Islam Forum: Changes to the forum charter should be discussed here.

LoLth

dead one wrote: »

this is my last post in this thread, as you have honored me, so it is my right to thank you

which you could have done by PM but elected to post int eh thread you were asked not to post in. fair enough. your choice.

I highly appreciate this act of freedom,

as I appreciate yours and show such appreciation accordingly.

Mark Hamill

yekahS wrote: »

However, like the grown up nerds, and disparaging comments about Hip Hop, sweeping statements about Islam/Muslims such as Muslims are violent, or wifebeaters or that Mohammed was a deluded psycho are just plain insulting (no matter how true you believe it to be).

I'm not defending sweeping statements (its no harm for there be a little leeway, as long as they aren't completely close minded and offensive, but its no big deal if they are not allowed). I'm defending backed up statements that are insulting because they represent uncomfortable truths.

yekahS wrote: »

The great thing about boards though is there is a place for all of these kind of things. I can go onto humanities and start a topic about how I believe much of the youth today are living in fantasy world where they read Anime, play World of Warcraft and recite gansta hip hop lyrics, and that I believe that as a society we need to address this issue.

That would belong in humanities because it covers a variety of topics (video games, anime, music) as a single, all encompassing issue. However starting a thread on that topic, with vastly generalising statements, with no evidence and without discussing any counterpoints or counter evidence would be considered trolling, anywhere you put it.

yekahS wrote: »

I can go onto AH or A&A and start a topic where I say I believe that a religion founded by a mass-murderer is doomed from the outset to be a violent one, and discuss it to my hearts content. Thanks to the new rules I can even pop into Islam and let them know about it, should they wish to defend strawmans.

I dont dispute that different forums will approach questions in different ways. But, assuming OPs are serious and open minded, this should be decided by the pragmatic appraisal of "which way of asking this question will get the regulars to engage with me", not by easily abusable moderation.
Strawmen and logical fallacies can come from any side of any discussion, you cant preemptively moderate them out, you have to let discussions unearth.

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

You can, and people have. More then once I might add not just recently, but in previous years.

The recent incident the thread was shut down because people were taking a person explaining the korans writing as their stance (and it wasn't), and then badgering them and playing word games to claim they were, despite that person explicitly denying it a number of times before. It stopped being a discussion about womens rights and instead a person having to defend themselves from attacks.

Thats not exactly what happened, is it though? Here is the thread and if you start from the post linked and read through, you will see that the moderator never denied that it was his stance, just that he couldn't see himself getting to the point where he would need to hit his wife (and not just divorce her instead). After posts for clarification on his stance, you declared it to be off-topic and an attack on a poster, not on the post and then shortly afterwards closed the thread before the original mod could respond. Whilst one or two following posts may have been hostile, the majority where not.

Hobbes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

...

Refer you to earlier post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74638756&postcount=119

Mark Hamill

Barrington wrote: »

I believe irishconvert meant that in accordance with the Qu'ran, hitting a wife is a last resort, rather than his own opinion on the matter. That's the quote which has caused a lot of the confusion though.

The confusion continued long into the feedback thread about this thread too. Its funny that there would have been no confusion if he had just answered oceanclub's post asking for clarification instead of the thread getting closed :rolleyes:.

Mark Hamill

LoLth wrote: »

@dead one : dont post here again please. If you want to query a ban go to the dispute resolution forum, if you just want to vent your ill will towards a mod, go do it on a site that isnt boards.ie.

I've deleted several posts that had next to nothing to do with discussion of the charter changes and also some posts that were made responding to the off topic goodness.

please, this is not a thread for punching the mods. The mods have offered to talk openly about the changes to the charter, here's your opportunity to have you say and hopefulyl make a constructive change to the forum itself. If however users decide instead to take this opportunity to vent personal grievances or insult the mods then I see no point in

a. subjecting the mods to that kind of treatment when they are offering dialogue
b. allowing such opportunists access to feedback in the future
c. allowing as much leeway in the scope of the feedback allowed on a topic.

