindu myths originate from down south in anycase?

I don't agree with your proposition. Khalsa of the 1700s represented a victory of the darker hued over the lighter skinned Moghuls/Persians/Afghans anyway. Just because modern Sikh art misrepresents sullay as darker than apnay, don't buy into it. I've see a few older (pre-western) images of apnay warriors where the indigenous artists had consciously painted them in different hues including markedly dark ones. I've read multiple references toward Sikhs as dark in Persian sources. If I recall rightly one of Banda Singh's main generals (from a Jat background) was especially remarked upon for his dark skin (the black faced one they called him I think).

Plus what about those of the panj piaray who were from down south?

In the end it seems like dark skin wasn't any barrier to the highest positions/ranks in the Khalsa in the 1700s. So they must have overcome this bias to some extent for this to happen.

So whilst I'm not saying that issues towards skin colour didn't exist prior to whiteys coming to the scene, the most certainly made the situation worse with their 'theories'.

Are you trying to say Europeans and Africans can never be friends because in earlier times Europeans enslaved Africans.I am sorry but what kind of logic is this? If I apply this logic in India then RSS is 100% right that Hindu's and muslims can never be friends as Muslims raped,looted ,enslaved,converted Indians ffor 1000 years

wtf? No, I'm just saying that a legacy exists. I've worked with a lot of educated African people, many are conscious of their past exploitation. Have you not heard of Mugabe btw? lol

To be honest no one knows what will happen in 50 years in India the way Hindu-sikhs are adopting liberal low birth rate lifestyle while mussies are reproducing I find that the west Punjab type of situation will occur inmany parts of India where poor are going to be muslims and rich are going to be Hindu's.The rest you what will happen

If we are all going to be outnumbered and wiped out by sullay in the future, let it be. But until that day, let's not shite our pants in fear of it like giddars. For all you know, Muslims in India might become prosperous middle/upper class twats not jihadis?

Cross the bridge when it comes, stop projecting giddar style fear in meanwhile.

[kdsingh80]

Well Krishna looks dark to me. As does Kali. God knows how many of the Hindu myths originate from down south in anycase?

Krishna was dark but if you hear his bhajans ,there are many in which he complained that he is being teased by boys for being Dark skinned including his brother.

(Yashomati mayia se boley nand lala radha kyon gori main kyon kaala)

Kaali was always portrayed blood thirsty goddess,that is why system of Bali was their for her.

I don't agree with your proposition. Khalsa of the 1700s represented a victory of the darker hued over the lighter skinned Moghuls/Persians/Afghans anyway. Just because modern Sikh art misrepresents sullay as darker than apnay, don't buy into it. I've see a few older (pre-western) images of apnay warriors where the indigenous artists had consciously painted them in different hues including markedly dark ones. I've read multiple references toward Sikhs as dark in Persian sources. If I recall rightly one of Banda Singh's main generals (from a Jat background) was especially remarked upon for his dark skin (the black faced one they called him I think).

Plus what about those of the panj piaray who were from down south?

In the end it seems like dark skin wasn't any barrier to the highest positions/ranks in the Khalsa in the 1700s. So they must have overcome this bias to some extent for this to happen.

Well I think sikhism at that time was much more grass level movement rather than hi fi one so it is possible that ,majority of sikhs were dark skinned and their was hardly any color biasbut on the other hand we should not forget age old formula's passed to Girls so their skin could become fair

Also I think Indians always gave much more importance to Girl's fairness rather than boys because Boys/men use to loose it while playing ,working in sun

wtf? No, I'm just saying that a legacy exists. I've worked with a lot of educated African people, many are conscious of their past exploitation. Have you not heard of Mugabe btw? lol

Yeh heard about him as a cricket fan mugabe was blamed lot for destroying Zimbabwe and its Cricket

If we are all going to be outnumbered and wiped out by sullay in the future, let it be. But until that day, let's not shite our pants in fear of it like giddars. For all you know, Muslims in India might become prosperous middle/upper class twats not jihadis?

Cross the bridge when it comes, stop projecting giddar style fear in meanwhile.

the town in which I am living almost stop on Eid day ,from a Rikshaw puller to ice cream vendors to our part time maids all are muslims from Bihar Bengal.10 years ago the situation was totally different.but I must have to say some of them are much more honest than Hindu's

Edited June 14, 2011 by kdsingh80