banned islam why?

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

Nothing has changed since the original ban.

Actually things have, beginning with her no longer being banned. What you really mean is you haven’t changed since the original ban.

It is already in the Charter clearly stating what the forum is and isn't and where people should go if they can't live with those options. It's not rocket science as blowfish clearly points out.

The charter, amended yesterday, is simply not clear enough in this regard. It states that the forum is for “open discussion of the religion for those who are following it or for those who may have honest questions about it”. If you open yourself to honest questions you have to be prepared to accept that some may ultimately question the very foundations of that religion, ideology or philosophy.

So if you don’t want such questions – if they are what are considered attacks - then you should say that questions that question the basic tenets of belief in the religion, ideology or philosophy in question are not welcome. That is certainly not spelt out in the charter.

TBH, this is not simply something that is relevant to Islam, but any of the religious forums.

Btw, proselytizing (from anyone) gets you banned from the forum as well. Thats also in the charter.

I take it you’re not very familiar with the topic of proselytizing?

InFront

The Islam forum is there to... discuss Islam - the difference of opinion with regard to any given topic would be coming from the differing schools of thought within Islam. It's about putting forward Islamic theories and saying "well this sheikh says x", "this imam says y", "so looking at both I think...xyz"

I can't imagine it was set up so that some people would come in and say "hey Muslims, what makes you believe all of that holy stuff, that's rubbish?". If someone isn't interested in listening to an Islamic teaching (and agreeing or disagreeing) or on the Muslim perspective of something (and agreeing or disagreeing), I'm not sure why they'd post in there. That's why the charter makes it clear that it's not for Muslims to have to defend the faith. As someone said earlier, there's lots of other forums where people can and do say what they want about Islam.

DeVore

InFront wrote:

The Islam forum is there to... discuss Islam - the difference of opinion with regard to any given topic would be coming from the differing schools of thought within Islam. It's about putting forward Islamic theories and saying "well this sheikh says x", "this imam says y", "so looking at both I think...xyz"

I can't imagine it was set up so that some people would come in and say "hey Muslims, what makes you believe all of that holy stuff, that's rubbish?". If someone isn't interested in listening to an Islamic teaching (and agreeing or disagreeing) or on the Muslim perspective of something (and agreeing or disagreeing), I'm not sure why they'd post in there. That's why the charter makes it clear that it's not for Muslims to have to defend the faith. As someone said earlier, there's lots of other forums where people can and do say what they want about Islam.

QFT.

DeV.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually things have, beginning with her no longer being banned.

No I am saying the reason for her being initially banned has not changed in any form since the ban. As pointed out way earlier in this thread unless you could read Metrovelvets mind or read this thread then travel back in time the post clearly was OFF TOPIC.

Again for the people in the audience. OFF TOPIC. Nothing to do with homosexuals, "queer theory".

The charter, amended yesterday,

If your looking for a conspiracy your not going to find one. The charter was updated yesterday because the ban list was updated. We keep the banlist and reason at the end of the charter. We also keep a hidden banlist in that thread.

is simply not clear enough in this regard.

It is perfectly clear. Let me say it again. SHE WAS BANNED FOR BEING OFF TOPIC.

She has been off topic before with homosexual questions in earlier threads and she got an answer, the difference here everyone was warned to stay on topic or risk a ban. If she has a question about homosexuality that pertains to Islam she is free to start a thread on it.

If she has a question about Lesbians in relation to the Hajib she should be a bit more clear on her question on the thread, although it has been answered somewhat.

She can even post about the documentary she saw.

you have to be prepared to accept that some may ultimately question the very foundations of that religion, ideology or philosophy.

Depends a lot on your view. If your a devout [insert subject] it is unlikely to shake your foundations to the core. If anything your going to have a response to it. The person making the claim might not agree with the response and discuss the issue to clarify and still not like the answer but that is where it ends in the forum. You agree to disagree.

