Ego complaint.

Tyler Scott3 said:Cardboard post.

Once that post goes up, here’s what happens next.

rowdyhawk10 can't see the connection between the question and the answer. He’s basically calling FMN crazy. I looked up that verse myself, and at first glance, I didn't see the link either—so I get why rowdyhawk10 is skeptical. It actually made me wonder if something happened to FMN, like he was just throwing verses around on Reddit for no reason. But knowing how FMN operates, he's not usually like that. I decided to dig into the verse, and I eventually found the connection. Then, Asad stepped in and confirmed it. Here. If you take the very last sentence of that verse, you could basically craft an entire legal framework out of it that bans marrying a Muslim.

Even though you were looking for an explicit claim from the Quran stating that marrying a non-Muslim results in leaving the faith, FMN offers a slightly milder version of that argument. We could debate that all day—and we have—but the real issue here is how rowdyhawk10 dismissed a perfectly logical post as being off-topic or just trolling.
You also need to consider how you reacted to his response. It was in a deleted post where you just replied, "totally irrelevant." That proves you didn't grasp the verse. If you actually understood it, you would have realized that specific verse is about a prohibition, not about being cast out of the faith. Honestly, your reaction was so irrational that it made Shady doubt the FMN response. You basically led him astray, which is exactly why I had to give you a warning. I really hope you finally get what I'm saying here.

Now that we've found the connection, here's what comes next...

I’m looking for rowdyhawk10 to just own up to his mistake regarding that controversial post. Everyone messes up sometimes—even rowdyhawk10 admits that himself quite often—but he’s refusing to budge, insisting there wasn't an error. Honestly, it makes me question if he’s actually competent enough to handle such a heavy responsibility like moderating. Especially when it comes to the Islam 114 thread, which requires a pretty high level of expertise.

I found another flaw in his logic—that melancholy little comment where he claims to know plenty of happy marriages. It’s just off. Honestly, it led me to demand that he be stripped of his right to reply on the Islam 114 thread, especially since the responses there are being provided by the Hanafi school.

Rowdyhawk10 still refuses to take any responsibility. Instead of owning up to anything, he’s started his own little crusade against the people on the Islam Forum, banning nine users in the process. It’s the same old story. Same mindset, same attitude, just like always.

That’s what pushed me to speak up here. I wanted to complain about his tyranny, using Nicole James's misconduct as the excuse. It turned out almost the entire admin team was siding with both Nicole James and rowdyhawk10, which forced my hand to reach out to the owner. When he didn't respond either, and a bunch of other users backed my decision to stop posting, I felt like I had to grab onto whatever was left—which was just Nicole James's response. Otherwise, the site would have lost a lot of great contributors who actually wanted to stay. I decided to end my boycott. If people want to keep posting, go ahead. I'm done being forced to carry the weight of some self-appointed leader when that's not my job.
Anyway, I'm just wrapping up my boycott. As for whether I'll keep posting or how I'll handle it, I honestly have no clue.

So, this is where we landed. We're basically cleaning up after moderators who can't face their own mistakes or find the guts to admit when they've messed up.

But it’s not like that—it doesn't mean someone is kicked out of the faith—and I was actually just searching through everything to find exactly where it says that. That specific Quranic Verse isn't talking about being expelled from the religion. It's like how drinking alcohol is forbidden; sure, if you drink it, you're committing a sin, but you haven't left the faith unless you actually start claiming that sin is permissible. Even the official stance from the Islamic Community here in the States—which I quoted earlier—makes it clear that one isn't cast out of the religion.

Exactly—your reaction to sensitive Shady was what triggered that doubt regarding the FMN response, which basically means you led him astray in a way, and that’s why I had to give you a warning. Honestly, I just hope you finally grasp the point I'm trying to make here.

Just give yourself a break—seriously, go easy on yourself. It’s honestly wild how you just pin everything on someone else; I guess that’s always the easiest way out.
Here’s how things went down:

You’ve been constantly accusing me, claiming that FMN got banned because of me—which just isn't true.

You accused me of derailing the conversation, which is just flat-out wrong—if anything, you’re the one who took us off track here. We ended up talking about interfaith marriages only because you were the one who challenged me back on that Islam 114 thread, basically daring me to prove how good I was at debating. It’s way too easy to downplay how serious a commandment actually is—you can basically take a major sin and spin it until it looks like nothing more than a minor religious oversight.After that, I mentioned to you that Koby had started a new thread about interfaith marriages, so maybe you could give that a shot.

Since you basically folded in your very first post when you realized there was no way to actually prove your point, you just pivoted the whole conversation toward weighing sins—and then you went ahead and started equating a woman marrying outside the faith with a murderer or someone committing shirk.
You accused me of being the one who derailed the thread—seriously? Just take a second to look at my posts, then look at yours, and actually compare them. Don't go pinning someone else's garbage on me just because they're the ones leaving it all over the place.

So, this guy boldgull19 is chiming in with this whole argument—claiming that a woman married to a non-Muslim is somehow worse than a murderer. He’s actually going as far as to say she’s spiritually murdering her own children... as if you can’t lead a spiritually vibrant life unless you happen to be Muslim. It’s wild, really. And the kicker? He doesn't seem to notice his own spiritual emptiness while he's busy judging everyone else—all while claiming to be a devout Muslim himself.

After I’ve spent God knows how many times asking for actual proof—you know, just a shred of logic—this person tries to cover up their total lack of an argument by throwing personal insults my way. They actually called me a half-believer just because I refuse to go around kicking people out of the faith. It's honestly exhausting when people resort to that instead of actually addressing the point.

I’m just going to skip over all the chauvinistic comments for now. Besides, he’s insulting both me and Bradley Davis33—even though she didn't even address him directly.

And you actually sided with him after he got banned for those kinds of insults and trolling—both in the thread itself and in his formal appeal. Yet, here you are, filing an appeal because you think insults toward other users should be allowed. Honestly, I have to hand it to you... that is some world-class hypocrisy right there.

After the Sunnah community chimed in—totally shocked by what they found written there—she responded in pure disbelief, pointing out that she’s actually married to a Catholic. And honestly? Not a single soul had the decency to apologize for misidentifying her as a killer. Instead, people were busy telling her she’d committed a sin even worse than physical murder—claiming she’s spiritually killing her children and living in sin, and just going on and on like that. Not a single apology. None.

" It’s better to tear down a church than to break someone’s heart "

Here is how she operates:

among other things, she says I wouldn't want to be in your shoes (once the consequences finally catch up to you)

After this lady got banned—and we're talking about comments that even Yazid would have been jealous of—you suddenly start feeling bad for her because she was kicked off the platform? So now you're sympathizing with her just because of the ban? Why the sudden change of heart?

You guys accused me before God—you mocked me, saying how God would humiliate me even further (as if I wasn't already humiliated enough by you all, and acting like you won't even talk to me anymore just so you don't have to deal with more humiliation) —and you called me a hypocrite, a half-believer (which, since you can't really be a "half-believer," basically means you were calling me an infidel). All of this just because I refused to label anyone else as an unbeliever! Look, Islam isn't your private property to gatekeep, and you certainly don't have the authority to excommunicate people from the faith—especially not someone who identifies as a Muslim.
The sheer arrogance and condescension you displayed! The insults, the mockery, the way you laughed right in my face! Where do you get the right to cast someone out of the faith? You act so incredibly superior, as if you possess some flawless moral high ground that gives you the permission to point fingers at everyone else's sins and exile them from Islam. Oh, I see—you're all "better" than the rest of us now, aren't you? Entitled to look down on those you deem "worse" and declare them non-believers!
Then, a few days later, over on the Islam 114 thread, you come after me again, calling me a hypocrite and a half-believer. Well, it took me a moment to realize that you were actually using that Quranic Verse to imply I was being a hypocrite—so, thanks for that.
I just want to tell you one thing. I am not what you claim I am. And that poor girl following the Sunnah isn't what you labeled her either. None of the things you said about her or me were actually true.
But you certainly said a lot about yourselves.

Scott Nguyen2 said:If my seniority on this Reddit—specifically on this sub—actually counts for anything, then I’m calling on it now. Not to hurt the feelings of the younger users, mind you, but just to make it clear: the constant bickering between users isn't why I'm walking away. People can focus on the secondary stuff if they want, and yeah, maybe staying silent is less "useful" than posting, but the drama among users isn't the reason I'm boycotting this place.

Let’s not mince words here. I am boycotting this because of the deliberate, systematic discrimination based on faith being carried out by the moderators—specifically rowdyhawk10. They are targeting members of the modern Salaf movement due to their religious beliefs and outlook... (people who don't agree call them Wahhabis—and I'm only mentioning that to identify a specific group, regardless of what label anyone wants to slap on them)

This has nothing to do with my personal chats with any particular user, whether they follow Salafism or not. It’s about the fact that there is a conscious, unfair effort to stifle their presence here—even though, honestly, I don't even agree with all their interpretations and views myself.

Secondly, I’m boycotting the general trend where atheists try to turn the Religion sub-forum into their own little ideological stronghold at any cost. The proof is right there: there are fewer and fewer believers left in the Religion section (which is supposed to serve them, by the way). And it’s not because they lack "arguments"—it's because the insults being thrown around go way beyond anything remotely decent or human. (Okay, there are exceptions, sure).
Now, look, I'm not saying we should kick the atheists out of the Religion sub. No. I'm saying something needs to be done about the culture of conversation here. Nobody comes here to act as a punching bag for someone else's frustrations. To show you how ridiculous this is, just try opening a thread in the 'Science' sub titled 'Evolution is a myth based on scientific evidence' (just as an example)... either the thread gets nuked immediately or it gets moved back to 'Religion,' making 'Religion' look like some kind of trash bin for those people. On the flip side, as a total paradox that proves my point, you have the 'Atheism' topic pinned right there in the Religion sub.

Everything I’m laying out here is happening systematically and intentionally to turn this sub into anything *but* what it's actually meant to be. Basically, the Religion sub is slowly sinking into the mud of the entire forum. And when you add the fact that Josh is trying to systematically "cleanse" the "Wahhabis" from that mud—who are believers, no matter how people perceive them, and therefore deserve the basic rights afforded to everyone in this sub—it turns out this isn't a sub "for religion" at all. It's a private playground for the moderators, using their power to push their own agendas. Whether that's an agenda of "modernization" (where religion is just a tool for their specific worldview), pushing pro-gay ideology, or pushing secularization under the guise of "human rights." These moderators judge a user's value solely based on whether they fit their worldview. If they do, they look the other way and let "insults" slide (just look at the complaint from Tyler Scott3). But if you don't fit their mold, they discriminate against you—banning you, etc.
This sub has never seen worse moderation than it is seeing right now.

Since the goal seems to be driving believers out of the space that should belong to them (I mean, the sub is called 'Religion,' not 'Ideology') while keeping the "moderates" around, I—as a "moderate"—feel for everyone who has been treated unfairly here. I’m sacrificing myself because every other way of handling this—negotiations, talking it out—has proven to be completely useless. That is why I am boycotting. Until things change, there is no point in posting. For things to change, the moderators need to admit they've messed up. That’s all I’m asking. I'm not calling for a revolution or trying to "topple the government," I'm just asking the "powers that be" to guarantee that people can write freely without having their religious feelings trampled on.

This claim—and I should clarify that this applies to the rest of the post as well—is entirely unargued. I suppose if a coherent argument had actually followed, I might have something to say about it, but it simply didn't. First off, there is no such thing as a "Salaf movement," especially not a modern one. What we are actually looking at is a terrorist movement, which can't exactly plant its roots here because it promotes values that are fundamentally anti-civilization.

• Is it? This. Is there something that simply needs to be tolerated?
• Is it? This Is there something that simply needs to be tolerated?
• Is it? This. Is there something that simply needs to be tolerated?
• Is it? This. Is there something we just have to tolerate?

Is it because they are Muslims that they should be above the rules, Scott Nguyen2? 🙄 Regarding the Wahhabi Corner, I suspect that nobody is actually being targeted out of personal dislike or ideological disagreement—which would be a pretty heavy accusation to make, if you ask me. It seems more like they are simply being held to the standard forum rules, which none of them... He doesn't show any respect.Once they learn how to engage in civilized debate and maintain a dialogue that actually follows the rules—much like the other users here—then maybe they'll be mature enough to participate on a platform like Reddit. Until then, I suppose they can just carry on with their missions over on those pro-Islam forums where they're already used to behaving the way they have been acting here.

• The penalty for off-topic posts remains exactly the same, whether it’s directed at a Wahhabi or anyone else.
• The cards used for trolling remain exactly the same, whether you're dealing with a Wahhabi or anyone else.
• The standard for ironing remains exactly the same, whether you're doing it for a Wahhabi or anyone else.
• Hate speech policies remain exactly the same, whether you're targeting a Wahhabi or anyone else.

If we were to tolerate them breaking the rules, they would essentially become a protected species. We moderators try our best to treat everyone exactly the same, and I suppose we can't be held responsible if they've convinced themselves they're playing some kind of savior role for the faith, attempting to enforce things in an aggressive way that simply doesn't align with the rules.

Scott Nguyen2, as Nicole James mentioned, boycotting doesn't actually achieve anything positive. It’s probably better to just resolve things as they come up. If we ever act unfairly toward someone, there are plenty of channels available to file a grievance... we moderators aren't some lawless gang running wild. Of course, that's assuming the complaint is actually backed by solid arguments.

Culture, order, peace, and tolerance—that’s what we expect from everyone on this Reddit. There is simply no reason to tolerate anyone else, including those Wahhabi types. I think I'll step out of the discussion on this matter. That's all I have to say, though I would hope we understand one another. Peace.

Tyler Scott3 said:Hey.

I just wanted to have a quick word with the boss.😛

Thanks for reaching out, Nicole James. You could've done it sooner; I've been losing my mind here without the forum...
As for your explanation, you could've brought me a scoop of ice cream and I would've been right back.😍

But if I pointed out serious problems that need addressing over time, then yes, I did. That was the whole point.😉 Since other goals weren't met anyway.

Admins, rowdyhawk10, Nicole James... My apologies to everyone.🙂

Anyway, I'd like to get back into it, if nobody has an objection... or if someone wants to say something now...🙂

You're more than welcome, man. 🙂 It just isn't the same without you. You’ve got a scoop of ice cream waiting on the boardwalk. 😍
Look, I apologize if I'm at fault here. Even I make mistakes sometimes, I suppose. 😁 🤣
I would request that the discussion with Sister ruggedwolf comes to an end; this isn't really the appropriate place for it.

steelskipper5 said:Like I said already—get some new moderators on board.

If there aren't enough high-quality posters on this Reddit to step up as moderators—which, let's be honest, seems to be the case—then you guys are already running behind the curve.

And hey, maybe that pressure is actually a good thing—it might finally force you guys to actually do something about it.

Some high-quality reinforcement should be arriving soon, thank God. Probably within the next few days. 🙂

ruggedwolf said:But it’s not like that—it doesn't mean someone is kicked out of the faith—and I was actually just searching through everything to find exactly where it says that. That specific Quranic Verse isn't talking about being expelled from the religion. It's like how drinking alcohol is forbidden; sure, if you drink it, you're committing a sin, but you haven't left the faith unless you actually start claiming that sin is permissible. Even the official stance from the Islamic Community here in the States—which I quoted earlier—makes it clear that one isn't cast out of the religion.

Exactly—your reaction to sensitive Shady was what triggered that doubt regarding the FMN response, which basically means you led him astray in a way, and that’s why I had to give you a warning. Honestly, I just hope you finally grasp the point I'm trying to make here.

Just give yourself a break—seriously, go easy on yourself. It’s honestly wild how you just pin everything on someone else; I guess that’s always the easiest way out.
Here’s how things went down:

You’ve been constantly accusing me, claiming that FMN got banned because of me—which just isn't true.

You accused me of derailing the conversation, which is just flat-out wrong—if anything, you’re the one who took us off track here. We ended up talking about interfaith marriages only because you were the one who challenged me back on that Islam 114 thread, basically daring me to prove how good I was at debating. It’s way too easy to downplay how serious a commandment actually is—you can basically take a major sin and spin it until it looks like nothing more than a minor religious oversight.After that, I mentioned to you that Koby had started a new thread about interfaith marriages, so maybe you could give that a shot.

Since you basically folded in your very first post when you realized there was no way to actually prove your point, you just pivoted the whole conversation toward weighing sins—and then you went ahead and started equating a woman marrying outside the faith with a murderer or someone committing shirk.
You accused me of being the one who derailed the thread—seriously? Just take a second to look at my posts, then look at yours, and actually compare them. Don't go pinning someone else's garbage on me just because they're the ones leaving it all over the place.

So, this guy boldgull19 is chiming in with this whole argument—claiming that a woman married to a non-Muslim is somehow worse than a murderer. He’s actually going as far as to say she’s spiritually murdering her own children... as if you can’t lead a spiritually vibrant life unless you happen to be Muslim. It’s wild, really. And the kicker? He doesn't seem to notice his own spiritual emptiness while he's busy judging everyone else—all while claiming to be a devout Muslim himself.

After I’ve spent God knows how many times asking for actual proof—you know, just a shred of logic—this person tries to cover up their total lack of an argument by throwing personal insults my way. They actually called me a half-believer just because I refuse to go around kicking people out of the faith. It's honestly exhausting when people resort to that instead of actually addressing the point.

I’m just going to skip over all the chauvinistic comments for now. Besides, he’s insulting both me and Bradley Davis33—even though she didn't even address him directly.

And you actually sided with him after he got banned for those kinds of insults and trolling—both in the thread itself and in his formal appeal. Yet, here you are, filing an appeal because you think insults toward other users should be allowed. Honestly, I have to hand it to you... that is some world-class hypocrisy right there.

After the Sunnah community chimed in—totally shocked by what they found written there—she responded in pure disbelief, pointing out that she’s actually married to a Catholic. And honestly? Not a single soul had the decency to apologize for misidentifying her as a killer. Instead, people were busy telling her she’d committed a sin even worse than physical murder—claiming she’s spiritually killing her children and living in sin, and just going on and on like that. Not a single apology. None.

" It’s better to tear down a church than to break someone’s heart "

Here is how she operates:

among other things, she says I wouldn't want to be in your shoes (once the consequences finally catch up to you)

After this lady got banned—and we're talking about comments that even Yazid would have been jealous of—you suddenly start feeling bad for her because she was kicked off the platform? So now you're sympathizing with her just because of the ban? Why the sudden change of heart?

You guys accused me before God—you mocked me, saying how God would humiliate me even further (as if I wasn't already humiliated enough by you all, and acting like you won't even talk to me anymore just so you don't have to deal with more humiliation) —and you called me a hypocrite, a half-believer (which, since you can't really be a "half-believer," basically means you were calling me an infidel). All of this just because I refused to label anyone else as an unbeliever! Look, Islam isn't your private property to gatekeep, and you certainly don't have the authority to excommunicate people from the faith—especially not someone who identifies as a Muslim.
The sheer arrogance and condescension you displayed! The insults, the mockery, the way you laughed right in my face! Where do you get the right to cast someone out of the faith? You act so incredibly superior, as if you possess some flawless moral high ground that gives you the permission to point fingers at everyone else's sins and exile them from Islam. Oh, I see—you're all "better" than the rest of us now, aren't you? Entitled to look down on those you deem "worse" and declare them non-believers!
Then, a few days later, over on the Islam 114 thread, you come after me again, calling me a hypocrite and a half-believer. Well, it took me a moment to realize that you were actually using that Quranic Verse to imply I was being a hypocrite—so, thanks for that.
I just want to tell you one thing. I am not what you claim I am. And that poor girl following the Sunnah isn't what you labeled her either. None of the things you said about her or me were actually true.
But you certainly said a lot about yourselves.

The "Messages, Wishes, and Comments" subforum serves an entirely different purpose, and I honestly don't think this is the right place to continue this kind of debate. I’d like to suggest—and I really am asking here—that any clarification regarding this controversial matter be handled through private messages instead. When things are peaceful, anything can be discussed, but once there is unrest, nothing seems to work. Please, let's not keep this going here.

I'm stepping out of this discussion, and I’d probably suggest everyone else does the same. Thanks, and best to you all. 🙂

ruggedwolf said:But it’s not like that—it doesn't mean someone is kicked out of the faith—and I was actually just searching through everything to find exactly where it says that. That specific Quranic Verse isn't talking about being expelled from the religion. It's like how drinking alcohol is forbidden; sure, if you drink it, you're committing a sin, but you haven't left the faith unless you actually start claiming that sin is permissible. Even the official stance from the Islamic Community here in the States—which I quoted earlier—makes it clear that one isn't cast out of the religion.

Exactly—your reaction to sensitive Shady was what triggered that doubt regarding the FMN response, which basically means you led him astray in a way, and that’s why I had to give you a warning. Honestly, I just hope you finally grasp the point I'm trying to make here.

Just give yourself a break—seriously, go easy on yourself. It’s honestly wild how you just pin everything on someone else; I guess that’s always the easiest way out.
Here’s how things went down:

You’ve been constantly accusing me, claiming that FMN got banned because of me—which just isn't true.

You accused me of derailing the conversation, which is just flat-out wrong—if anything, you’re the one who took us off track here. We ended up talking about interfaith marriages only because you were the one who challenged me back on that Islam 114 thread, basically daring me to prove how good I was at debating. It’s way too easy to downplay how serious a commandment actually is—you can basically take a major sin and spin it until it looks like nothing more than a minor religious oversight.After that, I mentioned to you that Koby had started a new thread about interfaith marriages, so maybe you could give that a shot.

Since you basically folded in your very first post when you realized there was no way to actually prove your point, you just pivoted the whole conversation toward weighing sins—and then you went ahead and started equating a woman marrying outside the faith with a murderer or someone committing shirk.
You accused me of being the one who derailed the thread—seriously? Just take a second to look at my posts, then look at yours, and actually compare them. Don't go pinning someone else's garbage on me just because they're the ones leaving it all over the place.

So, this guy boldgull19 is chiming in with this whole argument—claiming that a woman married to a non-Muslim is somehow worse than a murderer. He’s actually going as far as to say she’s spiritually murdering her own children... as if you can’t lead a spiritually vibrant life unless you happen to be Muslim. It’s wild, really. And the kicker? He doesn't seem to notice his own spiritual emptiness while he's busy judging everyone else—all while claiming to be a devout Muslim himself.

After I’ve spent God knows how many times asking for actual proof—you know, just a shred of logic—this person tries to cover up their total lack of an argument by throwing personal insults my way. They actually called me a half-believer just because I refuse to go around kicking people out of the faith. It's honestly exhausting when people resort to that instead of actually addressing the point.

I’m just going to skip over all the chauvinistic comments for now. Besides, he’s insulting both me and Bradley Davis33—even though she didn't even address him directly.

And you actually sided with him after he got banned for those kinds of insults and trolling—both in the thread itself and in his formal appeal. Yet, here you are, filing an appeal because you think insults toward other users should be allowed. Honestly, I have to hand it to you... that is some world-class hypocrisy right there.

After the Sunnah community chimed in—totally shocked by what they found written there—she responded in pure disbelief, pointing out that she’s actually married to a Catholic. And honestly? Not a single soul had the decency to apologize for misidentifying her as a killer. Instead, people were busy telling her she’d committed a sin even worse than physical murder—claiming she’s spiritually killing her children and living in sin, and just going on and on like that. Not a single apology. None.

" It’s better to tear down a church than to break someone’s heart "

Here is how she operates:

among other things, she says I wouldn't want to be in your shoes (once the consequences finally catch up to you)

After this lady got banned—and we're talking about comments that even Yazid would have been jealous of—you suddenly start feeling bad for her because she was kicked off the platform? So now you're sympathizing with her just because of the ban? Why the sudden change of heart?

You guys accused me before God—you mocked me, saying how God would humiliate me even further (as if I wasn't already humiliated enough by you all, and acting like you won't even talk to me anymore just so you don't have to deal with more humiliation) —and you called me a hypocrite, a half-believer (which, since you can't really be a "half-believer," basically means you were calling me an infidel). All of this just because I refused to label anyone else as an unbeliever! Look, Islam isn't your private property to gatekeep, and you certainly don't have the authority to excommunicate people from the faith—especially not someone who identifies as a Muslim.
The sheer arrogance and condescension you displayed! The insults, the mockery, the way you laughed right in my face! Where do you get the right to cast someone out of the faith? You act so incredibly superior, as if you possess some flawless moral high ground that gives you the permission to point fingers at everyone else's sins and exile them from Islam. Oh, I see—you're all "better" than the rest of us now, aren't you? Entitled to look down on those you deem "worse" and declare them non-believers!
Then, a few days later, over on the Islam 114 thread, you come after me again, calling me a hypocrite and a half-believer. Well, it took me a moment to realize that you were actually using that Quranic Verse to imply I was being a hypocrite—so, thanks for that.
I just want to tell you one thing. I am not what you claim I am. And that poor girl following the Sunnah isn't what you labeled her either. None of the things you said about her or me were actually true.
But you certainly said a lot about yourselves.

Look, sister. If I ever actually thought you were a hypocrite, I’d tell you straight to your face. But I won't.

Everything else is just your lack of logic and failure to follow a coherent thought process.

What a piece of work you are....

rowdyhawk10 said:You're more than welcome, man. 🙂 It just isn't the same without you. You’ve got a scoop of ice cream waiting on the boardwalk. 😍
Look, I apologize if I'm at fault here. Even I make mistakes sometimes, I suppose. 😁 🤣
I would request that the discussion with Sister ruggedwolf comes to an end; this isn't really the appropriate place for it.

Some high-quality reinforcement should be arriving soon, thank God. Probably within the next few days. 🙂

The "Messages, Wishes, and Comments" subforum serves an entirely different purpose, and I honestly don't think this is the right place to continue this kind of debate. I’d like to suggest—and I really am asking here—that any clarification regarding this controversial matter be handled through private messages instead. When things are peaceful, anything can be discussed, but once there is unrest, nothing seems to work. Please, let's not keep this going here.

rowdyhawk10 was actually the one who started this whole thing. And look, I wasn't planning on arguing anymore—not here and not via PM—which is why I just laid everything out at once. It really rubbed me the wrong way when he tried to blame me again for FMN being banned. FMN doesn't blame me; if he actually felt that way, he'd tell me himself so I wouldn't worry, but this guy keeps bringing it up every chance he gets.

Dervish, do you really want to see me get banned for another 20 days, huh? If I finally manage to pay for those three days FMN spent banned, could you please stop throwing it in my face? This current ban expires Monday night, right before the next one kicks in. There.

Look, (like the rest of this post) you’re just making an unargued claim—and yeah, I’ll add that—in that old-school way. If you had followed that up with a coherent argument, fine. But you didn't. First off, there is no such thing as a "Salaf movement," especially not a modern one. This is a terrorist movement that shouldn't be allowed to plant its roots here because it promotes values that are completely anti-civilization.

So, you're saying it's nothing more or less than a terrorist movement that can't be allowed to "take root" on the forum.
But your "proof" that this is a terrorist movement is based on... four posts. That's it.
In one of those posts, a Passerby claims that if someone isn't performing their obligations (not praying, not fasting, etc.), they shouldn't even be considered a Muslim. Now, people who adopt these kinds of interpretations of Islamic rules are usually the ones who argue that actions (worship) *are* the faith itself—and honestly, from a Hanafi perspective, you can totally debunk that view. It's a classic Fiqh topic! People have been debating this forever on forums without anyone being branded a terrorist. Just because a user is citing "strictness" doesn't mean they're dangerous. Sure, Muslims should be strict, but the methodology used by today's Salafis is questionable at best. This is all stuff meant for discussion, and I don't see any "terrorist threat" in what is essentially a standard Fiqh debate.
And don't even get me started on the 'Tawhid' topic. The people on this forum who try to defend the Salafis (like Black-White, aka ruggedstag7, or Kate Phillips40, etc.) have actually discredited that specific user and labeled him a 'takfiri' (which he is). So, basically, everyone you consider a "Wahhabi"—which is how you frame them, as nothing more than terrorists!—actually rejects the 'Tawhid' handle and criticizes him. Yet, you're punishing the very people who reject that handle just because they don't claim him as one...🙂...because they're also "Wahhabis" (or "terrorists," as you put it)
The other two posts are even more ridiculous to interpret as a "terrorist threat."

Is it because they are Muslims that they should be above the rules, Scott Nguyen2?

Oh, come on, rowdyhawk10, stop talking nonsense. Don't even try to hide behind these nasty insinuations. We aren't children. Tell me, when did I ever say or imply that Muslims on the Religion subforum should be exempt from the rules?

Wahhabis certainly aren't being persecuted because of personal dislike or ideological disagreement (that's the crudest insinuation you could make), but rather because they refuse to follow the forum rules. Once they learn how to engage in civilized debate and dialogue according to the rules—just like everyone else here—they'll be mature enough to participate in a forum like this. Until then, they can carry on their missions on pro-Islamic forums where they're used to behaving the way they act here.

Just a second ago, you said I was quoting:

We're talking about a terrorist movement here—something that can't be allowed to spread its roots on this platform because it promotes values that are completely anti-civilization.

And now you’re claiming nobody is persecuting them? Give me a break. Seriously. You're targeting them specifically because you're labeling them as nothing less than terrorists—look, there's a massive difference between being radical and being a terrorist—and then you turn around and say no one is allowed to "spread" terrorist roots on the forum, while simultaneously insisting YOU aren't persecuting anyone based on their religious views? Let's get one thing straight: anyone who breaks the forum rules should be disciplined based strictly on what they actually wrote. That’s one thing. But it is a whole other story when YOU decide to brand someone a terrorist based on your own baseless insinuations—which aren't even true—and then you commit your own kind of "terror" against them on the forum based on those false assumptions! Time and time again, just like in these posts above, you’ve basically "Photoshopped" something into existence that isn't even in their posts... I mean, the last time you handed ruggedstag7 red cards for "threats"...

That "terrorist" post by ruggedstag7 is this one:

http://forum.com/showthread.php?p=17545073&postcount=72

The sentence that triggered your red card was this:

ruggedstag7:
So, are you saying you're thanking God for the fact that His Sharia has been abolished here?

You literally provided the reason for the ban yourself.

rowdyhawk10 said:ruggedstag7,
just a reminder regarding the guidelines (click) and rule number 9:
9) It is STRICTLY forbidden to express anything that isn't permitted under the Law of the United States. This includes calls for violence, committing other criminal acts, discrimination, and similar things; glorifying violence, crimes, or criminal regimes;

This is the absolute peak of fabrication. To see how much of a stretch this is, you have to remember that before he even used the handle 'ruggedstag7,' he was a user on the Black-White board. He actually got a permanent ban before taking this name. You personally promised him via PM that you'd let him post under the name 'ruggedstag7' as long as he wasn't being insulting. In this specific post, he didn't insult anyone—it was just a statement, a bit sarcastic, though honestly, I might have said it to Damir just as bluntly, maybe even harder if I were talking to Josh—and yet, in this post, you claim to see "calls for violence or committing other criminal acts, discrimination, and similar things; glorifying violence, crimes, or criminal regimes"... basically, you're manufacturing a crime he never committed in that post and slapping him with a ban, even after you gave him your word in a private message that you wouldn't mess with him.
This whole move of yours is just too much, and frankly, it's why I'm boycotting the way the Religion sub-forum is moderated.

ruggedwolf said:

rowdyhawk10 was actually the one who started this whole thing. And look, I wasn't planning on arguing anymore—not here and not via PM—which is why I just laid everything out at once. It really rubbed me the wrong way when he tried to blame me again for FMN being banned. FMN doesn't blame me; if he actually felt that way, he'd tell me himself so I wouldn't worry, but this guy keeps bringing it up every chance he gets.

Dervish, do you really want to see me get banned for another 20 days, huh? If I finally manage to pay for those three days FMN spent banned, could you please stop throwing it in my face? This current ban expires Monday night, right before the next one kicks in. There.
rowdyhawk10 was actually the one who started this whole thing. And look, I wasn't planning on arguing anymore—not here and not via PM—which is why I just laid everything out at once. It really rubbed me the wrong way when he tried to blame me again for FMN being banned. FMN doesn't blame me; if he actually felt that way, he'd tell me himself so I wouldn't worry, but this guy keeps bringing it up every chance he gets.

Dervish, do you really want to see me get banned for another 20 days, huh? If I finally manage to pay for those three days FMN spent banned, could you please stop throwing it in my face? This current ban expires Monday night, right before the next one kicks in. There.
ruggedwolf
I'm not quite sure why you keep choosing to self-ban like this. I suspect you won't actually achieve anything useful by doing so; it just seems to prolong the agony. In fact, it might even lead others to think you're admitting some kind of "guilt" by "fleeing" from the Reddit community. It might be worth thinking about that.

Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

The Guidelines , Section 9: Any form of expression that violates the Law of the United States is strictly prohibited. This includes incitement to violence, the commission of criminal acts, discrimination, and similar behaviors; the glorification of violence, crimes, or criminal regimes;...

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello

You guys have completely lost it. rowdyhawk10 and ruggedwolf. I’m the idiot for even bothering to argue with you people. Honestly, I might as well just ban myself.

Long live freedom from these sick forum minds. Viva la revolution!🙂:klap:

P.S. Nicole James is right about the anchoring. My bad, I apologize.

Tyler Scott3 said:You guys have completely lost it. rowdyhawk10 and ruggedwolf. I’m the idiot for even bothering to argue with you people. Honestly, I might as well just ban myself.

Long live freedom from these sick forum minds. Viva la revolution!🙂:klap:

P.S. Nicole James is right about the anchoring. My bad, I apologize.

I wasn't actually arguing with you. I was merely hoping the situation might settle down. 😢

Tyler Scott3 said:You guys have completely lost it. rowdyhawk10 and ruggedwolf. I’m the idiot for even bothering to argue with you people. Honestly, I might as well just ban myself.

Long live freedom from these sick forum minds. Viva la revolution!🙂:klap:

P.S. Nicole James is right about the anchoring. My bad, I apologize.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. You could have just been upfront about it when I asked earlier, you know?

When I see who you're actually siding with, it really makes me rethink things—I mean, seeing how you qualify a "twisted mind" almost makes me respect your perspective, as long as I'm on the other side of it. Just another one of your "compliments," I guess... though, honestly, it doesn't even surprise me anymore.

EX BLACK & WHITE, EX C&B, EX ruggedstag7

Peace be upon you, and greetings to Kenneth Peterson5.
I wasn't planning on weighing in, but since I’ve been branded a terrorist, I don't really have a choice. That is a heavy accusation to throw around, and frankly, it says much more about the character of the person making it than it does about me. I took a quick look through the US Criminal Code, and what I found are several sections that the moderator rowdyhawk10 has directly violated. There is certainly enough ground here to file a lawsuit against Mr. E.M., aka rowdyhawk10.
Since you decided to publicly label me a terrorist tonight, I’ll be deciding over the next few days how to proceed with legally sanctioned measures against you and those who enabled you to publicly insult and slander me.

Now, let’s address the insults and falsehoods you’re spreading about me here.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
I, for one, am also not writing this for you; I'm doing it to defend my honor and especially for the AMAZING—truly AMAZING—members like boldgull19, Kenneth Peterson5, Scott Nguyen2, Tyler Scott3, Kate Phillips40, Ashik, Amanda Wood3, and others.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Alright, let's see what's actually happening here.
Damir claims that according to Sharia, someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam. Whether it was Damir or someone else before him doesn't matter. That is his claim. Just to be clear, that isn't my claim; it's Damir's.
http://reddit.com/r/discussion/post/33104&page=3
I DO NOT KNOW what the penalty for leaving Islam is under Sharia, and I'm not claiming to. If I did know, I would be stating it openly, just as I have before.

In that post, I simply asked a question and sought an answer as to whether Damir was thanking God that His Sharia is no longer enforced in America.

Here is the answer:
"And those who do not judge by what God has revealed are truly disbelievers."
(Al-Ma'idah, 44)

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
You fabricated that bolded part, and it actually looks like this:
"Ever since secularism arrived in the US, that Sharia provision—thank God—is no longer applied."

That’s when I decided to ask my question.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
You’re indirectly validating this absolute nonsense (forgive me, Lord):
"And those who do not judge by what God has revealed are the true disbelievers."
Al-Ma'idah, 44

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
You're the only blind one here!
boldgull19, Scott Nguyen2, Kenneth Peterson5, and anyone else reading this with a clear head—look, I’m not advocating for any of this, nor am I claiming to believe anything you're trying so hard to force down my throat.
This whole "vision" you're talking about is nothing more than your own desperate attempt to get rid of me and pure, unadulterated hatred.
We’re all seeing the exact same thing, yet you're out here seeing something completely different. So, who's really the blind one here?

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Am I indirectly advocating for this?
Why beat around the bush when I can just be direct?
Are you seriously trying to intimidate me with your bans and warnings? Don't make me laugh. If those strikes weren't just virtual, I’d show you exactly what I’d do with them.
If I wanted to let you know that under Sharia law, leaving Islam carries the death penalty, I’d write it right here in the biggest font possible.
To anyone who’s been following my posts—and let's be real, you probably read every single word—you can see I don't sugarcoat anything. I tell it exactly like it is.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
You don't welcome anyone here who doesn't think exactly like you do. That seems to be the only principle you actually live by.
What kind of violence are you even talking about? You’re the one who banned me three times, plus Salaf, Koby countless times, that housewife... I could go on forever. None of those people were coming to you for your opinion anyway.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
And you think you're the moral compass here?
Let me lay out exactly how you handled my situation, you liar and hypocrite.
First off, you banned me unfairly under the username Black & White. At the insistence of a female user, you PROMISED me—and a promise is a serious thing in Islam—that I would use an alt account and that we wouldn't mess with each other. I agreed just to make things clear for her.
Then you banned me because of Damir. Look, I held up my end of the deal and didn't touch you. You failed your end of the deal and lied. So, I'm writing this for the sake of the other users, because quite frankly, you simply CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
On top of that, during this boycott, you publicly called for me to grab an alt and come back.
You even PROMISED AGAIN via private message that you wouldn't mess with me (you know who I am).
Here is how you play it (it's all right there on the first page of this appeal):
"And that fourth guy (ruggedstag7, aka Black & White)—he's finished his time on this forum, at least as far as I'm concerned, and it's entirely up to him if he decides to write here again."
Only to then turn around and contradict yourself by asking me to break the forum rules and use an alt:
"Ruggedstag7 can try using some luckier username... but following my previous recommendations."

Does anyone actually believe your promises?
Your calls for us to return are transparent. You've lost control of the Religion section. We see people posting there now using names like "Sheep's Dick" (to put it mildly) or straight-up cursing God, and you, as a Muslim, just sit there and take it.

Hello, fellow believer!!!!
You will be questioned on Judgment Day about why you didn't stop this. Were you more afraid of the users or of God?

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
The rules that YOU are the first one to break? Everything is listed right here:
http://reddit.com/showthread.php?t=395244

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
We know exactly who we're dealing with. It's just that you can't face the fact that we've seen through all your little games, and that's what you're actually sorry about.
How can you have no shame treating Tyler Scott3 this way, given they have a mountain of posts, or Scott Nguyen2 who has 3,500? If you printed just their posts, it would fill volumes upon volumes of books. These are two people far more qualified to be moderators on this forum than you are.
Aren't you ashamed, boldgull19 or Kenneth Peterson5?
Do you have any shame?
If you don't have a plan, then just do whatever you want.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello

The US Criminal Code and how you’re violating it:

Being slandered as a terrorist:
Article 200.
Anyone who makes or spreads false statements about another person that could damage their reputation or standing will be subject to a fine of up to fifty percent of their daily income or imprisonment for up to six months.
Anyone who spreads or communicates false information about another person—specifically something that could damage their reputation or standing—through print, radio, television, before a group of people, at a public gathering, or any other method that makes the slander accessible to a wider audience, shall be punished by a fine or by imprisonment for up to one year.

Being insulted and called a terrorist.
Article 199.
Anyone who insults another person will face a fine of up to one hundred days' worth of income or a jail sentence of up to three months.
(2) Anyone who insults someone else through print, radio, television, in front of a crowd, at a public gathering, or by any other means that makes the insult accessible to a larger audience will face a fine of up to fifty daily wages or a prison sentence of up to six months under U.S. law.

Article 107.
Anyone who restricts or limits freedom of speech, public expression, the establishment of commercial companies, funds, or public announcement institutions, or interferes with the freedom of the press and other media outlets, shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment for up to one year.

Article 110.
Anyone who obstructs or restricts the freedom of religious practice, the public expression of faith, or any other personal belief will be subject to a fine or up to one year in prison.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Yeah, check out Article 110.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
In your posts, you claim, "I'm somewhat Christian, Jewish, and Buddhist too." You even call the Bible a "wonderful book" alongside the Quran.
What are you actually about?
Your understanding of Islam and your knowledge of the faith are nothing but a total mess (just like you described that same Bible you praise in one of your other posts).
Keep your delusions to yourself. It’s exactly this kind of misguided thinking that led to six innocent Americans being terrorized at Guantanamo Bay for seven years.
I’m putting out an open challenge to you: a 1-on-1 debate on Islam right here on this Reddit thread. I want to knock your perception of Islam down like a house of cards and expose your two-faced hypocrisy toward us REAL Muslims.
Feel free to bring Damir along, since most of us feel nauseous just reading your version of "Islamic" explanations on this forum.

Peace to everyone except you, Mr. E.M., also known as rowdyhawk10...
Here is a snippet of your supposed "sincerity":
. What did you want to be when you grew up... and what did you actually become (career-wise)?
I'm a musician. But I wanted to be the Admin.
http://tolerancija.org/index.php?topic=2836.0

I figured I’d drop a few more thoughts here, which might actually be my last ones on this Reddit thread.
I've been lurking here for years, though I only recently became an active member. I remember sitting down with a coffee years ago, opening this site hoping to find some actual wisdom and constructive talk from our brothers, especially Scott Nguyen2. They’ve truly done so much good here, and plenty of people have benefited from their knowledge. May God reward them for all the effort they've put in over the years to share our honorable faith with others. Amen!

But looking at the situation today and everything that’s gone down, I’m honestly at a loss for words. I don't even know what to think or do anymore...
I just want to ask you directly, rowdyhawk10:

"Why are you doing all this, brother?"

Every time we settle one issue, you go and create another one—like right now, making these totally baseless and unproven accusations against certain brothers and labeling them 'terrorists.'

Those are heavy words, man. Those are serious public accusations you're throwing around. Black & White has every right to take legal action against you now for these claims made against him and other users on this platform. Do you even know the professional definition of 'terrorism'? Or any of the other terms you toss around so carelessly? Scott Nguyen2 pointed out perfectly that 'radicalism' is one thing, while 'terrorism' is something else entirely. I stand by everything he wrote, as well as most of what Black-White said.

I’m not going to waste any more breath on what you and Nicole James are doing. You’ve turned this Religion PDF into something that looks like anything except what its title suggests. Nicole James and her atheist crowd are basically running an 'Anonymous Atheists Inc.' through this PDF, aggressively targeting believers of all denominations. They dismiss and insult everyone using a vocabulary filled with vulgar and rude language. Now, you even have members on this same PDF using handles like 'dick sheep' and stuff like that...

No decent believer or reasonable person should bother posting here anymore. Honestly, a preschooler would probably do a better job moderating this PDF than you guys.
You reap what you sow.😉

In the end, I’m joining the brothers in the boycott. Until everyone comes back, I won't be writing another single word on this Reddit.

My advice to you, rowdyhawk10: either do a complete 180 and change your ways, or just resign. It's the only way to stop this tyranny being forced on the Americans who visit this site.

Our 'sacrifice' might not even make a difference, but let it stand as a cry for justice from all of us, so those who come after us can see what happened.

Peace to my brothers, and best wishes to the rest from your former member, Jasmin.

ruggedwolf said:Thanks for clearing that up for me. You could have just been upfront about it when I asked earlier, you know?

When I see who you're actually siding with, it really makes me rethink things—I mean, seeing how you qualify a "twisted mind" almost makes me respect your perspective, as long as I'm on the other side of it. Just another one of your "compliments," I guess... though, honestly, it doesn't even surprise me anymore.

I find myself surprised, unlike you, because this is the first time I’ve seen Dervish (Tyler Scott3) in this light. I have remained silent for quite some time, simply hoping to restore some peace to this Reddit community. Regarding everyone else who posts here—I have actually tried to calm them all down via private message. Every single one of them, without exception. They know that.

Well, I suppose the time has finally come for some actual human conversation. Maybe what I’m about to write will turn out to be something worthwhile... perhaps even a bit of insight. The whole thing really started when Tyler Scott3 began getting visibly agitated, which eventually spiraled into this entire thread:

On the Islam-114 thread (which is now titled "Interfaith marriages"), you asked FMN for a specific Quranic verse that would prove a Muslim woman leaves the faith if she marries a non-Muslim.

Instead of addressing what you actually asked, FMN just gave you an answer that felt like a personal dig—especially given how clearly you framed your question. It basically exposes the hypocrisy there. I think the verses make that quite obvious, so I’ll just quote one here:

4:141Those who sit around waiting to see how things turn out with you—well, if God grants you victory, they’ll just claim, “Weren’t we on your side all along?” But if luck happens to favor the non-believers, they’ll pivot and say, “Couldn't we have beaten you, and didn't we protect you from the believers?” On Judgment Day, God will pass judgment on everyone. Ultimately, God won't allow the non-believers to destroy the believers.

The implication behind FMN’s guidance on this point is essentially this: "You are being hypocritical, just like those mentioned in that verse." In other words, FMN is basically telling you, "You aren't running in the same pack as us, and that's why you're acting like hypocrites."

I ended up nuking that FMN post because it was nothing more than trolling—just throwing out meaningless arguments to dodge a clear question and discredit the entire conversation. That’s essentially what they were doing. It felt less like a discussion and more like this:

Tomorrow it will rain.
"Yeah, mostly because I picked up a citation for improper driving."
You deserve that punishment, considering you were born forty-eight years ago on a Sunday morning at 10:00 AM.

This is more or less how the FMN attempt (and later the Dervish version) looks when they try to explain to you that verse 4:141 effectively excommunicates a sister from Islam.

Dervish tried to lecture you—and me, for that matter—about how we just didn't grasp that this was all about male supremacy over women. I went back and checked the verse again, though, and I don't see any connection there. 😍

Using that relentless, "Monty Python-esque" logic, Dervish is actually trying to convince us in this thread that verse 4:141 proves some kind of "falling out of Islam." It’s pretty obvious to any sensible person that the verse doesn't—not even in the most abstract sense imaginable—refer to a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim. Even Monty Python wouldn't try to make that connection. But I guess that's just how FMN and Dervish operate.

Someone was complaining that you're a hypocrite—basically calling you a half-believer. Someone even went as far as to call you a "half-brother" (either to you or to the Sunnah, I can't quite remember because I'm just exhausted).

So, it’s pretty clear—though I suppose I should say I appreciate how clearly you see through this. Everything Dervish was whining about in that opening post (all that stuff regarding the Church and gay marriage, claiming Catholic rights are under threat, and so on), along with all those links he shared, was really just a smokescreen. It seems like he was just trying to mask his true motive. He wanted an excuse to back away because he knew he'd embarrassed himself. And honestly, the most disappointing part is that instead of actually stepping back for a while, he’s still out here complaining about something else. He really ought to have offered a sincere apology, first to the Sunnah community and then to you. A real, heartfelt apology, acknowledging exactly where he went wrong.

7. He was actually doing well here and seemed to be on the right track. But then those users—who just recently joined this Reddit community—started hitting him up in his DMs, accusing him of "betrayal." So, he retreated to his old ways. And in doing so, he lost a friend (he knows he did).

7. Now, they’re all playing the victim. Both he and those users are acting naive, trying to claim they were treated "unfairly," when in reality, they were the ones being unjust and throwing insults—mostly at you and your sister, Sunnah. They even have the nerve to expect an apology for their own rudeness... honestly, the audacity.

8. Regarding that thread on "Interfaith marriages," most of these users avoided taking a side. Even though they saw exactly what was happening and how disgraceful it was. Only boldgull19 wrote (under a different handle) that she supports Sunnah. That was kind of her, even if she used a different username. Though, it might have been better if she had warned Dervish that what he's doing is frankly tragicomic. boldgull19 is a good person, which makes her the biggest victim of this whole topic because she's the one who's going to truly suffer since she cares about this forum. She can't just walk away from a brother she cares about (Dervish), even though she realizes he's the one who created this mess for himself.

If Dervish understood that even a little bit, he would have stopped this nonsense instantly, come back to the forum, and let time heal everything. But I know he doesn't. He definitely doesn't need to come back for my sake, because I'm finally over it, just as you might be here. That's all there is to it. Dervish, you succeeded and then you lost a brother. He just doesn't seem to care anymore.

10. ruggedwolf, if you hadn't spoken up here, things might have stayed quiet. I stayed silent toward him for that reason. Even if it meant appearing, as you put it, "humiliated"—though I know you weren't. Perhaps staying quiet would have been better. I truly believed everyone deserves a chance to make mistakes, including Dervish. But I understand why you couldn't stay silent about the constant insults you've been facing, especially again in this thread.

11. As for the insults directed at Scott Nguyen2, Kate Phillips40 and the rest of that crowd won't say a single word about it. It's easier for them to attack rowdyhawk10 just to cover up Dervish's insult toward you: -

"God will humiliate you even more than he already has..." 🙄

It's just a matter of time before someone starts joking: "You're a woman anyway... you were born to endure men like that".

To me, if it means anything, you are a wonderful person. Truly. Just like Bradley Davis33. God hasn't humiliated you; Dervish is just lying willfully. We both know the truth will come out eventually.

11. In the end... I'm glad you noticed that Scott Nguyen2 is getting involved now, whereas he wouldn't touch this topic 15 days ago when the insults were flying. You asked the right question: where was he then to condemn the injustice and all the lies written by his "friends"? Where was he to criticize, even symbolically, the people writing those lies? Instead, he even went as far as to say "he won't get involved"... you caught that perfectly! I mentioned to him in my previous post: Simona realized years ago how hollow that kind of behavior is. Here, it's the same thing; he explicitly said, "Sunnah, don't give up." You noticed that too—and he only said it because he didn't want to "offend" certain users, specifically the majority he is now protesting so desperately.

Back then, he stayed out of it. Now, suddenly, he wants to be right in the middle of it. 🤣

Furthermore, you correctly pointed out how he's siding with the mob that's lynching people. It was the same way when rapidmaker6 was under fire. Those double standards disgust me, just as they disgust you.

12. I believe you're most upset about the insults thrown at your sister, Sunnah. I am too. But she is strong. She has more integrity than many who think they are superior just because they are "men." While they were saying the most vile things to her, she endured it with dignity. That shows the true beauty of her character.

That's all from me.

Alem XCS
I’ve written this much just for one specific reason. I wanted to ask you again not to stop posting on Reddit. Self-banning just drags out the agony, and it gives certain people the false impression that you're weak—that they can easily manipulate your emotions by saying things like:

- "Alem, God has humbled you"
- "Oh, not again? Fine, I'll self-ban for another 15 days"...

That time has passed, and I’d ask that you don't do that anymore because there really isn't any point. Besides, if I understood you correctly, you've become indifferent to the insults. I certainly have. Peace 🙂

Kate Phillips40 said:I figured I’d drop a few more thoughts here, which might actually be my last ones on this Reddit thread.
I've been lurking here for years, though I only recently became an active member. I remember sitting down with a coffee years ago, opening this site hoping to find some actual wisdom and constructive talk from our brothers, especially Scott Nguyen2. They’ve truly done so much good here, and plenty of people have benefited from their knowledge. May God reward them for all the effort they've put in over the years to share our honorable faith with others. Amen!

But looking at the situation today and everything that’s gone down, I’m honestly at a loss for words. I don't even know what to think or do anymore...
I just want to ask you directly, rowdyhawk10:

"Why are you doing all this, brother?"

Every time we settle one issue, you go and create another one—like right now, making these totally baseless and unproven accusations against certain brothers and labeling them 'terrorists.'

Those are heavy words, man. Those are serious public accusations you're throwing around. Black & White has every right to take legal action against you now for these claims made against him and other users on this platform. Do you even know the professional definition of 'terrorism'? Or any of the other terms you toss around so carelessly? Scott Nguyen2 pointed out perfectly that 'radicalism' is one thing, while 'terrorism' is something else entirely. I stand by everything he wrote, as well as most of what Black-White said.

I’m not going to waste any more breath on what you and Nicole James are doing. You’ve turned this Religion PDF into something that looks like anything except what its title suggests. Nicole James and her atheist crowd are basically running an 'Anonymous Atheists Inc.' through this PDF, aggressively targeting believers of all denominations. They dismiss and insult everyone using a vocabulary filled with vulgar and rude language. Now, you even have members on this same PDF using handles like 'dick sheep' and stuff like that...

No decent believer or reasonable person should bother posting here anymore. Honestly, a preschooler would probably do a better job moderating this PDF than you guys.
You reap what you sow.😉

In the end, I’m joining the brothers in the boycott. Until everyone comes back, I won't be writing another single word on this Reddit.

My advice to you, rowdyhawk10: either do a complete 180 and change your ways, or just resign. It's the only way to stop this tyranny being forced on the Americans who visit this site.

Our 'sacrifice' might not even make a difference, but let it stand as a cry for justice from all of us, so those who come after us can see what happened.

Peace to my brothers, and best wishes to the rest from your former member, Jasmin.

It’s a shame. This was someone who managed to put up exactly 172,000 posts in less than 10 months. 🙄

I’m not going to commit to making any more posts here. This complaints book isn't exactly my usual style of writing.
The Religion subforum has become... well, God help us.😁
It’s quite simple... the direction shifted, and now it’s wandered deep into the weeds.🙄
I have absolutely no desire to leave another single post in that place.
The Walls went down right around the time that subforum started losing its way. Saturdays....😍, their appeals were never granted.😢
Aurora? 🙂
On that particular subforum, it’s actually dangerous to affirm your faith in God... they’ll label you a lunatic. It’s similar to how, if you were on a specific subreddit for gourmet cooking, parenting, or cars... it would be considered totally unacceptable to admit a meal was delicious, that you're a good parent, or that driving a car is a sensible thing to do.😁
That’s why there is simply no point in posting as a believer on the Religion subforum. Honestly, it might be better to just rename it... perhaps call it "Atheistic Frustrations"—specifically designed for those who feel traumatized😁 by the faith of others.
They should really just give everyone some breathing room.

Lisa Ortiz2 said:I’m not going to commit to making any more posts here. This complaints book isn't exactly my usual style of writing.
The Religion subforum has become... well, God help us.😁
It’s quite simple... the direction shifted, and now it’s wandered deep into the weeds.🙄
I have absolutely no desire to leave another single post in that place.
The Walls went down right around the time that subforum started losing its way. Saturdays....😍, their appeals were never granted.😢
Aurora? 🙂
On that particular subforum, it’s actually dangerous to affirm your faith in God... they’ll label you a lunatic. It’s similar to how, if you were on a specific subreddit for gourmet cooking, parenting, or cars... it would be considered totally unacceptable to admit a meal was delicious, that you're a good parent, or that driving a car is a sensible thing to do.😁
That’s why there is simply no point in posting as a believer on the Religion subforum. Honestly, it might be better to just rename it... perhaps call it "Atheistic Frustrations"—specifically designed for those who feel traumatized😁 by the faith of others.
They should really just give everyone some breathing room.

Or maybe "Believer Frustrations," since the section is titled Religion rather than Faith.
If you really want to dive into stuff like that, just head over to the Spirituality section.
See, atheism is technically a religious position even though it has nothing to do with faith, and it’s honestly pretty sad seeing how some folks here can't tell the difference between being an atheist and being an anti-theist.
Personally, it bugs me when everyone lumps all atheists into one big bucket, because we aren't all the same, just like believers aren't all identical.
There are definitely people you can actually have a sane conversation with, but based on what I've seen from you on this whole site, Lisa Ortiz2, you aren't really one of them.
When it comes to the state of this forum, everyone bears at least a little bit of the blame, and I totally agree that we need more moderators; I wouldn't mind having ten mods if it meant the whole thing actually worked properly.
And I'm joining in on the plea for everyone not to stop posting... you know that old saying about many hands making light work? Let's keep the community alive.

I honestly can’t decide if this whole thing is hilarious or just plain sad.
If I say it’s funny, I’ll just get hit with a wave of insults flying everywhere, and then I won’t be smiling anymore.
But if I say it’s sad, I realize all these users actually have the luxury of obsessing over every little thing happening on Reddit with such intense passion... and I should just thank God that I can afford to treat this forum like it's their biggest problem. Like, chill out!

Through all this, I’m still fascinated by the whole pack mentality and the cliques.
Oh, please, I am *not* going to use the term hypocritical mob mentality again, because someone would probably take offense and claim I have bad intentions. Apparently, I'm known for those. ☕

Because my memory is actually pretty sharp, and I remember warning rowdyhawk10 about being biased and non-objective in topics like, say, "Wahhabi Corner." Everyone else just stayed quiet (except maybe Scott Nguyen2, I think), and they were having a blast at the time.
I also remember the insults flying left and right during those Sufi vs. Salafi showdowns. I saw the exact same level of communication from both sides, even though I really expected some decency and gentleness from one group. And back then, nobody complained that the number of bans from the other side was way higher.

So, this current situation has me feeling a bit confused.

