banned islam why?

Hobbes

lol

Schuhart

Damn, a whole big argument and I missed it.

Whatever happened to Liz Noonan? Some might be old enough to remember the three elections in a row in 1981/82. She used to have these election posters all over Rathmines describing her political affliliation as ‘Lesbian Feminist’ at a time when it was as exotic as calling yourself ‘InterGalactic Explorer’. It predated those rules about taking your posters down after an election, so her glued-up posters were almost a permanent feature, leading to the comment ‘How does Liz Noonan get her election posters up first? Because she never takes them down’.

I’ll pretend this has some tangental relevance to the topic by posted up a link to the wikipedia entry for Muslim feminist lesbian, Irshad Manji. Clearly, she’s only one person trying to make sense of the world, and her view is just her view. But, then, the same goes for the rest of us.

DeVore

Boston wrote:

The ever clam Hobbes finally looses some of that famed composure. Meh, I'm done here.

Boston, thats f***in dangerously close to trolling in my book. Dont do that.

DeV.

DeVore

Metro you said (and please reread this comment, its not taken out of context):

And so, we can gather from this thread on feedback the homosexuals and lesbians are not welcome on the islam boards, not even their perspectives or opinions, that it excludes these voices from its dialogue? Would that be a correct assumption, that it has a deliberately installed policy of discrimination against homosexuals and lesbian perspectives?

Thats a retarded comment given the data to hand.

It has led me to believe that I was correct in my initial gut feeling that you never had any interest in learning more, exploring an issue or generating "light".

In fact I believe that you have always WANTED to come to that conclusion and now that we are anywhere near the topic of the appropiateness of homosexual debate in a thread about hibjab's you have not only jumped, but willfully leapt with the vigour a gazelle could only envy, to this conclusion.

I believe you went to that forum intent on being "outraged" just as those irritating Fundi-Christians watch 18 rated films they KNOW will contain scenes they will be offended by just so that they can be outraged enough to write to the papers.

This comment above basically confirms it to me because thats some leap of logic. Nothing I've seen has led me to believe this that is a justifiable or even logical conclusion other then that you wish it to be so, to have something to rail against.

DeV.

ps: the last "question" in that quote is a perfect example of a question one should be banned for.

the_new_mr

A lot of reading there. Took me a while to get through all that but I felt I had to so I could give a fair response.

There's a lot I'd like to comment on but I'm afraid it would take up too much time.

First thing I'd like to mention is that perhaps metrovelvet shouldn't have been banned. I think it was just a misunderstanding between her and Hobbes. It seems to me that Hobbes thought that she was trying to pull it off topic and take the mickey at the same time and that that it had something to do with the previous references to homosexuality and Islam. How was he supposed to know that metrovelvet had just seen a documentary about two lesbian Muslims in America?

Hobbes has a difficult job and people shouldn't expect him to have to use any more than the text that's on the screen in front of him to make his judgement.

With respect to the comments about the Islam forum being "ruled with an iron rod" and such. All I can say is that we try our best not to ban people in there. Myself and InFront are the only Muslim moderators and the last thing we want is for people to think that we're trying to silence Islam's critics or something like that. At the same time, as we all know, some people like to spend their free time making wild accusations against Islam and rule #1 in the forum charter is there to prevent an open season on Islam in that respect.

As a moderator, it's sometimes difficult to differentiate between someone who is honestly trying to ask an honest question and get an honest answer in return and someone who is just out to attack and bring Islam to disrepute.

I'm sorry to hear that people feel that intelligent discussion can't be conducted in there. I will respectfully differ.

And quickly, I felt compelled to comment on the following:

Filan wrote:

At work last year a Muslim colleague told me that I should not be eating bacon...because their religion did not allow it...when I asked why, his response was "it's full of fat...so ...so bad..."

The man mentioned here is an idiot.

Filan wrote:

In the same workplace a Muslim stated that a woman criticised him for staring at her...he said that he then told her that it was her fault for exposing her face..."A woman is for her husband only"...when I asked him why he panted, huffed and puffed before eventually stating " I am not a priest!"...he couldn't answer.

This man is also an idiot.

