CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Islamophobic moderator(s) on the Blue Bird religion PDF

Islamophobic moderator(s) on the Blue Bird religion PDF

Started by Jason Clark7 · · 👁 4 views · 9 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Jason Clark7Brenda Cook4Brian Edwards6Nicole Jamescasualtiger2Daniel Ward87
Jason Clark7 Jason Clark7 MemberOP
33 messages
joined Nov 2012
#1 ·
I submitted the following comment to the site administrators as a formal complaint regarding offensive off-topic remarks and trolling within the discussion on feminism in Islam. These comments were accompanied by an Islamophobic tone of mockery, which was further compounded when the moderator, Brenda Cook4, intervened; however, Brenda Cook4 subsequently deleted my response, deeming it excessively vulgar. I must clarify that I felt compelled to intensify my language—though perhaps not in such exhaustive detail—simply to match the context of the surrounding commentary and the overall hostile tone of the debate...

Here is the sequence of deleted comments:

Quote:
Brenda Cook4 states:
1) This is because it serves as a response to a user who pivoted from a discussion on polygamy to criticizing the "satanic" West, which apparently permits certain "pornographic circles," making it relevant to the topic, unlike the war in Iraq.

2) Please refrain from commenting on moderation matters here; if you have a grievance, direct it to the formal complaint department.

I am also lodging a protest against this off-topic remark.

It does not address my thesis at all; rather, it is merely an unargued, disrespectful jab at Muslims and bears absolutely no relation to the subject matter. My point was that a society where men—most of whom indifferently watch or indulge in scenes involving groups of Black men and others performing graphic acts upon a single woman for money—has no moral standing to lecture anyone, let alone Muslims, on the treatment of women. To address my specific argument, that post is nothing more than an off-topic diversion with a hint of trolling...
Brenda Cook4 Brenda Cook4 Regular
373 messages
joined Sep 2010
#2 ·
You really need to stop relying on these cheap, flashy little tactics. Calling your own illness a "phobia" just so you can claim you're participating in a debate in good faith is exhausting. It feels like you’re terrified the thread will just "vanish" if you stop making noise and hurling accusations—as if the world somehow couldn't handle seeing your data, almost like some desperate "stop the Reuters" stunt.
The post wasn't off-topic, this post was actually a direct response to your post, specifically pointing out the hypocrisy involved.

And honestly, your objection to the terms of service (which was part of that whole "make the post disappear" routine) was loaded with unnecessary descriptions. They were way too explicit—the kind of thing Google wouldn't even allow near their ad placements because this site is treated like a mainstream platform. We'll probably see those parts scrubbed from here soon, too. Plus, an answer to whether Unknown's post was off-topic had already been written right before you jumped in.
Jason Clark7 Jason Clark7 MemberOP
33 messages
joined Nov 2012
#3 ·
Brenda Cook4 said:You really need to stop relying on these cheap, flashy little tactics. Calling your own illness a "phobia" just so you can claim you're participating in a debate in good faith is exhausting. It feels like you’re terrified the thread will just "vanish" if you stop making noise and hurling accusations—as if the world somehow couldn't handle seeing your data, almost like some desperate "stop the Reuters" stunt.
The post wasn't off-topic, this post was actually a direct response to your post, specifically pointing out the hypocrisy involved.

And honestly, your objection to the terms of service (which was part of that whole "make the post disappear" routine) was loaded with unnecessary descriptions. They were way too explicit—the kind of thing Google wouldn't even allow near their ad placements because this site is treated like a mainstream platform. We'll probably see those parts scrubbed from here soon, too. Plus, an answer to whether Unknown's post was off-topic had already been written right before you jumped in.

It is no less explicit than (using a fabricated search for Pakistan-related terms) sexual acts involving pigs, cats, goats, horses, cows, monkeys, not to mention the mysterious acts with snakes, elephants, bears, or foxes😍 which were explicitly listed in that controversial off-topic comment that you supported in your subsequent reply with a ROFL smiley—with enthusiasm, perhaps even ecstasy?🙄
Brian Edwards6 Brian Edwards6 Active Member
112 messages
joined Nov 2015
#4 ·
... a bunch of Black people and everyone else...

Is the race element actually a major factor here, or what?🤔
Jason Clark7 Jason Clark7 MemberOP
33 messages
joined Nov 2012
#5 ·
Brian Edwards6 said:
... a bunch of Black people and everyone else...

Is the race element actually a major factor here, or what?🤔

Well, I suppose that specific detail adds weight—or rather, dimension...🤷

And if nothing else, it at least breaks down racial barriers, though I suspect that idealized vision of equality might have overshadowed the actual inequality regarding women's status within those listed details...😁
Jason Clark7 Jason Clark7 MemberOP
33 messages
joined Nov 2012
#6 ·
Here is yet another example just casually 😕
Nicole James Nicole James Regular
313 messages
joined Dec 2010
#7 ·
Since this isn't actually a formal complaint—it’s more like a blatant excuse to be disrespectful toward the moderators—I’d suggest just shutting this down...
Jason Clark7 Jason Clark7 MemberOP
33 messages
joined Nov 2012
#8 ·
Nicole James said:Since this isn't actually a formal complaint—it’s more like a blatant excuse to be disrespectful toward the moderators—I’d suggest just shutting this down...