It is not for people to start asking questions about stoning homosexuals when the thread is about the Hajib. If they want to discuss that they open a new thread.

metrovelvet

Hobbes wrote:

Why should be be bothering moving a thread just because you can't follow the rules?

Hobbes wrote:

Why should be be bothering moving a thread just because you can't follow the rules?

uh because you pointed out thats where the discussion should have been taken to...

Also I was not off topic. Ive explained this already a million times, nor was I veering toward discussions of homosexuality. We've been through this.

I asked you to make a list of what YOU considered to be off topic so people knew where they stood with your evaluation of what is on topic and what isnt since it isnt clear.

And yes the religion forums therefore should be for proslytisers, potential converts and followers, not for "honest" questions, [whatever that means] and everything else should be moved to humanities.

WWM I never questioned the appropriateness of you modding after hours. I dont know why your being so sensitive about it.

Hobbes

metrovelvet wrote:

uh because you pointed out thats where the discussion should have been taken to...

No its not. If you can't follow the forum charter then you move to the other forum. The thread doesn't.

Also I was not off topic.

You were not off topic once you explained in detail on the feedback forum, after the fact.

I asked you to make a list of what YOU considered to be off topic

I will give you a clue. If a thread is talking about say Alcohol and Islam, posting on the thread about "Well what about homosexuality and Islam?". That is off topic. Of course if you started a new thread on the subject there is no issue there.

We are not talking about off topic for the forum, what you did was off topic to the thread.

The Corinthian

InFront wrote:

I can't imagine it was set up so that some people would come in and say "hey Muslims, what makes you believe all of that holy stuff, that's rubbish?". If someone isn't interested in listening to an Islamic teaching (and agreeing or disagreeing) or on the Muslim perspective of something (and agreeing or disagreeing), I'm not sure why they'd post in there. That's why the charter makes it clear that it's not for Muslims to have to defend the faith. As someone said earlier, there's lots of other forums where people can and do say what they want about Islam.

You reasoning is flawed. You claim that people can listen to an Islamic teaching and agreeing or disagreeing, yet what happens if they disagree? Should they remain silent or give are reason and argument for their disagreement? And if the latter where does that leave the proponent of Islamic teaching but in a position where they must defend the faith? Catch 22.

I’m not saying the Islamic forum (or any of the other religious forums) should be forced to defend the basic tenets of faith, but there does need to be better definition as to what constitutes an acceptable question and what constitutes an attach on faith.

Hobbes wrote:

Again for the people in the audience. OFF TOPIC. Nothing to do with homosexuals, "queer theory".

What if you say it often enough people will believe you? It certainly was not off topic, it may have been attempting to take the topic on a new direction, but she was hardly the only one who did that – I posted on the same thread with regard to the ethnic and historical motivations of the hijab, which is just as off topic as her post and just as valid.

I’m sorry, but the off topic line just doesn’t wash. I might believe that you thought she was trolling and you wanted to nip it in the bud, resulting in an overzealous banning, but off topic? Nah, that’s utter BS TBH.

If your looking for a conspiracy your not going to find one. The charter was updated yesterday because the ban list was updated. We keep the banlist and reason at the end of the charter. We also keep a hidden banlist in that thread.

I’m not looking for a conspiracy, only stating what I can read, and cannot vouch for anything prior to that point when the incident occurred. As to why it was edited, again I can only go by what’s there, which states “Reason: Updating forum charter” and not anything about the banlist.

It is not for people to start asking questions about stoning homosexuals when the thread is about the Hajib. If they want to discuss that they open a new thread.

Did Metrovelvet bring up stoning homosexuals in the thread or are you projecting?

Schuhart

Don’t forget. Tuesday is hugs day.

Wibbs wrote:

He said(to paraphrase, as I see it); "I'm not surprised Hobbes didn't understand "queer theory". Most here didn't. I didn't." He went on to say(again paraphrasing) "Maybe when people write this stuff they might assume the reader isn't as aquainted as they may be with the subject matter and terminology. That way you may get your point across better."

