MrExcalibur100

Matic will eat them all for breakfast.

You've been moaning about Costa everywhere on the previous thread. Time to give it a rest on this new one.

Because one is in the prime of his career while one just turned 21. And Ba is clearly not good enough.

If you think about it, even Costa is not 1st choice by default. He will obviously be our best striker but he has to prove it still.

That was one of his biggest problems at Barcelona. They were expecting him to be a ready-made replacement for Xavi but he never had that patience in possession so to speak as a Xavi had. He was always looking to get forward but looked awkward doing that as he lacked the dribbling ability and close control of an Iniesta so he couldn't fit into their slow possession game and as a result, he was shafted to play false 9 quite a lot. They also made a huge mistake of letting Thiago Alcantara go to Bayern, Xavi's true heir. I don't expect him to ever be a deep lying playmaker the same way I didn't expect Lampard to re-invent himself as one. Besides, it's harder to score goals and make assists if you're gong to be played as a deep lying playmaker, which is one of the main reasons I think we signed him.

This wasn't true of his time at Arsenal though and even the second part about being invinsible in big games was not true early on in his time at Barca. It's not a general character trait for him as it is for Ozil. Did he not dominate the midfield in the CL encounter with Man City?

For once, an unbiased piece on the Israel - Palestine situation from the BBC of all places. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13331522

The Hamas Charter reads like a hate manual. And these are the people Jews are supposed to reach a compromise with? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Hence the Sociedad friendly being so close. It sucks for our match-going fans to go to Burnley on a Monday for the opener. But it's the sad reality. The broadcasters dictate everything.

It's an interesting suggestion. It will be similar in some sense to what Ancelotti did at Madrid last season with Di Maria and Isco when he played them as CM's to accommodate for his 4-3-3 set-up. Problem is I highly doubt Mourinho will play Oscar in this role. He is far more of a pragmatic coach and always likes to set-up his teams in a very regiment manner. It also limits Oscar's attacking game. He won't be able to play as he would in a "10" role as he'll be always worried to cover for Fabregas and vice-versa. I like it though, especially against the weaker, bus-parking gods of the Premier league. These two formations are very related though. What's the difference in a 4-3-3 with Fabregas playing that "Lampard role" and a 4-2-3-1 with Ramires and Matic in the pivot with Fabregas as the "10". Just a matter of slightly more/less defensive responsibility. So Dion's idea makes a lot of sense. Oscar and Fabregas can alternate as "10" in a 4-3-3.

And come season start, there will be complaints on here about Ramires' horrendous passing, indecision in the final third and poor ball playing skills. For me, he's a good squad player, nothing more. The Fabregas signing could mean one of two things. (1) Jose is looking to change the formation to a 4-3-3 with a midfield trio of Matic, Fabregas and Ramires. This means Oscar drops to the bench, which is not so unlikely, (when you consider his end of season form. Yes, Jose said he's his "10" but he also said David Luiz was his starting CB then he blundered against Cardiff and got dropped). Jose also won't play Oscar on the right wing. In this system, Matic plays a Makalele role only with more dynamism to his game and Ramires is the Essien type player, high energy guy, though an obvious downgrade. Fabregas is given license to roam forward, score goals and make assists like Lamps. (2) Jose is looking to keep the current 4-2-3-1 double pivot system with Fabregas next to Matic in the pivot and Oscar as the "10". This is the one most Chelsea fans want to see as it means Ramires is dropped and we can see Oscar, Hazard, Willian, Fabregas all on the pitch at once. I favoured this set up a couple of weeks ago, but the more I think about it, the more I doubt it. Fabregas hasn't played there since 2009. He never played there for Barca. His defensive stats are also not great for a player in that role. Most importantly, he will be wasted there as it's a deeper role and he can't effect the game as much with his final ball and amazing through passes (I saw on here he has the highest through pass ratio in Europe). His deep-lying playmaking skills are inferior to a Xavi or Gundogan. It's one of the reasons he didn't fit in at Barca. Instead, we put Oscar in the "10" role and he's really not a creative player. Plus Mourinho is a very pragmatic manager. I have some doubt Fabregas was bought to play in the pivot. In the second case, signing Pogba makes perfect sense as you play him next to Matic and play Fabregas as a "10". That's certainly stronger than any combination we have right now.

If they do sign Vidal and a CB like Hummels, then I can't see any sizable difference in quality between us and them. That's why we have to stay active and hungry in the market. Courtois, Costa, Fabregas and Luis is amazing business. Every single one of them are world class. But all this talk of Torres staying, Drogba coming back, Lukaku likely to be sold, Ba going on loan (really?) is not ideal. We still need a competent alternative to Costa and perhaps one more luxury signing like a Pogba or Di Maria for all our weaknesses to be covered on all bases. Still 7 weeks to deal. I hope we don't fuck up from hence forth.

Oscar : Short freekicks. Showed last season he had begun to get a hang of them. I like his technique. Fabregas : Corners and set pieces. He used to take nice ones at Arsenal. Can get that bend on it and rarely under-hits/over-hits them. Eden : Penalties. He doesn't miss.

So Coman goes to Juventus. Not surprising as he's seen what Conte did with Paul Pogba. We could have a similar situation on our hands. Kid is a beast.

Thank goodness it's only the Daily Fail reporting it. We must be crazy if we think a 36 year old Drogba, Torres (who is one of the worst strikers in the league) and new to the league Diego Costa are going to rival Man City's fire power of Aguero, Dzeko, Negredo and Jovetic. Vast difference in quality and the problems of last season remain. If we're serious about winning the league or champions league, the least we can do is do everything possible to keep Lukaku or sign a suitable quality striker to challenge Costa's place in the team.

I'll leave you alone for now bro . Discussing various religions is a hobby of mine so don't be offended.

http://www.marca.com/2014/07/13/futbol/equipos/real_madrid/1405238891.html Madrid are seriously preparing an absurd fee for James Rodriguez and they are going to sell Di Maria to PSG. Good news as it means we won't have to worry about them coming in for Hazard in a very long time, not that I'm bothered by that as other are.

Pray 5 (five) times a day is not in the Qur'an. There is no specific amount mentioned in the Qur'an and you even said it yourself, Muhammad teaches Muslims how to pray in the HADITH. So on what basis do you reject the Hadith for death for Apostates? It doesn't contradict the Qur'an. Many Muslim countries threaten it but few practice it. The same way many Muslim countries threaten stoning, amputation and things like that (from the Qur'an, no less. Allah's word. By your logic, all Muslim countries should be doing that since it's not the command of Muhammad who was just a messanger) but few practice it like the Saudi's or Sudanese do. So it seems both the Qur'an and Hadith are open to interpretation on punishments even though one is command and the other is teaching. A question. Under full Sharia Law, will amputation and stoning be practiced as punishments to thieves and adulterers respectively? These are from the Qur'an NOT the Hadith afterall.

Yeah, I noticed that. I was surprised when I saw it. Maybe a different playing philosophy from Barca's will improve that. Who knows.

The laws are in both the Qur'an and Hadith. For example, how do Muslims know to pray 5 times a day? This is one of the most important tenants. This is gotten from the Hadiths and not the Qur'an. It's impossible to (1) Understand Islam (2) Understand some parts of the Qur'an without the Hadith. Are you a Qur'an only Muslim? I know some Muslims who are but if you reject some Hadith, then you also have to reject the Hadith that speaks about praying 5 times a day, or how much to pay for Zakat and so on. It is considered heretical by any reputable scholar worth his salt. I completely agree with you about some Imam's, the Saudi's and Islamic scholars using Islam for their benefit but the reality is Islam has always been a highly politicized religion. For instance in the Qur'an, you will never see a verse like "give unto Caeser what is Caeser's and give unto God what is God's" . In Islam, the concept of separation of Church and state simply doesn't exist and this a huge problem in the ME.

Never said it was. You must have misunderstood me. It's in both Sahih Hadith though and it's 100% percent authentic in all schools of Islamic Jurisprudence. You just choose to ignore it, but your views will be considered heretical.I actually agree with you. It hasn't existed since the fall of the Ottomman empire in the early 1900's. What is practiced in Saudi Arabia is only a partial version of Sharia.