With all due respect, pointing out moderation issues from the recent past is relevant when the point has always been that this new charter does nothing to prevent abuse of notions like "insult" or "offend" to shut down critical threads or posters. If you dont want any more references, fine, I only linked to what I linked to to give evidence to a point which boils down to: "these are the problems the forum had, and the new charter does nothing to avoid them"

Overheal

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thats not exactly what happened, is it though? Here is the thread and if you start from the post linked and read through, you will see that the moderator never denied that it was his stance, just that he couldn't see himself getting to the point where he would need to hit his wife (and not just divorce her instead). After posts for clarification on his stance, you declared it to be off-topic and an attack on a poster, not on the post and then shortly afterwards closed the thread before the original mod could respond. Whilst one or two following posts may have been hostile, the majority where not.

I know I asked from curiosity, and sort of wedged the issue, but in light of thins what impact should that have going forward with changes in the Islam forum? Not a whole lot, in my opinion. Perhaps not nothing, but still not much.

As for dissenters I'm reminded of an issue in the Stargate forum around this time last year with Richard Dower basically being at complete odds with the forum, knocking the show, proselytizing it's downfall, etc. but in the end two things happened: the mods decided there was no reason to stop him from posting what was not quite the definition of trolling, and a few months later, the show was canceled by poor ratings.

Similarly the more days I have to sleep on it the more I still am convinced it would be a poor mistake not to allow debate, even criticism, within the Islam forum. I don't buy into this idea that the same thread will get repeated over and over again: the more often a question is raised the more quickly you are able to form the answers, or at the very least link to an archived conversation from the last time the question arose. So I reckon any number of people could walk into the forum thinking that in his time, Muhhamad was a pedophile - at which point the forum can correct him otherwise, or a mod can link to a previous open thread about such and lock the new occurrence. No reason to ban the person who raised the question, or indeed, communicate that he or his question is unwelcome.

Hobbes

Overheal wrote: »

I don't buy into this idea that the same thread will get repeated over and over again:

Sadly it does.

the more often a question is raised the more quickly you are able to form the answers, or at the very least link to an archived conversation from the last time the question arose.

Which is why we changed the FAQ system to do this.

or a mod can link to a previous open thread about such and lock the new occurrence.

We wouldn't lock it, but people are referred to earlier threads.

Mark Hamill

Overheal wrote: »

I know I asked from curiosity, and sort of wedged the issue, but in light of thins what impact should that have going forward with changes in the Islam forum? Not a whole lot, in my opinion. Perhaps not nothing, but still not much.

In terms of the specific topic discussed, I agree it has little to with this thread, but as recent example of the type of moderator reactions that, imo, the new charter does nothing to mitigate its relevant.

Overheal wrote: »

As for dissenters I'm reminded of an issue in the Stargate forum around this time last year with Richard Dower basically being at complete odds with the forum, knocking the show, proselytizing it's downfall, etc. but in the end two things happened: the mods decided there was no reason to stop him from posting what was not quite the definition of trolling, and a few months later, the show was canceled by poor ratings.

Similarly the more days I have to sleep on it the more I still am convinced it would be a poor mistake not to allow debate, even criticism, within the Islam forum. I don't buy into this idea that the same thread will get repeated over and over again: the more often a question is raised the more quickly you are able to form the answers, or at the very least link to an archived conversation from the last time the question arose. So I reckon any number of people could walk into the forum thinking that in his time, Muhhamad was a pedophile - at which point the forum can correct him otherwise, or a mod can link to a previous open thread about such and lock the new occurrence. No reason to ban the person who raised the question, or indeed, communicate that he or his question is unwelcome.

I agree.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Freiheit

Where is Irishconvert in this discussion? Has he been put into purdah?....