I would have loved to have been there so I could remind him of the verse in the Quran that says:

Al-Nour:30
"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity: this will be most conducive to their purity – [and,] verily, God is aware of all that they do."

He should have lowered his gaze.

Unfortunately, we have a situation where a lot of Muslims are ignorant of the teachings of their own religion and that is why the Muslim world is in such a state right now. I pray that people begin to learn their religion for their own good.

And finally, if anyone would like to drop by to the Islam forum for a discussion in a friendly manner (i.e. without attacking with accusation after accusation) then please be my guest. I would only remind people that they should be ready to agree to disagree sometimes.

Hobbes

After discussion behind the scenes. Metrovelvets ban is lifted. Please word your questions better especially in context of the existing thread. As said earlier in this thread the other mods in the forum rulings supercede mine.

Before the thread continues, kmick still banned. That stays.

kmick

Hobbes I respectfully request that I get a permanent ban from the forum. I would not like to upset you in such a foul fashion again.

Hobbes

just dont go into the forum if you feel that way. Your ban is up next week. Wouldn't want to be accussed of not letting you talk on topic.

WhiteWashMan

kmick wrote:

Hobbes I respectfully request that I get a permanent ban from the forum. I would not like to upset you in such a foul fashion again.

dont be petulant.

Gordon

oscarBravo wrote:

S, v f x.

F u n e m?

metrovelvet

DeVore wrote:

Metro you said (and please reread this comment, its not taken out of context):

And so, we can gather from this thread on feedback the homosexuals and lesbians are not welcome on the islam boards, not even their perspectives or opinions, that it excludes these voices from its dialogue? Would that be a correct assumption, that it has a deliberately installed policy of discrimination against homosexuals and lesbian perspectives?

Thats a retarded comment given the data to hand.

It has led me to believe that I was correct in my initial gut feeling that you never had any interest in learning more, exploring an issue or generating "light".

In fact I believe that you have always WANTED to come to that conclusion and now that we are anywhere near the topic of the appropiateness of homosexual debate in a thread about hibjab's you have not only jumped, but willfully leapt with the vigour a gazelle could only envy, to this conclusion.

I believe you went to that forum intent on being "outraged" just as those irritating Fundi-Christians watch 18 rated films they KNOW will contain scenes they will be offended by just so that they can be outraged enough to write to the papers.

This comment above basically confirms it to me because thats some leap of logic. Nothing I've seen has led me to believe this that is a justifiable or even logical conclusion other then that you wish it to be so, to have something to rail against.

DeV.

ps: the last "question" in that quote is a perfect example of a question one should be banned for.

I did not ask that because of anything that was said or done in the Islam forum, but because of what Hobbes said in this forum. Additionally, the response that immediately followed my comment [which was deleted] was one that remined me that homosexuaily has nothing to do with Islam.

Then here on this thread, Hobbes justified the banning by saying people had been repeatedly warned about going off topic, and the topic they were veering toward was homosexuality.

These two veins running in THIS forum is why I asked whether it was taboo to mention homosexuality in the Islamic forum.

Now, I wasnt discussing homosexuality in itself. I was talking about something else in regards to gender studies, after having seen this documentary and anyone with a half decent college education will have heard of queer and feminist theory and will know they have a relationship with each other.

If there were a judaism forum, we could discuss why in conservative judaism only the men have to wear head coverings [yamakas] but the women dont, or if we had a comparitive religion forum we could talk about how he wedding veil evolved from the hijab or how when you go to temple the women have to wear something on their heads to remind them that "there is something above them," and probably similar reasons are behind why western women wear hats to weddings or why the Easter bonnet is still so fashionable.

The reason I thought that Islamic feminist/lesbian theory may have a more deepened opinion than the back and forth reductive speech that was surplussing the thread, is that clothing has long been read to symbolise or articulate the policing of the female body [ie bra burning in the 1960ws or the liberation from the corset] and the body as the locus of power and opression is long long runnning obesssion with feminist/queer and even political thoerists [Foucault for example] and if universities such as NYU are hiring outed lesbian Muslim lecturers to teach on this subject of alternative sexuality and Islam, then clearly this is emerging as a reality or at least has emerged and is now being acknowledged as one and being recorded and explored.

