Petition to remove Shady

rowdyhawk10 said:The definition of a forum is well known; I suppose I am just clarifying the specific rules of this forum for you. 🙂 You might want to check here under rule number 7 of our guidelines, which states:

• Top-level threads regarding major world religions are intended to be spaces where followers of those faiths can discuss their beliefs in a civilized manner and answer questions from others. Consequently, these areas are specifically protected from provocation, proselytizing, arguments, and similar behavior. Please strive to remain particularly respectful in these sections.

This is a rule that you are expected to both understand and follow.

1. I have already explained the situation to you here. If you look at the bottom of that post, there is some text highlighted in blue. For the sake of everyone else following this thread, I will repeat it: In the "Religion" sub-forum, there are five special pinned threads dedicated to the major world religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism), and they always stay at the top. In these threads, people from other faiths ask followers of the featured religion questions about their beliefs. These five topics aren't like any other standard thread; they are governed by SPECIAL rules. Specifically, you cannot enter the Islam 114 thread to promote Christianity, nor can a Muslim enter the pinned Christianity thread to promote Islam. We penalize that behavior. The thread "ISLAM 114 Questions and 114 Answers, Part II" is one of those five pinned threads. Its purpose isn't for you to spread Christianity or argue about the validity of the Prophet Muhammad—it is for you to ask about Islam and receive answers from us. I think I mentioned before that if you weren't satisfied with an answer, or if you felt our beliefs were incorrect, you could simply start your own thread to share your perspective on the Muslim faith. I would be the first to join that discussion, as would many other Muslims. But instead, you seemed quite intent on using this specific thread for proselytizing.🙄

2. Furthermore, I did not issue a penalty immediately; rather, I first attempted to politely direct you toward the rules. I explained everything and asked you—quite civilly, I might add—to refrain from Christian proselytizing in a pinned thread dedicated to Islam. You chose to ignore my explanations and my attempt to clarify the forum rules that apply to everyone, continuing with the same practice (Christian missionary work within the pinned thread, essentially trying to disprove Islam). It was only after that warning that you received a penalty. As I noted in the blue text earlier: if you wish to critique Islam, there are plenty of other threads on the forum for that, just not the Islam 114 thread, as that isn't its function. So, I suppose I am the one at fault now because you are protesting?

rowdyhawk10 said:That is a malicious falsehood and a total fabrication. The Jews left the sub-forum because of their own internal conflicts—specifically a nasty disagreement with a user named unknown—and actually, many people including myself have been calling for them to return. We’ve reached out through private messages and publicly quite often, much like here. Personally, I would certainly love to see them come back; even though we had some heated debates in the past, people mature and ought to forgive one another... if only for the sake of peace and better understanding, let alone mutual love and coexistence, which is what God calls all believers to practice. I actually stay in touch with some of them via phone. I especially think my dear friend unknown is a wonderful person. So, your claim simply doesn't hold water. 👎

I would appreciate it if one of them would step forward and debunk these insinuations of yours. 😢