Laws allows freedom of religion but what do you do when strands of religion contradict state law? such as polygamy,right to physicaly discipline a wife etc? where does this leave freedom of worship?. Is it acceptable on an Internet forum to say that physical punishment of a disobedient wife is permissable,even as a last result,if the Koran says so,which it appears to do,as articulated by Irishconvert?.

Is it or should it be acceptable to advocate doctrines which much of modern society considers repugnant? I don't limit this question to Islam,there's many anachronistic strands to Christianity,many of which have been airbrushed from general discourse.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It might be nice for you to give links to the sources of these quotes, just so we can check that you pro-islam agenda isn't causing you to misrepresent others.

You seem to be confusing "pro-Islam" with anti-bigotry.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

For instance, the quote: "The vast majority of those deaths were Muslim on Muslim violence. As is the case in Afghanistan, Paksitan and any massacres one cares to mention in the Middle East carried out in the last few decades" was in response to you saying that more muslims died since 9/11 than non muslims died in 9/11.

You seem to be exceptionally selective in what you take in...I posted a pie chart to show the enormous difference between the number or casualties in 9/11 and the number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was in response to Sam Harris' noxious claim "There is a constant victim mentality, that reinforces and encourages the continuing cycle of violence throughout Muslim lands". Here he is blaming not just Muslim political leaders, but Muslims themselves for the US/NATO wars of aggression in Muslim lands. I assume you are aware that thr Iraqi war was based on lies? And that's before you go into the immediate prior history of the region. Toppling democratic leaders, arming Saddam, arm-twisting him into a bloody war with Iran, the sanctions which led to the deaths of 100's of 1000s of children and then WMD. Of course this is attributed to the "victim mentality" of Muslims, right....?

Then I posted the pie chart.

Then he said:

"The vast majority of those deaths were Muslim on Muslim violence. As is the case in Afghanistan, Paksitan and any massacres one cares to mention in the Middle East carried out in the last few decades"

Let's take the first point. The statistics refer "excess deaths" i.e. deaths that occured SOLELY BECAUSE of the occupation. That aside the "vast majority" was not Muslim on Muslim violence. US led forces have killed apx 40% of the civilians. roughly the same to the insurgents and the rest related to criminal acts.

The second point "any massacres one cares to mention in the Middle East carried out in the last few decades" is absolute nonsense. Off the top of my head there was Sabra and Chatilla massacre, Operation Cast Lead, Fallujah, the massacre of Turks on the Mavi Marmara, this is what the IDF done to a civilian area in Lebanon in 2006.

BEFORE

AFTER

This is just the tip of the iceberg, the list goes on and on and on. All "massacres" that were "carried out in the last few decades" by non-Muslims on predominately non-Muslims.

But of course you know all this. You seem like a knowledgeable and intelligent person. Yet you gave tacit approval by not even challenge these wild claims.

Why?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I The quotes about rape are probably in reference to several countries' police forces reporting that muslims make up a propotionally higher percentage of rapists than non muslims

You weren't paying attention.

The evidence posted was a misleading Norwegian newsreport which was evidence of nothing bar of evidence of an anti-Islamic agenda in Norway. Something pretty grim happened in Norway not long after that report committed by an obsessive Islamaphobe. The Norwegian news crew focused on a single aspect of the report, which I've read and linked to in order to paint Muslim immigrants in the worst possible light giving a completely misleading impression.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

(tbh though, I only remember scandanavian countries being referenced and supported with sources, not the UK, so that quote, assuming its accurate, could be an exaggeration).

I read the report in full. It explicitly states that the conclusions that you are drawing should not be. There was no evidence presented of anything. It is not merely an "exaggeration" it is hateful hate-mongering based on ignorance and a dangerous one at that. He is saying that in our closest neighbours land Muslims are "far more likely to rape" simply because they are Muslim.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The quote on Zeba Khan is an opinion and on Islam being a justification for violence is true (it is used a justification, but its shouldn't be hard to argue that these people are simply violent and using whatever they can find as a justification)

An opinion`????


