Is Ramadan a threat to Muslim success at London 2012?

Muslim Olympians will have to decide whether or not they fast during 2012, but will it cost them?

The Muslim-convert Pakistan cricketer Mohammad Yousuf returned to the Test arena at the Oval in London this week -- and promptly drew attention to the debate about fasting and professional sports when he had to retract a statement about playing cricket during the Islamic holy month:

It is a sin to not fast during Ramadan for a Muslim. I don't think cricket should be organised during Ramadan, when one should focus on his religious obligations. I will never play cricket in Ramadan.

Having scored a half-century in his first return innings against England today, Yousuf didn't quite carry through. But he did not decide to skip his fast -- the batsman will refrain from eating or drinking from sunrise to sundown. It appears he can manage without the sustenance that athletes usually need: he notched up Pakistan's top first-innings score.

The London 2012 Olympics are controversially due to coincide with Ramadan. Will this affect the performance of Muslim athletes? The evidence is divided.

A now-infamous saga involving José Mourinho and Inter Milan's Sulley Muntari erupted during Ramadan last year. Having substituted the Ghanaian midfielder after just 30 minutes on the pitch, the Inter manager blamed Muntari's weak performance on the player's fast.

However, other top athletes have consistently competed while fasting without suffering any ill-effects. The South African cricketer Hashim Amla even argues that playing during Ramadan is an advantage:

"Yes, it does affect the matches and training -- positively mostly -- Alhamdulillah," he says. "People get amazed when I tell them that I have learned so much in my game while I had been fasting."

Manchester City's Kolo Touré, also a devout Muslim, has fasted throughout the beginning month of the Premier League.

"It doesn't affect me physically," Touré admits. "It makes me stronger. You can do it when you believe so strongly in something. A normal human can be without water for much longer than one day."

Touré highlights a crucial point here. Muslims can garner great strength from prayer and fasting during Ramadan. The central focus of the holy month is reaffirming and strengthening one's individual bond with God. The positive effects of this process need not be left at the stadium gates. Just as a lack of water or sugars may disadvantage an athlete, so they might benefit from the heightened focus and energy brought about by spiritual cleansing.

Bespoke meal timetable

This will be tested when Muslim athletes compete at the Olympics. Many of the long-distance runners are North African Muslims -- and I have to admit some scepticism about the chances of a 15,000m runner who chooses to compete without water or food.

Joanna Manning-Cooper, spokeswoman for the London Games, claimed that "we have always believed that we could find ways to accommodate it".

A few reasonable alterations can be made, such as programming the long-distance races for the evening sessions, or scheduling certain events for the earliest morning slots. But in many cases, Muslim competitors who decide to fast will be denying themselves the aid of hydration and sustenance.

Some Muslims, such as Mo Farah, Team GB's 5,000m and 10,000m European gold medallist, will put their fast on hold during the Games. Farah appears to accept that he can't do without liquid or solids while competing. Though some may see it as a "sin", it is acceptable to postpone the fast if undertaking hardship -- including long journeys and other physically demanding exploits such as sport.

However, even this theory was recently contested by the Iranian Football Federation. Ali Karimi, dubbed "Asia's Maradona", was recently sacked by his Tehran-based team Steel Azin FC, having refused (somewhat abrasively) to fast during Ramadan.

Ultimately, the decision must be made by the individual athlete. But the example of sportsmen -- Amla, Touré, Yousuf -- managing to excel while fasting shows that it need not be career-defining. Perhaps Muslim athletes will not need to plan an alternative period of fasting in 2012.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496