Especially when you consider how we even got here in the first place.
It all kicked off once the discussion wrapped up following the official statement from the Islamic Community of America. No, the argument was basically... well, the community can't react any other way; they aren't going to go out and start throwing punches.
Give me a break!
A lot of the blame is being pinned on ruggedwolf. Could ruggedwolf have just debated herself? And did ruggedwolf actually debate herself?
Not saying anything about comments like "half-sibling," "God will humble you more than you already are," or addressing Sunnah with a tone of "I wouldn't want to be in your shoes..." as if any of us care what anyone else is wearing... I don't want to explain why I didn't react to that stuff. It's too depressing.

The moderation is bad. There have always been issues with moderating the Religion section—I've been writing here for four years, so I think I'm qualified to say that.
rowdyhawk10, you are subjective about certain issues, and I suggested a long time ago that you can't participate in certain discussions as both a regular user and a moderator. I even suggested you shouldn't moderate threads where you obviously can't stay objective, but nobody agreed with me back then.
But what "golden age" of moderating Religion are we talking about that makes this current state such a shock?
In my early years on this forum, I read things that were way worse, and they were totally allowed.

This whole forum boycott makes zero sense to me. 😕
I guess I write because it gives me pleasure and because I feel like I have something to say.
Once it stops being fun, I'll stop writing without making a big deal out of it. I won't be sitting around expecting someone to convince me to stay.

Basically, I find it hard to believe we're capable of getting this worked up over forum debates.
It just goes to show how much we all love reading what we write, how convinced we are that our opinions are incredibly important, and how vital, vital, vital we think we are... that we can end up with this kind of mutual hatred just defending our internet arguments.

Look, here is what I want to say:
First off, I need to address the fact that I’ve been getting hit with private messages—basically being pressured and told that my brain just isn't capable of grasping how I am the one responsible for this whole mess, and that I’m the reason people have scattered from the forum. To make matters even more pathetic, someone actually had the nerve to tell me to just go ahead and enjoy my "victory." No, my brain isn't incapable of understanding just how much nonsense some people's minds are capable of producing. If you all feel better by pinning the blame on me, then fine—I invite you all to call me out publicly right here.

So, what is actually going on? This isn't really about Nicole James, or the church, or gay marriage, or the friction between atheists and believers. That initial post was just a smokescreen for the true intention behind launching this complaint, which really shouldn't be titled Ego complaint . The core issue here revolves around the topic of interfaith marriage, and the goal is to twist the narrative—to portray things differently than they actually are. They want to frame those who were banned for insults as victims, and paint those who stood in solidarity with them as the ones being wronged. In reality, it's the exact opposite; the injustice went in the other direction. I decided to step forward with this complaint because I suspected that Dervish might have been talking about me when he questioned the mental health of a certain user. It's honestly because of the way he’s acted lately—things that have left me feeling totally unrecognizable to him, among many other things that hurt me. I truly believe he was targeting me; a few days after our discussion, he called me a half-believer and a hypocrite—just me—and used a Quranic verse to lecture me on my hypocrisy. It was clearly directed at me. In his very last post, he made it clear he was indeed referring to the person he claimed was "a little unstable" and whose mental health he doubted. I'll admit, it’s becoming too much to carry all of this—everything said in that thread combined with the guilt being piled onto my shoulders.
Secondly, I hold Scott Nguyen2 responsible for his selective involvement in this situation. He chose to jump into the fray regarding the appeals, yet he refused to engage with the actual topic itself to condemn those who were insulting others, whether directly or indirectly. I think if he was going to get involved at all, he could have at least written one post attempting to de-escalate the fire—especially since he is one of the most respected and influential members here, someone whom other users value deeply and trust for his knowledge. Instead, he took a one-sided approach, joining the others in criticizing the moderators for banning certain members, without ever addressing the actual reasons why those individuals were banned in the first place. The person who has been truly and most severely harmed here is sister Sunnah. She was hit with such harsh words, both directly and indirectly, and after she spoke up, she was met with threats of hellfire. Yet, those responsible have been spared any criticism. Nobody wanted to judge or critique the people who wrote those things; instead, they simply stood in solidarity with them once the bans were handed down. The only person who actually addressed this in the thread was sister boldgull19, and she was the only one providing support to Sunnah amidst all that chaos.
Of all those involved, not a single person has had the decency to apologize for the heavy words that were thrown around. Quite the opposite, actually. These same people are acting as if they were the ones insulted. I understand that some members here are held in higher regard than others due to their seniority and their contributions to the community, but that is no excuse to turn a blind eye when others are being treated unjustly. I also understand that everyone wants Dervish back—honestly, I want him and everyone else to return too. But I also care about Sunnah and how she feels. Because if I feel this way, I can only imagine what she is going through. I worry about whether she will even continue to write here. It hurts me that she was treated so unfairly, and that everyone is now acting like nothing happened, as if it were trivial or not worth mentioning. But to me, it matters. And I feel the need to say it.
I feel like I need to say this—and honestly, my conscience is really eating at me—because I chose to step away under a voluntary ban. I feel terrible that I didn't step up and offer public support to my sister, Sunnah, regarding everything she’s been going through—especially after she spoke out and I didn't publicly condemn what was written in that thread. I regret that I stuck so strictly to my decision to stay banned instead of breaking it for this. So, through this post, I want to humbly apologize to her. I also want to ask her—if any word I wrote, or even just a single comma I left behind, contributed to her being hurt—please, I beg you, forgive me.

Bradley Davis33 said:I honestly can’t decide if this whole thing is hilarious or just plain sad.
If I say it’s funny, I’ll just get hit with a wave of insults flying everywhere, and then I won’t be smiling anymore.
But if I say it’s sad, I realize all these users actually have the luxury of obsessing over every little thing happening on Reddit with such intense passion... and I should just thank God that I can afford to treat this forum like it's their biggest problem. Like, chill out!

Through all this, I’m still fascinated by the whole pack mentality and the cliques.
Oh, please, I am *not* going to use the term hypocritical mob mentality again, because someone would probably take offense and claim I have bad intentions. Apparently, I'm known for those. ☕

Because my memory is actually pretty sharp, and I remember warning rowdyhawk10 about being biased and non-objective in topics like, say, "Wahhabi Corner." Everyone else just stayed quiet (except maybe Scott Nguyen2, I think), and they were having a blast at the time.
I also remember the insults flying left and right during those Sufi vs. Salafi showdowns. I saw the exact same level of communication from both sides, even though I really expected some decency and gentleness from one group. And back then, nobody complained that the number of bans from the other side was way higher.

So, this current situation has me feeling a bit confused.

Especially when you consider how we even got here in the first place.
It all kicked off once the discussion wrapped up following the official statement from the Islamic Community of America. No, the argument was basically... well, the community can't react any other way; they aren't going to go out and start throwing punches.
Give me a break!
A lot of the blame is being pinned on ruggedwolf. Could ruggedwolf have just debated herself? And did ruggedwolf actually debate herself?
Not saying anything about comments like "half-sibling," "God will humble you more than you already are," or addressing Sunnah with a tone of "I wouldn't want to be in your shoes..." as if any of us care what anyone else is wearing... I don't want to explain why I didn't react to that stuff. It's too depressing.

The moderation is bad. There have always been issues with moderating the Religion section—I've been writing here for four years, so I think I'm qualified to say that.
rowdyhawk10, you are subjective about certain issues, and I suggested a long time ago that you can't participate in certain discussions as both a regular user and a moderator. I even suggested you shouldn't moderate threads where you obviously can't stay objective, but nobody agreed with me back then.
But what "golden age" of moderating Religion are we talking about that makes this current state such a shock?
In my early years on this forum, I read things that were way worse, and they were totally allowed.

This whole forum boycott makes zero sense to me. 😕
I guess I write because it gives me pleasure and because I feel like I have something to say.
Once it stops being fun, I'll stop writing without making a big deal out of it. I won't be sitting around expecting someone to convince me to stay.

Basically, I find it hard to believe we're capable of getting this worked up over forum debates.
It just goes to show how much we all love reading what we write, how convinced we are that our opinions are incredibly important, and how vital, vital, vital we think we are... that we can end up with this kind of mutual hatred just defending our internet arguments.

Look at you being all humble. 😛

Is it okay if I ever mention in real life that we exchanged messages via DM 😍, since you were the one who reached out, just so people know I'm not some total loser?

For what it's worth, I'm not a boycotter either—that's a connection I'm actually proud of.

Peace be upon you.

🙂