acrossthepond

You just know names. When was the last time you seen Yakubu play? He's finished IMO. Infact I'm not even going to bother arguing with a Newcastle fan in New York about Everton. He didn't look too finished playing for Nigeria at the WC. And I have seen Beckford play any number of times, most recently against Villa earlier this season where he offered absolutely nothing for 45 minutes. He might've touched the ball once or twice. He looks exactly what he is - someone who has nothing but a bit of pace which let him score bucketloads in lower leagues but who will never be anything more than a one-trick pony at a higher level. 'In fact' is two words, by the way. 1. Yakubu was awful in the world cup and has come back from it carrying a few extra pounds. 2. All of our strikers were poor against Villa, I'd fancy him to run your centre halves ragged on Saturday and bring the energy that we are missing in the final third of the pitch. 3. Don't try and tell me this and that about Everton, I watch them every week and know infinitely more than you about the qualities of our players. Nobody's saying that you don't. Just don't forget that sometimes you need someone on the outside looking in. Rewind to us selling Milner to Villa and all nodding our heads and going "well that makes sense, he wasn't really that great anyway..." and look what he's done since leaving us. Don't think there's many who'd say we didn't get that one wrong. I think that Beckford is another less-footballer-than-athlete player (see Agbonlahor) and that he will get incredibly short shift off our defence. I hope he does play. I would be considerably more afraid of the physicality of Yakubu when coming up against Colo for example. We'll find out for certain on Saturday.

You just know names. When was the last time you seen Yakubu play? He's finished IMO. Infact I'm not even going to bother arguing with a Newcastle fan in New York about Everton. He didn't look too finished playing for Nigeria at the WC. And I have seen Beckford play any number of times, most recently against Villa earlier this season where he offered absolutely nothing for 45 minutes. He might've touched the ball once or twice. He looks exactly what he is - someone who has nothing but a bit of pace which let him score bucketloads in lower leagues but who will never be anything more than a one-trick pony at a higher level. 'In fact' is two words, by the way.

There a lot of secular Jews in Walker nowadays? Being a little facetious - I know exactly what you mean.

You'd play Beckford over Yakubu and you think Cahill is shite? I wonder what that says about your assessment of Gosling. Watch this space.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11304208 Sounds like a whole team full of Ali Daeis. You mean to tell me the Bahrainis couldn't tell that the chumps they were playing weren't professionals? Something dodgy going on here.

Then yeah, I think I'm on the right track. My point is that there may be many different religions but that at their core they all have the same idea, which is the 'right' one. Me mam was much like you. The church delayed her confirmation for years because she asked too many difficult questions. Pretty much turned her off of organised religion for life, although she still has her own personal faith.

Owning an apartment in this city, even if it's like a sardine tin. Sometimes I seriously think about moving to Iowa or somewhere bucolic where they won't be wanting half a million for a pair of closets stuck together.

I'm not even sure I fully understand the question. It seems you're asking that since it was by chance that I myself am a Muslim in the first place - I'm not a convert, no, so the point is that I could've just as easily been born to Jewish parents, for example, or that I could've been raised in my mother's religion (Church of England) rather than my father's - doesn't that make me wonder as to whether or not Islam is the 'right' religion, and wouldn't I think that Judaism is the 'right' religion if I had been born into that tradition? But I thought I just showed you that it doesn't matter. Religious traditions share common elements, foremost among them belief in the God who created the universe and an injunction to live in an upright matter and show respect for yourself, your fellow man, and God. Adherence to those values is what I believe God is looking for, not your ability to memorize one holy book's teachings or another or what language you speak in when you pray, for example. I'd like to think that had I been raised in a different religion, I would still be able to recognise that good works and devotion to your fellow man are things that transcend religious tradition (and indeed are routinely practised by people who don't consider themselves religious). Is anything I'm saying making sense or am I missing the point entirely?

Oh, I don't know. I get quite volatile when infidels like you start questioning Allah. You might say I have an explosive personality.

Well, if it comes down to atheism vs. belief, there isn't much that any of us can offer to that debate. I don't understand how some people decide they can conclude that God doesn't exist. If we define 'God' as 'a higher being who created, at the least, this world', then how can anyone disprove his existence? He would exist on a higher level to us, would possibly be incomprehensible to us. How can you interact with something that is infinitely more complex and advanced than you? How can you even perceive it? On the other hand, how can we prove that he does exist? He's never spoken to me, I've never seen him, nor have I ever seen any concrete proof of his presence in the world. So at the most basic level, none of us can be sure whether or not he's there. Some, like me, believe he exists. Some, like you, believe he doesn't. And some just aren't sure. I respect the other two positions, although I think they're wrong. But I think it's a load of patronising nonsense when people say, "how can anyone of intelligence believe in this fairy tale" etc etc. I'd answer, "how can anyone of intelligence be ready to write off something greater than himself as a fairy tale?"

