Guidelines

[arif]

INSULTS

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

People who have a history of antagonistic behaviour will be treated more harshly than those who do not.

Insults levelled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums.

Many of the threads in this forum concerning Muslims are insulting (prayer mats, muslims and nazis etc.), maybe not to everyone, but to Muslims, and efforts to engage intelligent debate seem futile. Repeatedly I have sought people to make the distinction between Muslims and radical terrorists acting in the name, not the spirit, of Islam. I do wish for free speech, but this forum has guidelines which are not being observed in the current climate of animosity towards Islam. I'm only objecting because there are these guidelines, if you want to change them and allow insults I have no power over that. Obviously, since I am a pacifist Muslim, I wish nothing against anyone, only an explanation of the guideline.

The unfairness of this is that given the tone of many on this forum, my complaint could now be seen as indicative of stereotypical Muslim intolerance towards free speech, which is now supposed to include the right to insult, but I didn't write your guideline, and I wonder if it can be applied fairly to all third parties in the current environment.

Islam is not a nationality, is it considered a third-party?

I am curious as I'm about to launch a site that includes forums, what is your governance procedure for these issues?

[Argus]

Many of the threads in this forum concerning Muslims are insulting (prayer mats, muslims and nazis etc.), maybe not to everyone, but to Muslims, and efforts to engage intelligent debate seem futile. Repeatedly I have sought people to make the distinction between Muslims and radical terrorists acting in the name, not the spirit, of Islam. I do wish for free speech, but this forum has guidelines which are not being observed in the current climate of animosity towards Islam. I'm only objecting because there are these guidelines, if you want to change them and allow insults I have no power over that. Obviously, since I am a pacifist Muslim, I wish nothing against anyone, only an explanation of the guideline.

The unfairness of this is that given the tone of many on this forum, my complaint could now be seen as indicative of stereotypical Muslim intolerance towards free speech, which is now supposed to include the right to insult, but I didn't write your guideline, and I wonder if it can be applied fairly to all third parties in the current environment.

Islam is not a nationality, is it considered a third-party?

I am curious as I'm about to launch a site that includes forums, what is your governance procedure for these issues?

I want to reprint something from one of the threads I'm in because I believe it is apt here in answer to this.

I think that the only thing which is ever going to cause reform to occur among Muslims is criticism of the current practices of Islam, of the current interpretations of the Koran, of the way Islam is being preached and taught. In other words, you need to attack some sacred cows in order to bring about change.

That cannot happen within the Muslim community, certainly not within the Muslim world. Any criticism of the Koran or the interpretations of it is forbidden. If we in the West also censor ourselves, by government fiat or private "common sense" then there will be no change in the way Islam is taught or preached.

The changes in Christianity over the centuries were not instituted by the churches out of the kindness and goodness of their hearts. They were brought about through ceaseless campaigning and criticism and debate and discussion and disagreement which was openly expressed and which deeply, deeply offended and outraged many believers over that time. If they hadn't been pushed, Christianity would still be burning people as heretics.

The problem with Islam is that it hasn't been pushed. And what you and others are saying is that it must not be pushed - ever.

Granted, there were some riots and a lot of people were feeling prickly and offended. But I can't help wondering if a lot of people weren't also feeling a sense of guilt and discomfort about WHY their religion was being depicted in the way it was, and didn't stop to think with some anger, at all those within the Muslim world who had provoked such feelings and continue to provoke such feelings. Because the fact is that a criticism of Islam over violence is more than fair. The criticism was valid and necessary. Just because some people didn't like it is no reason to not do it.

I believe that the cartoons which provoked this recent spate of Muslim topics were valid criticism, and I also believe that most of the discussion on this issue, and most of the criticism (not all) of Islam and the great mass (though not all) of those who practice it are valid. Even if you are offended by it.

[arif]

Many of the threads in this forum concerning Muslims are insulting (prayer mats, muslims and nazis etc.), maybe not to everyone, but to Muslims, and efforts to engage intelligent debate seem futile. Repeatedly I have sought people to make the distinction between Muslims and radical terrorists acting in the name, not the spirit, of Islam. I do wish for free speech, but this forum has guidelines which are not being observed in the current climate of animosity towards Islam. I'm only objecting because there are these guidelines, if you want to change them and allow insults I have no power over that. Obviously, since I am a pacifist Muslim, I wish nothing against anyone, only an explanation of the guideline.