@Mohammed Seif You're seriously going to discount the command of death for apostates because it allegedly "contradicts" the Qur'an? Wow, that's a first for me. Because this is not practiced in Muslim countries, especially the ones under Sharia constitution? Like Saudi Arabia? Maybe they are clueless about Islam? The evidence is in the world around us not in opinion. Notice how you ignore the Tafsir from Ibn Kathir I posted as words of a man, lol. No serious Islamic scholar will take your views on Islam seriously and you know it. You are free to believe in this watered down, westernized version of Islam, I like it very much but don't expect others to believe it.

@Mohammed Seif I'll keep it short and try to be as nice as possible . I'm not going to give a detailed response to that on this thread because I don't want to detract too much from what it's meant for. I took my time to read what you typed and it was what I expected. Of course as a Muslim I don't expect you to be publicly critical of Islam. You have chosen to come up with a very peaceful interpretation of these verses but the problem with your interpretation is that it's mostly based off of opinion and the wrong inference that you have to understand Arabic to understand the Qur'an. Most people in the world don't understand Arabic. The Qur'an claims to be a "clear" book. You don't have to understand Hebrew language or Koine Greek to be able to understand the verses of the Bible. This is the job of theologians that study it in College and who learn the original language for exegetical reasons. Most Muslims don't even speak Arabic, which is ironic to begin with. A misconception you made. You don't have to go biblical "scholars" to understand scripture, instead, in Christianity, it is God who reveals scripture to us Christians, not Man. One of the MANY differences between the two religions. 1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him. Most of the verses I gave were given in right context and that context was gotten straight from qtafsir.com, which is a wonderful site on Qur'anic commentary by Ibn Kathir, one of the greatest Qur'anic commentators of all time, not from some biased source. I'll take his commentary of the Qur'an over yours. Now you can choose to believe in a more peaceful, tolerant version of Islam that suits you (many don't) but that doesn't mean that that Islam is the legitimate one practiced by Muhammad and his early Muslims. There is a reason why many Muhujadeen are waging Jihad in many diverse countries (from China to Nigeria) around the world today. They are only following the example of the prophet of Islam. And as to why Islam has many followers. It's an obvious fact that Muslim countries have a far higher birthrate than most other Christian majority countries. It's a fairly known fact that many of Muslim converts in the early/middle ages converted because they couldn't bare to leave as Dhimmi's under Islamic rule in the Ottoman empire. It's It's also a well known fact that Islam has a death penalty for Apostasy. Muhammad said "whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him". A religion says kill those who leave it, yet you're surprised they're many followers? Put yourself as a Non-Muslim for a second and think about that. How many people would have left Islam in the ME if they weren't threatened with death. Can you apostatize from Islam in Egypt without being in BIG trouble, worst case scenario, death? I have a Coptic Christian friend and he was talking to me on how horrible the "blasphemy" (blasphemy to speak bad about Muhammad? a man?) law is and how Coptic Christians are basically second class citizens. Besides, it's an irrelevant point because Christianity has at least a billion more followers, but I doubt you believe Christianity is true. As for a Jewish Rabbi saying that Islam is the oldest religion, apart from the fact that that is laughable to a non-Muslim, how is it relevant? Most Jews will strongly disagree with that. I also heard a Catholic priest on youtube say the God of the Bible is the same as the God of the Qur'an. Most Christians will strongly disagree with that. So will most Catholics. Even any Atheist who reads both scriptures will disagree with that. As for Sahih (100 % authentic by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence) Hadith, you are a Sunni Muslim I assume and you know very well that every single Hadith in both Muslim and Bukhari are authentic. Those quotes by Muhammad are 100% authentic and do not contradict the Qur'an. How do you know to pray 5 times a day, perform ablution and so on if not for Hadith? You can't just ignore Hadith that portray Muhammad as violent and intolerant and accept those that fit your pre-conceived version. Where is death for Apostasy under Sharia gotten from? You can't understand the Qur'an without the Hadith. You know that. I'm very surprised you will say that. You also missed my point about Qur'an 5:32 and 33. 5:52 has nothing to do with Muslims and was burrowed from the Jewish Tanakh. The funny thing about that verse is that Allah references it as if any Jew believes the words in the Tanakh are inspired by God. That's like me quoting Harry Potter and presenting it as reality and not fiction. Anyway, let's continue via personal message. I'm enjoying the convo, but I don't want to derail the thread, lol P.S. and MOST importantly: THIS is the context for Qur'an 9:29, not the erroneous, made up version you posted: Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4—Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam. Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.