Interesting quote that, although rather selective I bet and open to interpretation, of course. Do you interpret that as meaning 'good' people go to heaven regardless of their creed? That's obviously not what christian salvationists believe or I suspect what many muslims believe. At the end of the day, the 'great' religions all have fundamental contradictions and they can't all be right. It's glaringly obvious, your quote doesn't answer that for me. It certainly is open to interpretation. As for your question, there's no doubt that that's what it means, whether or not 'many Muslims' believe it: "Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, and whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall receive their reward from their Lord - they shall not fear neither shall they grieve." (2:62) I guess some mullahs can hem and haw over that one, but it looks pretty plain to me that it says that anyone who believes in God and does good work will go to heaven. Which is my belief. But again, it's quite certain that people of a less inclusive bent than myself can gin up other Qur'anic quotes that 'prove' that non-Muslims are idolaters and the only way to heaven is through Islam. I certainly agree that there are contradictions in Islam and the other Abrahamic religions, and probably in the Eastern traditions as well. That's why we have free will. We have to decide which path to follow of our own free will - and I agree with trophyshy when he says that we should choose the right path because we love our fellow man rather than because we want to be rewarded in the next life.

Easily enough done. I actually had that one covered in my earlier write-up before I deleted it. "For every community has a direction of its own, therefore vie with one another in good works. Wheresoever you may be, God will bring you all together, for God has power over all things." (2:148) I take that line to mean that the other religions of the world have their own traditions but that we are unified in doing good works, and that the measure of piety and worthiness to God is not the manner in which you worship him, but the value of the good you do in his service, whatever you call him and whichever rituals you follow in doing so.

I had a massive post prepared here, but what's the point? This is an essentially unwinnable one. Those who think religion is bunk and God doesn't exist will never accept any argument to the contrary and vice versa. I'll just give you one quote, which is one of my all-time favourites: "...then unto Me you shall return, and I will tell you the truth about that which you differed in." (3:55) In other words, don't bother differing over this topic while you're alive, because you're going to know the truth one way or the other when you die. I think religion is useful to give people a moral code and to imbue them with certain values that are important to society. That doesn't mean that those things can't be done without involving an omnipotent creator of the world, but I'd say there's a reason that religion has endured for, in some cases, thousands of years and is still going strong in many parts of the world, and that is that it's easier and works better when you use God.

If you say so... Though that was never anybody's point of view being debated Well, you're the one seemingly intent on comparing him favourably with the previous regime, regardless of the facts. As shown by the bits you've put in bold. Feel free to put me right though. How much did shepherd spend out of his personal fortune on players like? Ashley's made a net profit on transfers. Is it only his own money when it suits your argument? No, the clubs made a net profit on transfers. In other words, yes, it is only his own money when it suits your argument.

Well, that was atrocious. With any luck that'll be the end of Smith's time in the team. I understand that Hughton is trying to keep faith with the team that won us promotion and got such a spectacular result against Villa, but what was the point of buying new players if we aren't going to use them? HBA and Tiote - especially Tiote - need to start our next game and should have both started this one.

Just as you say that there is a problem with the way the Islamic world interacts with the West - certainly true - there's also a problem with how the West interacts with the Islamic world. All too often those interactions are of the violent variety. That's why it really kills me that people are kicking off over the 'mosque' - here are some American Muslims who I truly believe have good intentions and the future of Western-Islamic relations at heart, and they're getting turned away. Then meanwhile some idiot is burning books that we consider holy and people are saying "Oh, where's the harm?" There are certainly problems, and it's going to take work from both sides to fix them. And part of that work is definitely that Muslims must recognise that there are problems within the Muslim world. I doubt that a few people yakking on a NUFC internet message board is going to help much solve what is probably going to be one of the defining conflicts of the 21st century, but it can't hurt.