rowdyhawk10 said:FMN, hello.
I don't really have anything specific to vent about, so let's just talk. Regarding thread 114, I suppose there are three main issues worth noting. First, the smallest issue is that this particular thread tends to get bogged down quite often, despite being a special, pinned, sticky topic with its own set of rules. It isn't like the usual, standard forum threads—the kind we see in places like a local community center or a neighborhood town hall meeting—which receive much less oversight. We pay extra attention to these specific discussions. This becomes particularly tricky when debates start heating up, which isn't ideal, as our job is simply to maintain order. We frequently find ourselves forced to delete chats within this thread, but instead of moving on, people start protesting why things were removed. Over time, these deletions have accumulated, eventually forming a certain perception among the users. I wonder, what would have happened if I had actually lost my temper because I was constantly having to prune the chat? Has anyone here even considered that? The second issue arose concerning the question of a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim. As a moderator, I couldn't allow anyone to be insulted just because they held a different opinion. That discussion really highlighted how much we all differ. My role isn't to pass judgment on the correctness of someone's religious views or to impose my own beliefs on anyone; rather, it is to prevent discussions from devolving into personal attacks—which is truly the only thing I have done. As a person and a believer, I certainly have my own views that I might choose to express. However, I try my best to separate my personal convictions from my duties as a moderator. As far as I know, I haven't issued a ban based on someone's differing beliefs, but rather when the conversation turns into an ad hominem attack. For instance, some users complained to me about my strictness toward certain groups—but my strictness wasn't due to their beliefs (which only bother me when they veer into fanaticism), but rather because of the way they barge into discussions, violating forum rules and turning the space into a sort of anarchy. Just because they haven't read (or don't know) the rules doesn't give them the right to storm into threads like bandits. This forum needs to be protected from such intrusions, especially since the administration’s policy is relatively liberal—meaning everyone has the freedom to write as long as they respect the rules (and those rules serve as the final arbiter in any dispute, including this one). This isn't some ultra-religious forum like many others where lying to members isn't penalized. Here, we strictly penalize ad hominem attacks, and that is a firm stance. Consequently, an impression was created that I am harder on certain groups than others, but that is only because they haven't learned basic internet etiquette and refuse to follow the guidelines of this forum, which members are obligated to follow and which took significant effort to establish.

Regarding the marriage to a non-Muslim—in this case, a person of the book (a Catholic)—I asked you all privately to please stop. Semek provided a stance taken directly from the official website of the Islamic Community, which is the administrative body for the community in both the US and similar jurisdictions, providing a fatwa confirming that a sister does not leave the faith, even if that action is considered a sin. To me, it isn't even a sin because I understand the circumstances, but that isn't the point. Despite my requests, the debate continued, often descending into personal attacks, which led us to delete those posts.

I feel compelled to explain my actions regarding you, since steeleagle2 is boycotting the forum because I gave you a warning. You are a brother to me, and we have generally had a good relationship; it wouldn't be difficult for me to apologize if you feel it is necessary. So, judge for yourself. I issued you a warning in this post, and the reason I gave at the time was: spamming the thread with an irrelevant response that didn't relate to the post being quoted. (steeleagle2 concluded from this that I was claiming you had "lost it," which is not what I meant). In reality, here is what happened. First, Selek stated that a Muslim woman who marries a non-Muslim ceases to be Muslim, a view supported by you, steeleagle2, and several other members including InsanInside. Then, Sunašce (who is married to a Catholic) responded, stating she believes in Allah, performs her prayers, and does not consider herself a non-Muslim despite her marriage, noting that her husband is not a pagan but a person of the book (a Christian). Then, Alem XCS asked Semek and you for proof that marrying a person of the book results in leaving Islam. Semek then stepped in to explain and provided a link to the official ruling from the religious authority, stating that while such a woman has committed a sin, she has not left the faith. But you disputed this (allegedly, because in our circles, those in the religious leadership are often pressured to give such rulings given the local context) and offered verse 4:141 as evidence for her question. You wrote: "The prohibition seems to be based on certain grounds. Regarding verse 4:141... it would have been fine if Alem had asked you about that specifically, but she didn't. The prohibition remains, and nobody is disputing that it’s considered a sin or that it is forbidden. However, Alem wasn't claiming the prohibition doesn't exist—in fact, she agrees with the ban—but she did take issue with the idea that committing such an act means one ceases to be a Muslim. If someone is a sinner and breaks a rule, I suppose they haven't necessarily stopped being a Muslim. So, to be specific: Alem asked you for evidence regarding apostasy, but you just handed her a justification for a ban, which nobody was actually disputing. Is this clear enough, FMN?