It is clearly an appeal, covering all the bases, and you even admitted what it was yourself, so where is the insult? Are you just looking for a reason to shut the conversation down?🙄
casualtiger2 casualtiger2 Regular
330 messages
joined Apr 2022
#9 ·
Jason Clark7
This post is my direct response to the one below—it’s the exact same situation Brenda Cook4 already pointed out.
Golden Boy Jason Clark7 said:I get it. This guy is claiming the Moon shrunk recently—give or take. He says those cracks could be hundreds of millions of years old, or maybe they’re much younger. Honestly, he doesn't actually know when it happened—and how could he? The Moon isn't exactly talking to us.

It’s pretty crucial that the hadith describing this event actually has some scientific backing—you know, some sort of foundation. Scientists have apparently discovered a massive rift on the Moon that could have been caused by it splitting apart. Whether you buy into that or not is entirely up to you—honestly, I don't lose any sleep over it.

It’s pretty obvious that some Muslims—in this case, Golden Boy—think that "the beauty of Islam" includes the scientific nature of the Quran. So, by that logic, my post isn't off-topic at all.
Look, regarding your little insinuation that I’m making fun of Islam—that just isn't the case. Unless, of course, you actually think that what Tarik—your own brother in faith—is doing is a mockery of reason. If we can even agree on that. To back me up, here’s another Muslim weighing in on the exact same topic:
Shady Jason Clark7 said:It makes zero sense, man. We're dealing with a straight-up liar. He’s pulling the exact same stunts you see from that lunatic, Miroljub Petrović—same garbage, just wearing a different hat.

Harun Jahja—his real name is Adnan, by the way—was supposedly a Christian before he "converted." As a convert, he basically had a front-row seat to spread all sorts of nonsense under the guise of Islam—stuff that isn't even part of the faith, let alone actually going against it.

His biggest trick? He just swipes footage from famous science documentaries—think Discovery Channel specials on marine life, stratospheric flight, the solar system, or even the properties of water—strips out the original narration, and overlays some text about the "wonders of Islam" onto the raw video. It’s incredibly shady, especially since he’s completely ignoring any actual scientific principles.

Take his half-baked, fanatic crusade against evolution and Charles Darwin—acting like he’s doing it all "in the name of Islam." It honestly makes Muslims look backwards and uninformed, which is ridiculous considering how much they actually contributed to evolutionary thought. I mean, you've got guys like al-Jahiz (the real deal: Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Kinani al-Fuqaimi al-Basri) and later Ibn Khaldun (Abu Zaid 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhamed ibn Khaldun al-Hadrami)—these massive scientific minds who were writing about evolutionary concepts centuries before Darwin even showed up. Darwin actually came across their work through Beacon. By engaging in this pseudo-scientific nonsense, Harun Jahja is basically dragging us back over a thousand years—way further back than when our actual great scholars were living. My most serious recommendation? Don't take anything coming from him seriously. At all.

What Americans in the Muslim community need right now is actual, rigorous scientific education—the kind you get from legitimate authorities, real textbooks, and accredited institutions. We don't need more half-baked info from those random internet gurus operating entirely outside the community framework—people with zero academic credentials, no degrees, and absolutely no qualifications to be lecturing anyone on science.

What charlatans like Harun Jahja and Miroljub Petrović are pulling is exactly like me—someone without a single day of medical school under my belt—suddenly deciding I’m a surgeon and having patients actually show up at my door. Honestly, how successful do you think I'd be? And what are their chances of surviving my scalpel? Just so we're clear—that's about the same chance any Muslim has of actually learning anything from that idiot.

That’s all I’ve got. Sorry if I rambled—it just hits me hard when young people, actually looking for the truth, fall for these spiritual grifters and end up just tearing themselves down. Peace.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#10 ·
Brenda Cook4 said:You really need to stop relying on these cheap, flashy little tactics. Calling your own illness a "phobia" just so you can claim you're participating in a debate in good faith is exhausting. It feels like you’re terrified the thread will just "vanish" if you stop making noise and hurling accusations—as if the world somehow couldn't handle seeing your data, almost like some desperate "stop the Reuters" stunt.
The post wasn't off-topic, this post was actually a direct response to your post, specifically pointing out the hypocrisy involved.

And honestly, your objection to the terms of service (which was part of that whole "make the post disappear" routine) was loaded with unnecessary descriptions. They were way too explicit—the kind of thing Google wouldn't even allow near their ad placements because this site is treated like a mainstream platform. We'll probably see those parts scrubbed from here soon, too. Plus, an answer to whether Unknown's post was off-topic had already been written right before you jumped in.

The moderator already cleared everything up, so I'm not going to waste my breath repeating it.

Thread closed.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads