Football Player Mido Defends Islam

October 16th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Middlesborough striker Ahmed Houssam, who is better known as Mido, appears in a documentary produced recently called “Show Racism the Red Card.” The producers of this movie want to deal with racism, expose it, and convince people that racism of any kind is despicable.

Mido was interviewed because he is a Muslim, and Muslim football players are facing increased discrimination (since Islam is not a race, it is a bit awkward that people dub Islamophobia racism) from fans (of opposing teams).

When his team traveled to Newcastle, to play against Newcastle United, Mido scored a goal. The home fans were obviously not happy and, instead of simpling booing Mido or cheering extra loudly for their own team, they started chanting, “Mido’s got a bomb.”

Such remarks are not only frequently uttered in football stadiums, but also in daily life, and not just in Britain, but also in, for instance, the Netherlands. Discrimination towards Muslims is becoming increasingly visible, with some shopkeepers, for instance, refusing to help customers they suspect of being Muslim.

In case readers wonder whether that might be an exaggeration: no. It is not. I’ve witnessed it myself with my fiancee (who is obviously not a Dutch person, but from a majority Muslim country – and yes, Dutch people can tell whether someone is from Turkey or the Middle East). She has been discriminated against on more than one occasion, sometimes even in my presence. On one occasion, for instance, she went to a bicycle shop because her bike had broken down on her. The shop keeper looked at her, telling her that the shop was closed. She then pointed out that the shop was not closed, it would remain open for another 20 minutes, and that there were actually others inside who were being helped. The shopkeeper smiled, told her he would not help her, and went into his shop.

On another occasion a person who sold french fries looked at my fiancee as if she were a cockroach and pretended not to understand a single word she said. For those who are interested; yes, my girlfriend speaks Dutch (a bit), and yes, those who are native speakers can most certainly understand her, especially in this case because I had practiced with her myself, and had encouraged her to go to the city and shop, so she could communicate with people, practice her Dutch, and so forth. People in the fast food restaurant knew what she said, as did the saleswoman, but the latter repeated what my fiancee said a number of times, seemingly making fun of her. I then had to walk into the shop myself, and tell the woman to give my fiancee the freaking french fries immediately. Suddenly, it seemed, the woman had a revelation which made her understand my fiancee’s exact order, and I walked out within a matter of seconds.

Ironically, people discriminate on religion based on the color of someones skin; when you like a Turk or Arab, you’re likely a Muslim, the reasoning goes, and you’ll be treated differently.

As such, I think that the documentary is a great initiative. It is not done, these days, to discriminate against people on the basis of the color of their skin. Discrimination based on religion, however, seems to be perfectly acceptable.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. shika
    March 26th, 2009 at 09:59
    Reply | Quote | #1

    your last sentence;is it acceptable to discriminate others based on religion? i’m muslim from south east asia country & yet many tourists from west visit my country & yet we never discriminate them..i think we should stop discriminate others because we proclaimed ourselves as civilised, world could be a better place without discrimination..

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.