Exceptional. Important.I was looking into the context surrounding verse 4:141, and here is how I see the situation. Following the Hijra, there were certain people in Medina who acted with complete hypocrisy; they were essentially playing both sides, flattering the Muslims one moment and the Muhajirun or Ansar the next, just to ensure they could align themselves with whoever came out on top. I believe this verse specifically addresses that duplicity rather than being about marriage. Let’s take a look at this passage in the context of the verses immediately preceding and following it:

It seems pretty obvious that we're dealing with the hypocrites of Medina here. Take the mayor of Medina before the Hijra, for example—he’d play both sides, showering Muhammad with praise one minute and then traveling to visit the Meccan Quraysh just to talk down about Muslims the next. It's also quite clear that these verses don't actually mention marriage itself; rather, Alem was simply asking for proof regarding what constitutes leaving Islam, not for evidence that a specific sinful act is forbidden. That’s why I flagged your post as providing a pointless response. We all know that most verses have... The reason for this post. Without some sort of context or specific event to anchor it, it’s pretty difficult to grasp the true meaning behind a verse. Because of that, I don't think verse 4:141 should be used as a basis for someone to claim that another person is no longer a Muslim. I actually found myself wondering if, by citing that particular verse, you were trying to suggest to Alemi that she is being hypocritical. I guess I suspected you might be implying she’s being two-faced because she's defending her sister—who married a Christian—just to curry favor with them. As it happens, I've also been accused of being a hypocrite myself for defending my little sister and justifying her marriage. If that wasn't your intention, then I suppose I owe you an apology. Do you accept this explanation and my apology? 🙂 I think you should probably clarify things, specifically regarding steeleagle2’s boycott, but honestly, it’s high time we put this whole topic to rest once and for all. I’m hoping you can give us a straight answer here; steeleagle2 is pretty upset with you, though only he knows if I was ever actually unfair to him. It’s particularly strange that you didn't get a full ban for that previous post, just a warning. That ban only happened because two warnings added up—which was triggered when you called that woman a monkey in your second post, basically egging her on and even admitting you deserved a warning for it. I was simply following your lead. 😁

One last thing—it wasn't exactly a smooth process. Regarding the boycott, I did try my best to talk them out of it. I feel somewhat bad about it, even though I still think the whole thing is a bit childish... but then again, nobody else seems to be stepping up to do anything about it. 😢 They could have kept discussing things on the main board, where they might have pressured me here in the complaints section to fix my mistakes, address any injustices, or correct unfair actions. I feel particularly bad about Aduru; his protests always seemed to hit at the worst possible moments—like waiting for a train only for it to pass right before you arrive. And when things actually started falling apart, he was nowhere to be found. I’ve said some pretty harsh things about him here in the complaints section, rather than on the main forum, and I suppose I regret that now. I also feel terrible about steeleagle2, to the point where it's hard to wrap my head around why this is even happening. The strangest part of all this, though, is my conviction that you aren't actually angry with me over that disciplinary notice; instead, everyone else is boycotting specifically because you received it. It's sympathetic, in a way—nobody ever seems to boycott because of the injustice done to them personally. It’s always about someone else. 🙄 I have attempted to communicate with the Dervish and others, but it seems to have been an exercise in futability. I suppose it might be time to let these matters settle; I am certainly open to cooperation. I could even choose to step back from these topics entirely. However, I truly have no intention of tolerating off-topic chatter, spamming serious discussions with idle chat, or—most importantly—ad hominem attacks. Since I serve as a moderator, I would hope my efforts might be respected, rather than having everyone erupt in protest every time a post is removed. We end up deleting dozens of posts daily, yet most people don't make a scene about it. They generally accept the rules and move on. Because of the frequent protests lately, I’ve gathered the impression that I am being harder on Muslims than on anyone else, which I don't believe is accurate. Perhaps you could suggest to the Dervish that he view things this way; it would be a shame if he decided to leave. I know things are difficult for him, and I think he knows that I realize that too (since I tend to be quite observant 🤣), so there really isn't any need to continue this boycott. The community should bear with us. Peace