Another thing which struck me as funny, in the opening of the debate for the motion, they use Zeba Khan. A beautiful "almost western" woman, non hijab wearing, liberal, open minded, tolerant, educated...muslim. This puts they're argument at a disadvantage immediately. Its the equivalent of bringing Megan Fox to mars and telling martians she's the average earth woman. Why not pluck some average real (percentage-wise) muslim woman from say...Pakistan?

This directly implies that the average Muslim woman is NOT : beautiful, liberal, open-minded, tolerant, and educated.

It's a xenophobic opinion. I challenged it. Did you......?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All you have done is quoted a majority of facts that are true, but uncomfortable for muslims to accept. Its bizarre that you think that these are something that muslims should be protected against, most, if not all where backed with evidence. Why should muslims be protected from evidence?

:pac::pac::pac:

If you think an intentionally misleading Norwegian news report regarding Oslo is evidence that "Muslims are more likely to rape than non-Muslims in the UK then I can PM you some evidence that Elephants roam wild in the jungles of Dublin by showing you my photos from India.

Read the Islam thread again. There was no evidence.

Wibbs

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Read the Islam thread again. There was no evidence.

Point of order. Yep there was. You chose to ignore it, just as much as you accused others of doing. I even went through the stats bit by bit, including challenging you on the meaning of "assault" where previously you bent the facts as much as any. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74031348#post74031348 These were the Police reports, not the news report. The fact is that the Muslim minority in Oslo shows a disproportionally high prevalence of "stranger rape" than other cultural groups. You correctly went on to point out that "date rape" had a higher prevalence among ethnic Norwegians, but neglected to acknowledge that said group outnumbers the Muslim population in Olso by 5 to 1.

However on the long historical and west driven cluster fcuk that is middle east politics and war, I agree with you 100%.

Freiheit wrote:

Where is Irishconvert in this discussion? Has he been put into purdah?....

Laws allows freedom of religion but what do you do when strands of religion contradict state law? such as polygamy,right to physicaly discipline a wife etc? where does this leave freedom of worship?. Is it acceptable on an Internet forum to say that physical punishment of a disobedient wife is permissable,even as a last result,if the Koran says so,which it appears to do,as articulated by Irishconvert?.

Is it or should it be acceptable to advocate doctrines which much of modern society considers repugnant? I don't limit this question to Islam,there's many anachronistic strands to Christianity,many of which have been airbrushed from general discourse.

These are all good questions from Freiheit IMHO. At what point does religious freedom and providing a needed voice for that on Boards begin to get uncomfortable when some expressions of that voice are and should be anathema to the community an this society as a whole?

There shouldn't be a witchhunt, but questions should be raised about a forum/moderation situation where otherwise good posters get red carded for naturally asking WTF when a moderator tacitly condones one of these religious expressions. TBH I don't "blame" the mod in this case. He was caught between a religious rock and a hard place. Clearly he finds the notion repugnant, but can't really say "well this bit is bollocks" because it's written in the unchanging and god written book of his faith.

LoLth

This thread is for the discussion of changes to the Islam forum charter.

While yes, linking to posts and threads that directly illustrate a point is acceptable, rehashing arguments that you feel were not fully explored in the Islam forum is not.

Please at least pretend to try to stay somewhere in the vicinty of the thread topic. also, this is not a thread to discuss moderator actions or moderator ability or personality or whether you agree with their choice of colour scheme for their living room, it is about the charter and how it affects the future of the Islam forum. Please feel free to make suggestions on alterations/additions/amendments but keep in mind that the mods will have to enforce the charter and the users will have to abide by it.

LoLth

Hobbes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Until a new subject comes up I won't be responding further.

In response to Permabears comments. The other mods are fully aware of this thread and if they want to respond or not is up to them. (it is even linked in the forums charter)

I can tell you now that the charter was written/signed off by all the moderators before the change.

There is no "status quo". There are visible changes to the charter. Perhaps rather then arguing people actually use the forum and see.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You seem to be confusing ...

As LoLth said, this thread is for discussion of charter changes in the Islam forum, not this. If you really want to continue discussing this, might I suggest we take it to the original thread in A&A?

Mark Hamill

Freiheit wrote: »

Where is Irishconvert in this discussion? Has he been put into purdah?....

Laws allows freedom of religion but what do you do when strands of religion contradict state law? such as polygamy,right to physicaly discipline a wife etc? where does this leave freedom of worship?. Is it acceptable on an Internet forum to say that physical punishment of a disobedient wife is permissable,even as a last result,if the Koran says so,which it appears to do,as articulated by Irishconvert?.

Is it or should it be acceptable to advocate doctrines which much of modern society considers repugnant? I don't limit this question to Islam,there's many anachronistic strands to Christianity,many of which have been airbrushed from general discourse.

Tbh, I think it is acceptable to say these things. Thats not the same as saying I agree with them (I don't), but whether or not a poster actually says s/he believes in something that you find to be reprehensible doesn't impact on whether or not he does. This is a discussion forum, so it should be the place for people to discuss their beliefs with those that disagree. Discussion is the only way you can actually get people to recognise that a particular belief is wrong, hiding them from others doesn't mean someone wont act on them.

Wibbs

Fair point re dragging the thread off topic and apologies on that score L.

LoLth wrote: »

also, this is not a thread to discuss moderator actions or moderator ability or personality or whether you agree with their choice of colour scheme for their living room, it is about the charter and how it affects the future of the Islam forum.

With respect LoLth, when a moderator of a forum on Boards.ie tacitly condones behaviour that is completely beyond the Pale for the vast majority of this Boards wide community and the community at large and the laws governing this country and people who naturally question this are reprimanded for that by moderators on Boards.ie, that should be up for discussion, either here on a thread about the charter which will be moderated by them, or in another thread elsewhere.

If a Mod on Christianity was as on the fence about "spare the rod, spoil the child" the same discussion should take place. we wouldn't condone beating ones children either, however tacitly. Even joking about that or spousal abuse would get a poster banned from any forum on this site. If a similar opinion was brought up in the Ladies Lounge that came up in that thread in the Islam forum, there would be bannings handed out and I really doubt it would be overturned in the DRP if it went that far. Frankly religious freedom only goes so far and that line was crossed. That's not just my opinion either. And how would this look to lurkers or others outside this community and reflect on this community?

If the admin team have had a confab and feel this is acceptable in a representative trusted with moderation duties for this community, I'd love to see the reasoning behind and I doubt I'm alone in that either.

Mark Hamill wrote:

Tbh, I think it is acceptable to say these things. Thats not the same as saying I agree with them (I don't), but whether or not a poster actually says s/he believes in something that you find to be reprehensible doesn't impact on whether or not he does. This is a discussion forum, so it should be the place for people to discuss their beliefs with those that disagree. Discussion is the only way you can actually get people to recognise that a particular belief is wrong, hiding them from others doesn't mean someone wont act on them.

I agree, but when such discussion of that belief is moderated and posters are reprimanded for doing so, then lets serve up a large plate of WTF.

LoLth

I'd be happy to take part in a discussion on that, or any other topic but it is not relevant to this thread which is about the changes to the charter that have been made and users opinions of the charter and/or their suggestions for further changes to the charter improve user experience of the forum.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

+1. Have the courage of ones convictions. It's one reason why I like dead one. We may not agree on quite a few points, but the man most certainly has that as far as his faith goes.

That is far too heavy-handed a prohibition. People, especially non-Muslims, cannot be expected to know in advance what will offend those who follow Islam, especially given the extensive list of things that Muslims are prone to find insulting or blasphemous.

Further, it's unreasonable to state that a post is de facto offensive just because people take offense at it. In some cases, the poster may be at fault. In other cases, the offended parties may need to grow a thicker skin. It's up to the moderators to use their best judgement in such instances.

+2. While I am 100% in favour of nuking trolls with tired old arguments, quality arguments are in danger of being nuked for simply asking questions. I do appreciate the "Other Discussions here" thread as a good step in the direction of those kinda questions. Kudos on that front.

In the last sentence, "hostile criticism" should be changed to "unreasonably hostile criticism." If someone (per a recent example) states that his religion condones physical violence towards women under certain circumstances, that poster cannot expect to hide behind a charter that protects Islam from "hostile criticism." Given the laws and norms of civilized Western society, the forum needs to tolerate criticism of statements that, by contemporary Irish standards, are utterly deplorable.

This in a big way. And LoLth my last post is relevant to this thread about the charter, because never mind a poster, a moderator of the forum in question, charged with upholding whatever charter is agreed upon hosted by this wider community has expressed such a position and admonished and reprimanded other members of our community for (rightfully) questioning this and no amount of pussyfooting or avoidance thus far around that can deny it. Have those reprimands been removed from those posters "records"? As for open discussion on this? So far all we've seen is pussyfooting around the issue or silence. I dare say a thread along the lines you suggest would not last long on the vine.

On that point it boils down to this, either the admins of this site are A OK with such a position in one of the moderators here or they're not. End of. Beyond a natural keep a lid on this and lets try to square the circle I'm pretty sure among themselves none of them are or at least it makes for uncomfortable discussion.

LoLth

the charter is seperate to the mods.

Once a charter is in place the moderators enforce it. If they dont, then its an isue with the mod and not the charter. If the charter proves un-enforcable because it was perhaps too ambitious or idyllic or the terms it contains are no longer relevant then mods change the charter to something that is relevant/realistic/current so that it can be enforced.

If you want to discuss a particular incident or mod then this is not the thread to do it in.

@permabear: nice post. very well argued and very clear.

Hobbes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The problem we found is that people complain about how country X is doing Y, which is not related to Islam at all. You will find a better question is what is Islams stance on Y.

For example, it isn't for discussing the Iraq war or a terrorist attack or Israeli/Palestine conflict. But asking how Islam views a certain situation is fine.

This makes no sense to me. It's perfectly legitimate to ask a self-professed convert to Islam why he or she made the choice to convert,

The problem we found that people rarely ask a question to get an answer. Instead they use it as a basis to attack that persons beliefs. If someone wants to ask that question it is fine. Although better suited for PM.

That is the line. You might not agree with their answer, but that is where it ends.

That is far too heavy-handed a prohibition. People, especially non-Muslims, cannot be expected to know in advance what will offend those who follow Islam, especially given the extensive list of things that Muslims are prone to find insulting or blasphemous.

If we wanted the whole list from wikipedia, we would have linked it in the charter. The charter explains what is out of bounds, not some other website.




In the last sentence, "hostile criticism" should be changed to "unreasonably hostile criticism.

What part of not discussing earlier topics did you miss? I mean seriously. It has already been pointed out that people were attacking him out of context, instead of discussing Islam. He had already denied agreeing with it before the attacks, and even denied agreeing with it a few months prior when the same people brought the same subject up. They could give a **** about the response, only a means to attack a person.

Also, you know if we had a Taleban person on the forum claiming that Women should be beaten, we would leave the message there. It is better people see the message and understand what that person represents.

There is a big difference between making a statement, agreeing with that statement and boards.ie endorsing that statement.

What exactly does "Unless a poster has been confirmed beforehand...." mean?

The issue is that Islam is not like the Catholic church. There is no Pope, but numerous Imans. The problem is that someone comes in and says "I am an Iman and this is what Islam says about X".

For starters, we have no way to prove they are who they say they are, and second what they say doesn't always reflect all aspects of the religion.

We have had arguments before between Sufi/Sunni/Shiite because of one stating X as how Islam is.