The unfairness of this is that given the tone of many on this forum, my complaint could now be seen as indicative of stereotypical Muslim intolerance towards free speech, which is now supposed to include the right to insult, but I didn't write your guideline, and I wonder if it can be applied fairly to all third parties in the current environment.

Islam is not a nationality, is it considered a third-party?

I am curious as I'm about to launch a site that includes forums, what is your governance procedure for these issues?

I want to reprint something from one of the threads I'm in because I believe it is apt here in answer to this.

I think that the only thing which is ever going to cause reform to occur among Muslims is criticism of the current practices of Islam, of the current interpretations of the Koran, of the way Islam is being preached and taught. In other words, you need to attack some sacred cows in order to bring about change.

That cannot happen within the Muslim community, certainly not within the Muslim world. Any criticism of the Koran or the interpretations of it is forbidden. If we in the West also censor ourselves, by government fiat or private "common sense" then there will be no change in the way Islam is taught or preached.

The changes in Christianity over the centuries were not instituted by the churches out of the kindness and goodness of their hearts. They were brought about through ceaseless campaigning and criticism and debate and discussion and disagreement which was openly expressed and which deeply, deeply offended and outraged many believers over that time. If they hadn't been pushed, Christianity would still be burning people as heretics.

The problem with Islam is that it hasn't been pushed. And what you and others are saying is that it must not be pushed - ever.

Granted, there were some riots and a lot of people were feeling prickly and offended. But I can't help wondering if a lot of people weren't also feeling a sense of guilt and discomfort about WHY their religion was being depicted in the way it was, and didn't stop to think with some anger, at all those within the Muslim world who had provoked such feelings and continue to provoke such feelings. Because the fact is that a criticism of Islam over violence is more than fair. The criticism was valid and necessary. Just because some people didn't like it is no reason to not do it.

I believe that the cartoons which provoked this recent spate of Muslim topics were valid criticism, and I also believe that most of the discussion on this issue, and most of the criticism (not all) of Islam and the great mass (though not all) of those who practice it are valid. Even if you are offended by it.

That's funny, I just read that thread and wanted to respond. I have no problem with criticism, and you are wrong to say that Muslims cannot be critical. I have said it before and will say it again that terrorist violence is heretical. I will say that Wahabbi influence on Sunni Islam has been disastrous, that literalism and fundamentalism are backward in principle and in the results they bring about. I have no problem in criticizing the interpretations, and will go so far as to place the revelation in context - that there are universal ethics within, but a large part of the revelation is relevant exoterically to 6th century Arab contexts. Further, from the beginning there has been interpretation, and the Wahabbi movement wants to lay absolute authority with the early interpretations where a literal interpretation does not suffice. As a Shia muslim, interpretation is guided by the Imamate so as to be temporally relevant. You may find that Shia Ismailis have undertaken the most reform and are most at ease in the modern West, in part due to the leadership of the Imamate and being the only Shia sect to have a living Imam today. That does not mean that a great number of other Shias and Sunnis are digusted with the actions of the radicals, that they have not undertaken reform. And then there are the Sufis, who have carried a deep spiritual vision forward through 14 centuries, the Sufis who are most likely to be engaged in interfaith peace movements with progressive Jews and Christians and others. You see our Islam as a uniform monolith when it is not.

Everyone says that the moderates ought to speak out, but we must have the right to be respected as Muslims. Thus, if there is a slander that attacks all Muslims and they are included, our voice of peaceful protest against that slander ought to be respected. You do not think we will simply turn around and say that yes, you are right, the religion is all wrong, we have all been devils trying to take over the world. What is the sense of reforming it then?

Is it not easy in times of conflict to forget to discern? It's easy to group all Japanese during WWII and intern them, their association with Hirohito and the kamikaze's merely by nationality. It's easy to lump crime with black culture, it's easy to dismiss all aboriginals as alcoholics, it's easy to forget the damage to the world that colonialism has done, but shall we say that all whites are colonialists - I think not. It is not true today, and was not even true when Europe counted as property the entire content of Africa.

All it takes is a belief in the decency of all people to get by this. If you believe that Muslims are by and large decent people, you would have faith in our courage to reform, instead of making it more difficult by heaping insult upon insult, and assuming we have no mind of our own, by indicating no respect for the positon we are in.

So again, I ask you as I have asked others to join with Muslims who are faithful to Islam and believe that violence is wrong, and definitely wrong in the name of Islam, support us as your allies.

I actually have both feelings about the cartoons. I do understand the satire. I see the cartoonists intent, as satire is supposed to, to reflect reality as a caricature. Since it is a reflection, what it is reflecting is what these so-called Muslims have done themselves, which is to represent Islam as violence, as suicide bombing. The image of the prophet (pbuh) with a bomb on his turban is a caricature of the message that the radicals have created. In this sense, these radicals created the cartoon, the cartoonist merely acted as a mirror. At the same time, when I see it it is like punch in the stomach, it hurts. I understand that the origin of the cartoon is the violence and have little problem with the cartoonist, but why repeatedly publish the thing? What is freedom of speech if it is reactionary, as if it has to be published to say it is free speech, wouldn't it be equally free to refuse to publish it? This punch in the stomach is also the realization that this is what people think of me as a muslim, it may even be what people think of themselves, as martyrs in the defence of Islam through their violence. The whole thing is sickening to those with a knowledge of the history of Islam. You are free to insult and assume, you are also free to think beyond the insults and assumptions.

The fact that you set out a prayer mat five times a day in remembrance of God, that you congregate as a community of faith has nothing to be ashamed about. And it is not each Muslim's personal responsiblity to put an end to terrorism, those who wish to take up the criticism can do it, but those who just want to live, pray and work are just like you. If you are a catholic, It woldn't be fair to call upon you personally to get the pope to change his policy condoms, though i would support anyone efforts and struggles on the issue. And if this is part of your life that helps you and brings you closer to God, and you are out to live a normal life, that is fine.

That being said, I'm not of the temperament to do the regular thing myself, so I intend to seek out and establish a movement of muslim pacifism, why? It kills me, it destroys my spirit, every time on the radio I hear another suicide bombing, and it is not just because the Koran or the hadith says that to kill an innocent person is like killing all of humanity, it is because that is a natural human reaction. It is because it ought to be a natural human reaction for anyone, that it says that in the Koran. That is why I maintain that among the contextual exoterics of the Koran, there are universal and eternal truths.

We need your help to reverse the fundamentalist/literalist/extremist/radical trend. It is by working together with respect that we will actually accomplish this. I'm no longer interested in the 'critics' who cannot be bothered to make the necessary distinctions.

Will you be the first supporter of this muslim pacifist movement idea?

with utmost peace,

Arif

[scribblet]

I agree that the threads on prayer mats could be considered offensive by some. However, if you ask people to not post anything derogatory or offensive to Muslims then you must also ask the same of those who insult Christianity, and other religions. It is not too bad in these forums, but there are other forums where the attacks on Christianity are almost paranoia and a phobia.

How far should we take this, should we not discuss pigs or pork for fear of offending some one?

The cartoon issue has certainly reinforced the stereotyping of Muslims, not to mention that the violence and rage over this is offensive to westerners.

I would hope that the more moderate Muslims will prevail in these issues, and maybe some clarification on some of the verses in the would be helpful. Maybe it would be helpful for us to know why some Mullahs and others continually preach 'Death to the Infidel' etc. and why they put a bounty on the heads of journalists and writers.

I'm sorry that you find some of this offensive and wish that more Muslims were like yourself, however, the Muslim world has not given us any reason to believe that our freedoms are not at risk. By asking people to not discuss some issues, it is also reinforcing the belief that that we must give up our rights in order to pacify one religion.

[Argus]

I believe that the cartoons which provoked this recent spate of Muslim topics were valid criticism, and I also believe that most of the discussion on this issue, and most of the criticism (not all) of Islam and the great mass (though not all) of those who practice it are valid. Even if you are offended by it.