rowdyhawk10 said:FMN, hello.
I don't really have anything specific to vent about, so let's just talk. Regarding thread 114, I suppose there are three main issues worth noting. First, the smallest issue is that this particular thread tends to get bogged down quite often, despite being a special, pinned, sticky topic with its own set of rules. It isn't like the usual, standard forum threads—the kind we see in places like a local community center or a neighborhood town hall meeting—which receive much less oversight. We pay extra attention to these specific discussions. This becomes particularly tricky when debates start heating up, which isn't ideal, as our job is simply to maintain order. We frequently find ourselves forced to delete chats within this thread, but instead of moving on, people start protesting why things were removed. Over time, these deletions have accumulated, eventually forming a certain perception among the users. I wonder, what would have happened if I had actually lost my temper because I was constantly having to prune the chat? Has anyone here even considered that? The second issue arose concerning the question of a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim. As a moderator, I couldn't allow anyone to be insulted just because they held a different opinion. That discussion really highlighted how much we all differ. My role isn't to pass judgment on the correctness of someone's religious views or to impose my own beliefs on anyone; rather, it is to prevent discussions from devolving into personal attacks—which is truly the only thing I have done. As a person and a believer, I certainly have my own views that I might choose to express. However, I try my best to separate my personal convictions from my duties as a moderator. As far as I know, I haven't issued a ban based on someone's differing beliefs, but rather when the conversation turns into an ad hominem attack. For instance, some users complained to me about my strictness toward certain groups—but my strictness wasn't due to their beliefs (which only bother me when they veer into fanaticism), but rather because of the way they barge into discussions, violating forum rules and turning the space into a sort of anarchy. Just because they haven't read (or don't know) the rules doesn't give them the right to storm into threads like bandits. This forum needs to be protected from such intrusions, especially since the administration’s policy is relatively liberal—meaning everyone has the freedom to write as long as they respect the rules (and those rules serve as the final arbiter in any dispute, including this one). This isn't some ultra-religious forum like many others where lying to members isn't penalized. Here, we strictly penalize ad hominem attacks, and that is a firm stance. Consequently, an impression was created that I am harder on certain groups than others, but that is only because they haven't learned basic internet etiquette and refuse to follow the guidelines of this forum, which members are obligated to follow and which took significant effort to establish.

Regarding the marriage to a non-Muslim—in this case, a person of the book (a Catholic)—I asked you all privately to please stop. Semek provided a stance taken directly from the official website of the Islamic Community, which is the administrative body for the community in both the US and similar jurisdictions, providing a fatwa confirming that a sister does not leave the faith, even if that action is considered a sin. To me, it isn't even a sin because I understand the circumstances, but that isn't the point. Despite my requests, the debate continued, often descending into personal attacks, which led us to delete those posts.

I feel compelled to explain my actions regarding you, since steeleagle2 is boycotting the forum because I gave you a warning. You are a brother to me, and we have generally had a good relationship; it wouldn't be difficult for me to apologize if you feel it is necessary. So, judge for yourself. I issued you a warning in this post, and the reason I gave at the time was: spamming the thread with an irrelevant response that didn't relate to the post being quoted. (steeleagle2 concluded from this that I was claiming you had "lost it," which is not what I meant). In reality, here is what happened. First, Selek stated that a Muslim woman who marries a non-Muslim ceases to be Muslim, a view supported by you, steeleagle2, and several other members including InsanInside. Then, Sunašce (who is married to a Catholic) responded, stating she believes in Allah, performs her prayers, and does not consider herself a non-Muslim despite her marriage, noting that her husband is not a pagan but a person of the book (a Christian). Then, Alem XCS asked Semek and you for proof that marrying a person of the book results in leaving Islam. Semek then stepped in to explain and provided a link to the official ruling from the religious authority, stating that while such a woman has committed a sin, she has not left the faith. But you disputed this (allegedly, because in our circles, those in the religious leadership are often pressured to give such rulings given the local context) and offered verse 4:141 as evidence for her question. You wrote: "The prohibition seems to be based on certain grounds. Regarding verse 4:141... it would have been fine if Alem had asked you about that specifically, but she didn't. The prohibition remains, and nobody is disputing that it’s considered a sin or that it is forbidden. However, Alem wasn't claiming the prohibition doesn't exist—in fact, she agrees with the ban—but she did take issue with the idea that committing such an act means one ceases to be a Muslim. If someone is a sinner and breaks a rule, I suppose they haven't necessarily stopped being a Muslim. So, to be specific: Alem asked you for evidence regarding apostasy, but you just handed her a justification for a ban, which nobody was actually disputing. Is this clear enough, FMN?

Exceptional. Important.I was looking into the context surrounding verse 4:141, and here is how I see the situation. Following the Hijra, there were certain people in Medina who acted with complete hypocrisy; they were essentially playing both sides, flattering the Muslims one moment and the Muhajirun or Ansar the next, just to ensure they could align themselves with whoever came out on top. I believe this verse specifically addresses that duplicity rather than being about marriage. Let’s take a look at this passage in the context of the verses immediately preceding and following it:

It seems pretty obvious that we're dealing with the hypocrites of Medina here. Take the mayor of Medina before the Hijra, for example—he’d play both sides, showering Muhammad with praise one minute and then traveling to visit the Meccan Quraysh just to talk down about Muslims the next. It's also quite clear that these verses don't actually mention marriage itself; rather, Alem was simply asking for proof regarding what constitutes leaving Islam, not for evidence that a specific sinful act is forbidden. That’s why I flagged your post as providing a pointless response. We all know that most verses have... The reason for this post. Without some sort of context or specific event to anchor it, it’s pretty difficult to grasp the true meaning behind a verse. Because of that, I don't think verse 4:141 should be used as a basis for someone to claim that another person is no longer a Muslim. I actually found myself wondering if, by citing that particular verse, you were trying to suggest to Alemi that she is being hypocritical. I guess I suspected you might be implying she’s being two-faced because she's defending her sister—who married a Christian—just to curry favor with them. As it happens, I've also been accused of being a hypocrite myself for defending my little sister and justifying her marriage. If that wasn't your intention, then I suppose I owe you an apology. Do you accept this explanation and my apology? 🙂 I think you should probably clarify things, specifically regarding steeleagle2’s boycott, but honestly, it’s high time we put this whole topic to rest once and for all. I’m hoping you can give us a straight answer here; steeleagle2 is pretty upset with you, though only he knows if I was ever actually unfair to him. It’s particularly strange that you didn't get a full ban for that previous post, just a warning. That ban only happened because two warnings added up—which was triggered when you called that woman a monkey in your second post, basically egging her on and even admitting you deserved a warning for it. I was simply following your lead. 😁

One last thing—it wasn't exactly a smooth process. Regarding the boycott, I did try my best to talk them out of it. I feel somewhat bad about it, even though I still think the whole thing is a bit childish... but then again, nobody else seems to be stepping up to do anything about it. 😢 They could have kept discussing things on the main board, where they might have pressured me here in the complaints section to fix my mistakes, address any injustices, or correct unfair actions. I feel particularly bad about Aduru; his protests always seemed to hit at the worst possible moments—like waiting for a train only for it to pass right before you arrive. And when things actually started falling apart, he was nowhere to be found. I’ve said some pretty harsh things about him here in the complaints section, rather than on the main forum, and I suppose I regret that now. I also feel terrible about steeleagle2, to the point where it's hard to wrap my head around why this is even happening. The strangest part of all this, though, is my conviction that you aren't actually angry with me over that disciplinary notice; instead, everyone else is boycotting specifically because you received it. It's sympathetic, in a way—nobody ever seems to boycott because of the injustice done to them personally. It’s always about someone else. 🙄 I have attempted to communicate with the Dervish and others, but it seems to have been an exercise in futability. I suppose it might be time to let these matters settle; I am certainly open to cooperation. I could even choose to step back from these topics entirely. However, I truly have no intention of tolerating off-topic chatter, spamming serious discussions with idle chat, or—most importantly—ad hominem attacks. Since I serve as a moderator, I would hope my efforts might be respected, rather than having everyone erupt in protest every time a post is removed. We end up deleting dozens of posts daily, yet most people don't make a scene about it. They generally accept the rules and move on. Because of the frequent protests lately, I’ve gathered the impression that I am being harder on Muslims than on anyone else, which I don't believe is accurate. Perhaps you could suggest to the Dervish that he view things this way; it would be a shame if he decided to leave. I know things are difficult for him, and I think he knows that I realize that too (since I tend to be quite observant 🤣), so there really isn't any need to continue this boycott. The community should bear with us. Peace