Not for the first time, Wibbs puts it better than I could. Is it fair to say that the only thing keeping this thread going at this stage is amour propre*?

*You find a definition of this term here, in case anybody thinks I’m saying something about which side of the church they sit on.

Hobbes wrote:

We are not talking about off topic for the forum, what you did was off topic to the thread.

I’ll give this one more go. A thread takes as its starting point a quote from someone presenting themselves as non-Muslim woman, commenting on the Hijab (in the sense of the head covering worn by some women). The title is ‘a non-Muslim woman’s view of hijab’. Inter alia, a poster, equally presenting herself as a non-Muslim woman, says she thinks queer theory is relevant to how she would form an opinion on the hijab. In a context where a few of us, on different sides of the discussion, commented on the debate being weakened by the absence of female participation, can you explain how a non-Muslim’s woman’s view of hijab is so off-topic in a discussion of a non-Muslim’s woman’s view of hijab that it requires banning.

I just can’t get my head around it, Ted.

InFront

The Corinthian wrote:

You reasoning is flawed. You claim that people can listen to an Islamic teaching and agreeing or disagreeing, yet what happens if they disagree? Should they remain silent or give are reason and argument for their disagreement? And if the latter where does that leave the proponent of Islamic teaching but in a position where they must defend the faith? Catch 22.

Well even Muslims disagree on certain things. I'm sure if we had more Muslim users you'd get some people responding to the niqaab (faceveil) thread saying 'niqaab is fardh' (obligatory). In that case, it wouldn't be so much defence of the faith, rather defence of their deen (their belief) within Islam. Equally a nonMuslim is free to say "This Islamic teaching is better than that Islamic teaching, it makes more sense"

Islam is the reference point. Agreeing and disagreeing on certain topics is valid, I don't see the problem as long as nobody is out to cause trouble or convert Muslims.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote:

And why has that thread still not been moved to Humanities?

Look, maybe I'm missing something here and maybe it's stating the bleeding obvious, but if you feel so strongly about queer theory, Islam and veiling, why pray tell do you not open a new thread in humanities?

WhiteWashMan

metrovelvet wrote:

.

WWM I never questioned the appropriateness of you modding after hours. I dont know why your being so sensitive about it.

laughable tbh.

who said anything about me being a mod or after hours?
youre the one talking about mods not being educated enough to mod to your standard, and yet youre the one who cant stay on topic, answer a question or even come back with a witty reply, oh, and i forgot, you hav reduced yourself to slagging off people. for shame metrovelvet, for shame. you started so brightly and faded into random silliness.

and im still waiting for you to apologise to the mod community as whole.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

What if you say it often enough people will believe you?

TBH I don't care if you believe me or not. That's the reason, if you want to think it is something else that is your issue.

I can only go by what’s there, which states “Reason: Updating forum charter” and not anything about the banlist.

The reason field stays the same if you don't fill it out. There hasn't been a charter change since last year IIRC. If I thought people would start putting on tinfoil hats about it I would of updated it.

[edit] Actually last charter update was 06-03-2007 by the_new_mr. He mentions it at the end (double checked in google cache).

Did Metrovelvet bring up stoning homosexuals in the thread or are you projecting?

No others in the thread did, I told everyone to get back on topic and then Metro comes in with her comment, which makes no mention of what she has mentioned earlier in this thread so it could only be taken in context of the thread.

But keep trying to claim otherwise if it makes you feel better.

And Wibbs is correct. If shes got her knickers in a twist with the forum why doesn't she just open a thread in Humanities? Not that she isn't being stopped from opening the same thread in Islam forum.

The Corinthian

Whatever Hobbes, I've no great interest in arguing with someone who's so intent on digging his heels in.

the_new_mr

Filan wrote:

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

Apology accepted.

You know the charter there so feel free to come by the Islam forum and discuss whatever you like as long as it keeps within the rules of the charter.

DeVore

And on at least that amount of agreement, I'm ending this thread.

DeV.