Now, I strongly suspect that if I had left out the phrase "queer theory" the ban would not have occurred.

I believe you went to that forum intent on being "outraged" just as those irritating Fundi-Christians watch 18 rated films they KNOW will contain scenes they will be offended by just so that they can be outraged enough to write to the papers.

Well you can believe what you want, but you'd be wrong. Are you the same guy that didnt believe there was such a thing as queer theory?

Schuhart

metrovelvet wrote:

Now, I strongly suspect that if I had left out the phrase "queer theory" the ban would not have occurred.

I think that is pretty clear, and I expect recognised by most people reading the thread. There's almost a Father Ted air about a poster using an academic term to be greeted with a reaction of 'we won't have any of that filthy language around here'.

In fairness to Hobbes, our educational system is pretty crap so you cannot be sure that you're talking to someone who knows that existentialism is not something a hooker charges you extra for. You'll notice that several of us hadn't come across the term before. I had some dim memory of seeing the term before, but I honestly could not have told you what it meant. If there's one common theme that Irish people should recognise in their own experience and in Islam its the pitfalls of allowing your intellectual life to be dominated by veneration of past glories.

At the same time, we are blessed with an amount of rat-like cunning, so if you just stick to a vocabulary that a twelve-year-old might have you'll find the room for misunderstanding will be greatly reduced.

gandalf

Thank god I'm not mod of Islam, ah bugger its in Soc I am !!!!!!

btw kmick I have no issues with banning you permanently from the whole Society section, just say the word.

Filan

Just want to say to the new Mr that I appreciate your feedback on my comments...I know that there is good and bad everywhere...and you don't deserve persecution for being a Muslim...nor does anyone...nobody deserves to feel under threat and if I did create a threatening aura then I apologise. I suppose for me my issue is that Islam appears so different to the secular liberal values that I hold dear...and well I just wonder whether we can mutually respect each other....as the differences appear so great in so many ways...can that be discussed in the Islam forum?. However in no way does anyone deserve torment for being what they are...I'm very unorthodox as a person...I don't deserve persecution...nor do Muslims just for being Muslims. All I wish for is peaceful co-existence...Anyway I hope I have expressed my sentiments clearly...and apologies if I cause offence...or am again off point..I may sometimes cause offence...but I am well meaning..I'm human..I make mistakes

Hobbes

Schuhart wrote:

I think that is pretty clear, and I expect recognised by most people reading the thread. There's almost a Father Ted air about a poster using an academic term to be greeted with a reaction of 'we won't have any of that filthy language around here'.

In fairness to Hobbes, our educational system is pretty crap so you cannot be sure that you're talking to someone who knows that existentialism is not something a hooker charges you extra for. You'll notice that several of us hadn't come across the term before. I had some dim memory of seeing the term before, but I honestly could not have told you what it meant. If there's one common theme that Irish people should recognise in their own experience and in Islam its the pitfalls of allowing your intellectual life to be dominated by veneration of past glories.

At the same time, we are blessed with an amount of rat-like cunning, so if you just stick to a vocabulary that a twelve-year-old might have you'll find the room for misunderstanding will be greatly reduced.

Tbh Schuhart the only reason you haven't been banned yet (despite also ignoring warnings) is that there is a hope you might come up with some interesting counter points. So far all I have seen is personal attacks, and don't think for a second just because your on the feedback forum that your free to insult other people.

InFront

Hobbes has quite generously canceled the ban, the thread in question has never been locked... nobody is impeding any discussion, is there even still a problem

MV I'm sure you could ask those questions in Judaism... but you can ask them on Islam too (in relation to Muslims). You can talk or ask about Islamic teaching on homosexuality as well, I don't know why you seem to think homosexuals are unwelcome?
For one thing it's none of our business, nobody ever asks; the only requirement is that you stick to the charter and preferably engage in constructive debate.

These two veins running in THIS forum is why I asked whether it was taboo to mention homosexuality in the Islamic forum

There is no haya (shyness) in Islamic teachings, if something is encouraged or discouraged or halal (lawful) or haraam (unlawful) or doubtful, then Muslims should have the courage to explain why this is. And I don't think you'll find any aversion to doing so on the Islam forum.

Boston

metrovelvet wrote:

Well you can believe what you want, but you'd be wrong. Are you the same guy that didnt believe there was such a thing as queer theory?

Hardly something you would come accross unless you already had an interest in the area.

Schuhart : I've read your post several times, please try to make a little more sense. I'm not sure what you said, but I don't think it was nice.

metrovelvet

Hobbes wrote:

So far all I have seen is personal attacks, and don't think for a second just because your on the feedback forum that your free to insult other people.

Really because its easy to see how he would think otherwise.

the _new_ mr wrote:

The man mentioned here is an idiot..

in ref to Filan.

Devore wrote:

See, now I think you are a tard and that makes sexual-harassment panda sad... ..

On another subject:

In front wrote:

Hobbes has quite generously canceled the ban, the thread in question has never been locked... nobody is impeding any discussion, is there even still a problem ..

Only in so far that the consistency in policy hasnt been resolved an people dont really know what they can and cant say.

Perhaps a solution to this would be to start a comparative religion forum or a theology forum which is free of "sacred cows" and more academic/theological. That religion is a sub forum of politics is already misleading, and perhaps should be moved to something more "personal" and a new world theology forum be started for people who would like to have more objective discussions about religions where there are less prohibitions.

Schuhart

Hobbes wrote:

Tbh Schuhart the only reason you haven't been banned yet (despite also ignoring warnings) is that there is a hope you might come up with some interesting counter points. So far all I have seen is personal attacks

I take it that if 'all' you have seen, or even if 'most' of what you've seen and possibly if 'any' of what you'd seen was personal attack I would be banned already. I suggest you are reconstructing reality into something that poses you less trouble contemplating it.

Hobbes wrote:

don't think for a second just because your on the feedback forum that your free to insult other people.

What is this comment supposed to relate to? Pique at the fact that Irish people haven't a John Jaysus what Queer Theory is? I didn't know what it is. Like I said. If you'd read the post. And thought about it before answering.

Boston wrote:

I'm not sure what you said, but I don't think it was nice.

I don't think it was nice either, just apt.

Wibbs

Schuhart wrote:

If there's one common theme that Irish people should recognise in their own experience and in Islam its the pitfalls of allowing your intellectual life to be dominated by veneration of past glories.

Nicely put.

Hobbes wrote:

So far all I have seen is personal attacks, and don't think for a second just because your on the feedback forum that your free to insult other people.

Sorry? In that post of his that you referenced? I don't see it. Perhaps you can enlighten us all on your basis for seeing insult?

metrovelvet wrote:

in ref to Filan.

I think the new mr was talking about to the Muslim Filan referenced in his post. To be fair to the new mr he can be a pain in the arse in a debate:D but he's not the insulting kind. Quite the opposite actually.

Perhaps a solution to this would be to start a comparative religion forum or a theology forum which is free of "sacred cows" and more academic/theological. That religion is a sub forum of politics is already misleading, and perhaps should be moved to something more "personal" and a new world theology forum be started for people who would like to have more objective discussions about religions where there are less prohibitions.

Not too bad a plan.

InFront

Originally posted by Wibbs

Originally posted by metrovelvet
Perhaps a solution to this would be to start a comparative religion forum or a theology forum which is free of "sacred cows" and more academic/theological. That religion is a sub forum of politics is already misleading, and perhaps should be moved to something more "personal" and a new world theology forum be started for people who would like to have more objective discussions about religions where there are less prohibitions.

Not too bad a plan.

Isn't that what happens in atheism and agnosticism? Or spirituality maybe?

Religion isn't a subforum of politics though!

Blowfish

metrovelvet wrote:

in ref to Filan.

I'm pretty sure that was a reference to the muslim that Filan had quoted.

[edit] wibbs got there first.

metrovelvet

Blowfish wrote:

I'm pretty sure that was a reference to the muslim that Filan had quoted.

[edit] wibbs got there first.

oh ok.

metrovelvet

InFront wrote:

Isn't that what happens in atheism and agnosticism? Or spirituality maybe?

Religion isn't a subforum of politics though!