Allowing Nazis - that is, enemies of Great Britain - to hold rallies in the UK during WWII would be ludicrous. I don't understand what relevance it has to this situation. We aren't in a war against Islam...are we? Or are you trying to say Muslims are enemies of Great Britain as well? As far as what Renton is saying goes, nobody is getting "tortured or murdered" - that's laughable hyperbole. You've really got to tone down your generalisations. This isn't the first time. You constantly refer to Islam as though it were some sort of monolith. I remind you that in Sunni Islam there is no organised 'church' that makes policy decisions for Islam (there is such a thing in Shi'a Islam) and within Sunni Islam there are many divisions and that's even before getting into Shi'a and Ibadhis, etc. Your reference to Mecca is really a reference to Saudi law, and I have never denied (in fact, have actively stated) that Saudi Arabia is among the most intolerant shitholes on earth. According to the Saudis, who proclaim themselves "keepers of the faith" and a load of other nonsense, Mecca is Muslim-only because of one ayat in the Qur'an which says that as "idolaters" are unclean, they should not be permitted to enter Mecca. "Idolaters" is a tough one to define and I'm sure mullahs could argue me in knots over that one, but I can conclusively say that there are dozens of quotes in the Qur'an that contradict the notion that Christians and Jews, at the absolute least, are idolaters. So keeping them out is really just a power play from the extremely radical Wahhabi-dominated Saudi government. For myself, I think that non-Muslims should be allowed to enter the holy cities at any time except for the annual pilgrimage, during which time they're crowded and dangerous enough with only Muslims and adding more people to the mix would only exacerbate the problem. I also disagree with the contention that Islam is somehow intrinsically more intolerant than the other Abrahamic religions. I remind you that the Muslim world was a bastion of religious freedom for centuries while Europe was crusading, slaughtering each other over sectarian divides, and running Inquisitions. As I have spoken exhaustively about in previous posts, there is definitely a trend of radicalisation and thus intolerance in the Muslim world, but it exists only over the last 100 years and it is reversible. What Happy Face says about the relative importance of Islam in Islamic society vs. religion in Western society is a very germane point. You can bet your bottom dollar that if we rewound a good hundred years, we'd see widespread protest if some Muslims decided to grab a stack of Bibles and burn them. Is the Muslim world 100 years behind the Western world? Hardly, but as I have already told you all, we are extremely backward in many respects and that's something we have got to work on. Stunts like this are not going to make that happen. They will only provide fuel for the people you describe as 'cavemen' who are working to keep us in the 7th century A.D.

Most of the people having a whinge in this thread are just wishing for religion to go away. That's not going to happen in our lifetimes, so you may as well just wish for unicorns or scousers getting jobs () or something else that won't ever exist. I know Leazes will have a go for "dictating rules" to you, but you are just going to have to accept that a billion Muslims see the Qur'an as - literally - the word of God and value it accordingly, whether or not you find that to be a rational belief. Once you accept that given, it's not hard to see why someone trying to burn them is something people are going to get worked up over. And if you don't accept it, we aren't even having the same conversation, so I'm not going to waste time trying to throw apples at you when you're only after oranges.

neither does one bad tournament compared to his record across his entire carreer Spot on. Can't stand Redknapp. He'll get the job but I pray he doesn't. I agree with Andrew, it agitates me when people have a bash at Cappello. Compared to Redknapp and his one credible trophy (FA Cup), he has nothing on Fabio in terms of honours at club level. He's like Steve Mclaren in my eyes, but with a mouthpiece that does nothing but churn out utter implausible shite, the above quote for example. In terms of class, check out his foul-mouthed rant in the self-titled thread, he seemed indignifed when the reporter suggested he was a 'wheeler dealer', which in truth is correct. I feel as if Redknapp pretends to be the public, giving details about transfers, being open about internal policies at Tottenham, the thing is when labelled at what I'm referring to, his scrotum face wobbles in pure rage as if someone has just shitted on his Tesco sandwich. Look, I'll be the last one to suggest that 'Arry would be my pick for England manager. I hate his guts and he's not even close to ask good as Capello. But I don't think England will succeed at the Euros with Capello in charge. I'd rather have someone proven, like Hiddink or Luis Aragones. Maybe I'm talking shite - wouldn't be the first time - but I have zero confidence in him.

neither does one bad tournament compared to his record across his entire carreer His record at club level, sure. Sven had a good record at club level as well, and you might argue McClaren's case to some extent. Didn't change that they weren't good enough to manage England. I feel the same way about Capello.

'Appy 'Arry'll get it like. Lord have mercy when he does. As for Capello, he's rubbish and should've gone after the WC. A couple of wins against lesser footballing powers don't change that.

Has just been called off according to USA tv. Keep on rocking in the free world.

Qur'an if we're being mega mega pedantic. I've actually never really understood what the apostrophe is there for. It's used in some English transliterations to express the letter "ain" (which is this one: ع) but that letter isn't actually in the word "Qur'an" in Arabic. (More knowledge that I paraphrased from Google btw. )

Anything you can do...