Brenda Sanchez39 Asks: Quote: Halveti! said:steeleagle2 says: Check out this post!
Oh, my dear rowdyhawk10... what Muslims on this forum?! You’ve chased them all away! You completely distorted the image of Islam with your tacky, arrogant outbursts, and then, once everyone stood up to you, you just silenced them all with red cards and bans!
So, you’re just going to theatrically greet everyone with a "peace be upon you" and expect them to come crawling back to validate your tyranny? I really hope the admins are reading this! They need to see how your behavior is driving the entire community away.
In this era of pure materialism, everyone seems to think the formula is simple: more users and more posts equals more money. But you? You’re just an advanced, Westernized Muslim who’s essentially driving the clientele away!

Enjoy your solitude! Just sit back and soak up those Christmas wishes from the homosexual atheists—honestly, you haven't even earned anything more than that.

coastalbison6 said:Looks like rowdyhawk10 found another victim. I'm just reposting this from the "Banished Corner."

Hey there, brothers and sisters—(Christians)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a heads-up: don't even think about sharing your own thoughts or opinions on the Religion sub-forum when topics about Islam come up. According to all the rules of our "so-called democracy" (and the rules of this forum), you're apparently required to just sit there and take any insults or disrespect directed at anything non-Muslim. If you don't play along—unless, of course, you're busy sucking up to those holy men—you'll get a red card. After two or three posts like that, you'll find yourself banned within a few hours.
Thanks for understanding

PS: rowdyhawk10, you jerk

Brenda Sanchez39 said:I honestly think Edib needs to be removed from the moderator team immediately. In my opinion, he shouldn't have been given a moderator role in the first place.
He acts incredibly arrogant and condescending.
Just a few weeks ago, he kicked me off the community forum just because I laughed at a bad comment someone else made ! Apparently, according to his rigid logic, you aren't even allowed to look at a moderator the wrong way.

swiftorca57 said:Man, if rowdyhawk10 isn't a mod anymore, I'm outta here. Honestly, whoever bans me can just consider it a little break from reading all this nonsense on the board...
I've never complained about him, and I bet he hates my guts, but my faith doesn't allow me to hold a grudge, so rowdyhawk10 is the best mod ever...
And what's with this idea that he's always right? Look, aren't we all pretty sure we're right sometimes? He's just constantly facing those challenges because he's a mod...!!!!

Quote: Jose Fox3 said:

Link:

So, who's the crazy one here? ☕

Jose Fox3 said:200 HOURS after filing my appeal, I have exactly zero—zero—responses.

Did you guys think the best move was just staying silent until everyone forgets about it? ☕
Yawn—how boring.

redmarlin3 said:Honestly, I’m starting to think it’s high time we teach people how to actually set their image dimensions before they hit upload, just so we don't have to deal with this... ☕

rowdyhawk10 said:And what exactly is the situation regarding the rules on maximum image size? 😉

steelskipper5 said:Look, you really shouldn't be quoting those rules... not after seeing those massive, oversized images some people post. 😉

Anyway, vBulletin actually has a feature to auto-resize images. You just have to get it installed...

Jose Fox3 said:Don't blame anyone else for having an 800x600 monitor.
Either fix your resolution to something halfway decent or just upgrade the hardware. ☕