No because "spirituality" also has its believers, its riituals, creeds and doctrines and is a place not for intellectual evaluation, where religion is to be followed, not examined. And to dump judaism, shintoism, buddhism, confucuanism, hinduism, ba hai, etc all under spirituality is a little silly, especially when "spiritualists" are trying to get away from the rigours of traditional religions. Additionally it is still a religion forum, which means it will have its taboos and sacred cows.

Agnosticim and atheism are arguably not strictly religions but philosophies and most world religions do not fall into a belief system that is godless or unsure of whether or not there is a god.

Obviously there are crossovers where religion, philosophy and culture meet, which is where theology or world religion becomes a very useful category.

Schuhart

metrovelvet wrote:

InFront wrote:

Isn't that what happens in atheism and agnosticism? Or spirituality maybe?

Religion isn't a subforum of politics though!

No because "spirituality" also has its believers, its riituals, creeds and doctrines and is a place not for intellectual evaluation, where religion is to be followed, not examined......
Obviously there are crossovers where religion, philosophy and culture meet, which is where theology or world religion becomes a very useful category.

There actually isn’t that much comparative religion stuff done on the atheism forum. I know that there shouldn’t be much more to it that us saying “I really don’t think there’s a God.” “Me neither.” (tumbleweed blows across thread) “So, lot of weather we’ve been having lately.” Yet, just running down the current page on the forum, the discussions are all pretty much godless related matters. We do go on and on.

I’ve a dim memory of this coming up before something, and spirituality being mentioned as a potential location for sort of cross-religion discussion. But its more a place for ‘what’s the best crystal for anxiety’ and ‘don’t forget the big global hug to prevent earthquakes next Tuesday’. Mixing in controversial discussion with that kind of stuff might look incongruous and, as Metrovelvet says, spirituality is pretty much an attempt to get away from formal religion.

I think it probably brings us back to Humanities. In fairness, I can never recall any discussion there being interrupted so long as posts stayed reasonably in touch with some version of reality. The problem, as I see it, is navigation. Humanities is all the way Up There and all the Religion related forums are Down Here. I’m not suggesting moving Humanities as its scope is so much broader – but we probably need something to make us more mindful of its existence so that we think to plonk any controversies up there. I’d wonder if there’s actually enough traffic to justify a new theology forum, fun as it might be.

oscarBravo

Gordon wrote:

F u n e m?

9.

Crash

Schuhart wrote:

...But its more a place for ‘what’s the best crystal for anxiety’ and ‘don’t forget the big global hug to prevent earthquakes next Tuesday’...

cheers dude, nearly forgot hug day.

RuggieBear

somebody mentions hugs?

Asiaprod

metrovelvet wrote:

Obviously there are crossovers where religion, philosophy and culture meet, which is where theology or world religion becomes a very useful category.

I would have no problem with a World Religion forum being added. Could indeed be a good place to debate the more *delicate* religious issues. I have many times thought of posting in the Islam Forum, but I also find it difficult to disinquish what I can or cannot say. That is not to say that this is a bad thing, just a confusing thing. Each forum down here was established primarily to support the said users of the forum pursue their respective paths and field questions from interested parties. While debate is healthy, it can very quickly deteriorate in massive 240+ pages [insert your own definition here] threads. Another good example is our latest thread locking re: the RC Church and the issue of compensation. This could also be a good candidate for a World Religion forum (not in news and media as then it just becomes a rehashed scandle issue imo)

InFront

Nobody is saying that any topic is just not to be brought up in Islam. We've had discussions on pedophilia, physical punishment of women, fanaticism in Islam and an Imam being allegedly "cast out" by the community in Dublin... not very tame stuff by any means, and all of this was just within the past month! Islam forum has been home to many controversial topics and in practice does allow very broad discussions!!
So if you want to know the Islamic position on something, by all means do ask. Why else is the forum there?

It would be a total failure on behalf of those of us who use the forum if people had to go set up a new forum in order to just get some answers.
I think people have a genuine desire not to offend, and that is why you see so many posts beginning with "I'm not a Muslim, and please don't get offended by this question..." But it's actually not as strict as they think, look at this thread - the thread was left open, the user wasn't even banned!