That's funny, I just read that thread and wanted to respond. I have no problem with criticism, and you are wrong to say that Muslims cannot be critical. I have said it before and will say it again that terrorist violence is heretical. I will say that Wahabbi influence on Sunni Islam has been disastrous, that literalism and fundamentalism are backward in principle and in the results they bring about. I have no problem in criticizing the interpretations, and will go so far as to place the revelation in context - that there are universal ethics within, but a large part of the revelation is relevant exoterically to 6th century Arab contexts.

I agree with everything above. But you have to understand that when people are criticising "Islam" what they are speaking about is not truly the religion, but the way it is so-often being interpreted to support and condone violence today. I agree that the Wahabbi have been primarily to blame, spreading their primitive interpretations far and wide through the use of Saudi money. But the fact remains that everywhere we in the West look there are raging Muslims burning and shouting for the death of this or that person or group in the name of the prophet. It is not always easy to make the intellectual distinction between how Islam is being taught and preached and followed by so many, and how it perhaps SHOULD be taught and preached and followed. Nor is it even necessary in most instances.

I don't know that the Shia have resisted this call to violence more than anyone else. The people in charge in Iran at the moment are not exactly spokespersons for the peace and kindliness of Islam. The statements made by senior Muslim leaders, from the Grand Mufit in Mecca, to local Muslim Imams in Canada, are often troubling, to say the least. And to us, they represent you. What do we make of Ottawa's chief imam when he says that organizing a terrorist attack like 911 is too complicated for Muslims so it must have been Jews? Or when the Ayatollah Khomeini reduces the age of marriage for girls in Iran to 9 because the Prophet allegedly had sex with a 9 year old? What about a recent poll in the UK which showed 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law?

It has been 1300 odd years since the advent of Islam. You guys aren't doing too well in modernising it. So criticism from outside Islam seems to me to be both fair and necessary. Sometimes that criticism will be harsh and not overly concerned with Muslim sensitivities, but that is life in a world of freedom of speech.

[theloniusfleabag]

To those above,

Well done. Some of the finest and level-headed discourse I have read in a while. I agree with scriblett,

agree that the threads on prayer mats could be considered offensive by some. However, if you ask people to not post anything derogatory or offensive to Muslims then you must also ask the same of those who insult Christianity, and other religions.

Freedom means all or none, and there is no shortage of criticism here for all religions, though Islam may be the 'flavour of the day'. Howver, true strength, faith and fortitude require rising above criticism, not combating it.

[arif]

To those above,

Well done. Some of the finest and level-headed discourse I have read in a while. I agree with scriblett,

agree that the threads on prayer mats could be considered offensive by some. However, if you ask people to not post anything derogatory or offensive to Muslims then you must also ask the same of those who insult Christianity, and other religions.

Freedom means all or none, and there is no shortage of criticism here for all religions, though Islam may be the 'flavour of the day'. Howver, true strength, faith and fortitude require rising above criticism, not combating it.

I think maybe I'm misunderstood, I'm not trying to combat criticism, and you'll find that I'm very critical of Islam. but it is like if you really care about democracy for instance, you would be critical of democratic governments when not acting in the spirit of democracy, you would still believe in democracy.

It's the distinction between insult and criticism, which if there is no distinction, why the guideline. And if the guideline, what does it mean - if anything?

For the record, I will take even the prayer mat threads as criticism rather than insult, but I don't speak for everyone.

I described to Argus my two reactions to the cartoons. In a sense, I do agree with the cartoons, I especially like the one about running out of virgins - but the thing is that there are multiple interpretations of them, some of which are insulting and some of which are not. And I loved it on South park, when Cartman was doing the Christian rock record - but I know that Christianity's much deeper than alot of Christian rock that they are making fun of, and it doesn't make me feel that Christianity itself is silly.

But thinking of that made me understand, that maybe something good will come out of this - I'm sure that there are tons of Christians who dig southpark, in the future, maybe muslims all over will feel fully part of society and feel left out if we're not made fun of!

Arif