What capacity is being referred to here?

Good point. I'll amend that.

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

The problem we found is that people complain about how country X is doing Y, which is not related to Islam at all. You will find a better question is what is Islams stance on Y.

What about when country X claims to be an islamic country? Is it relevant to islam then? I understand that to a muslim it may be obvious that these countries may not be "really" islamic, that they may be using islam as a justification for their own extreme rule, but thats not always obvious to outsiders. Discussions pertaining to how a supposed Islamic country's' actions are contradictory to islamic teachings should be right at home on the islam forum.

Hobbes wrote: »

For example, it isn't for discussing the Iraq war or a terrorist attack or Israeli/Palestine conflict. But asking how Islam views a certain situation is fine.

Dont remember a lot of threads trying to dicuss these kind of topics, guess I must have missed them.

Hobbes wrote: »

The problem we found that people rarely ask a question to get an answer. Instead they use it as a basis to attack that persons beliefs. If someone wants to ask that question it is fine. Although better suited for PM.

Yeah, I think the actual problem is that some people have a very hard time with follow up questions. I've nearly always only seen accusations of "you're attacking their belief" after a poster wasn't satisfied with the first response they got to asking a muslim poster "why ...." and they pursued the issue further. If this sort of thing is better suited to PM, then most of boards is pointless, as this is what makes up most of threads, people explaining their opinions. Thats kind of the point of discussion forums.

Hobbes wrote: »

That is the line. You might not agree with their answer, but that is where it ends.

And here was me thinking you where here for open discussion, my mistake.

Hobbes wrote: »

If we wanted the whole list from wikipedia, we would have linked it in the charter. The charter explains what is out of bounds, not some other website.


You know full well that everything on the list from wikipedia are considered blasphemy because they are interpreted to be insulting to either allah or Muhammad, something which your new charter tries to ban.

Hobbes wrote: »

What part of not discussing earlier topics did you miss? I mean seriously. It has already been pointed out that people were attacking him out of context, instead of discussing Islam. He had already denied agreeing with it before the attacks, and even denied agreeing with it a few months prior when the same people brought the same subject up. They could give a **** about the response, only a means to attack a person.

Its more than a bit disingenuous to pick someone up for discussing a previous topic, and then discuss it yourself (especially as it was already shown that you are completely misrepresenting the situation being described).

Hobbes wrote: »

The issue is that Islam is not like the Catholic church. There is no Pope, but numerous Imans. The problem is that someone comes in and says "I am an Iman and this is what Islam says about X".

For starters, we have no way to prove they are who they say they are, and second what they say doesn't always reflect all aspects of the religion.

The christian forum is not the same as the catholic church either, so I dont see the issue. I mean people have posted on there claiming to be priests (isn't PDN a priest or Bishop of some sort). As long as an imam points out if they are Sufi, Sunni or Shi'ite, then people should realise what point of view he is actually arguing from and the discussion should be able to continue.

Hobbes wrote: »

We have had arguments before between Sufi/Sunni/Shiite because of one stating X as how Islam is.

And thats a bad thing to have on the Islam forum because...?

Hobbes

I am not going to comment on most of what you have written, as it has already been addressed in the thread.

Mark Hamill wrote: »


You know full well that everything on the list from wikipedia are considered blasphemy because they are interpreted to be insulting to either allah or Muhammad, something which your new charter tries to ban.

So if I understand you correctly, you want the right to be intentionally insulting to Muslims on the forum?

And thats a bad thing to have on the Islam forum because...?

Because we expect everyone to treat each other with respect, even if they don't agree with the responses. Some time ago we had some Muslims asking for all posts of Sufi material to be banned because they didn't consider it to be part of Islam.

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

I am not going to comment on most of what you have written, as it has already been addressed in the thread.

Already brushed aside in the thread, you mean.

Hobbes wrote: »

So if I understand you correctly, you want the right to be intentionally insulting to Muslims on the forum?

The quality of posting from Hobbes, everyone. Just look at the blatant stramanning, excellent work indeed... Of course I'm not arguing for that, the persecution mentality you must have to turn "any sort of honest criticism, or even questioning, can be described as insulting to Allah, if you where bothered, therefore the rule is too general" to "I want to insult muslims" is mind boggling. Then again, it was me pointing out how you claiming the wikipedia page was not relevant was porkies, so maybe this wasn't entirely accidental.

Hobbes wrote: »

Because we expect everyone to treat each other with respect, even if they don't agree with the responses. Some time ago we had some Muslims asking for all posts of Sufi material to be banned because they didn't consider it to be part of Islam.

So in order for people to treat everyone with respect, they cant talk about one another? Really, with that attitude why not just close the forum and be done with it altogether?

Hobbes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The quality of posting from Hobbes, everyone. ..

The charter explains what is most likely to offend Muslims, for those that would not know when posting. You seem to have an issue with this, so the only reason I can think of is that you want to intentionally offend Muslims.

If you do, we have created the other discussions thread for you to do that. If not, then it is a simple matter of wording your responses so as not to be intentionally offensive.

How hard is that to comprehend?

So in order for people to treat everyone with respect, they cant talk about one another? Really, with that attitude why not just close the forum and be done with it altogether?

Either reading is hard, or you are intentionally trying to twist what I say. I was pointing out we made the rule so that ALL FORMS OF ISLAM could be discussed on the forum. Even some Muslims were not happy about this, not just non-Muslims.

As you seem more intent on attacking me, rather then discussing the charter, I am done.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

Hobbes wrote: »

The charter explains what is most likely to offend Muslims, for those that would not know when posting. You seem to have an issue with this, so the only reason I can think of is that you want to intentionally offend Muslims.

If you do, we have created the other discussions thread for you to do that. If not, then it is a simple matter of wording your responses so as not to be intentionally offensive.

How hard is that to comprehend?

Are you trolling? I'm serious now, its either that or you are unable to understand plain English which would call into question your ability to moderate. As seen by the wiki page, a lot of what comes under blasphemy is there because it amounts to some sort of insult to Allah or Muhammad or the quran. Therefore, as what a muslim would call an insult to allah etc, is so varied (and generally after the fact), the rule in the charter is massively inadequate. Thats the third time this point has been explained, respond with this type of nonsense again and I'll report you, because this kind of trolling, from a mod, in a feedback thread, is a joke. You aren't even responding to the point, you are just repeating yourself.

Hobbes wrote: »

Either reading is hard, or you are intentionally trying to twist what I say. I was pointing out we made the rule so that ALL FORMS OF ISLAM could be discussed on the forum. Even some Muslims were not happy about this, not just non-Muslims.

As you seem more intent on attacking me, rather then discussing the charter, I am done.

I'm getting really tired of your persecution complex. You said "We have had arguments before between Sufi/Sunni/Shiite because of one stating X as how Islam is.". I responded with "And thats a bad thing to have on the Islam forum because...? " and you then said "Because we expect everyone to treat each other with respect, even if they don't agree with the responses." Whatever you meant to say, what you said was that arguments between sufi, sunni and shi'ite muslims were a bad thing to have on the forum. How can all forms of Islam be discussed if you dont want arguments between sunni, shiite and sufi muslims? How do you not see the contradiction?

Brown Bomber

Mark -->

Would you report this post?

(assuming it's not verified or supported)

"In the UK a Muslim black man is far more likely to rape than a non-Muslim black man"

If so, why didn't you report the post above in the Islam thread that you posted in? Why didn't you even challenge it? Why do you continue to defend it with non-relevant stats? ...What's the difference?

Do you seek to delegitimise religion? Do you seek to deligitimise Islam?

Can nobody else see the connection between anti-religionists from the atheism & agnosticism forum being so interested in the Islam forum?