NationStates

Over the past several months, El Amin Caliphate has repeatedly advocated slavery and domestic violence:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Wife 'Beating' in Al-Islam:
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem. ... e=34&to=42
https://www.al-islam.org/hidden-truths- ... raba-quran
http://www.nour-dv.org.uk/tafseer-surah ... e-beating/
A visual example of what is meant by "light tapping/patting": https://youtu.be/DIH5p60T6aE (watch 0:35 - 0:53)

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=441628&p=34993118&hilit=beating#p34993118

viewtopic.php?p=34993094#p34993094 <___ Advocating marital rape:

El Amin Caliphate wrote:She can decline sex. As long as the husband doesn't get mad.
Regardless that doesn't answer that question.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Zizou wrote:Allah (SWT)'s law is superior, yes, but it's pretty clear that Allah (SWT) wanted slaves to be set free, and now that slavery has been banned worldwide, there's no reason to continue the practice.

I kinda agree with you that Allah SWT wanted slaves to be set free, but I think it'd be more accurate to say that Allah SWT wanted slaves to be treated better. Because if He wanted them to be set free He'd've said so. As for there being no reason to continue Islamic slavery, well that's not true. In Al-Islam we can enslave POWs, so that would be a reason to continue Islamic slavery if the Islamic nation decides not to ransom them.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Grenartia wrote:My claim wasn't that it didn't exist in any strain of Islam, my claim is that it doesn't exist in any truly civilized strain of Islam.

Then your claim doesn't make sense. Polygyny and slavery are literally in the Holy Qur'an, the only "strain of Islam" that wouldn't believe that literally wouldn't even be Islam in the 1st place. And you using "civilised" is a buzzword anyway. Every advanced human interaction is civilization, hence "civilised". Just because you don't like it doesn't make it uncivilized.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=441628&p=34434491&hilit=beating#p34434491 <____ Saying that as long as there are no marks, it's not domestic abuse:



viewtopic.php?f=20&t=441628&p=34712661#p34712661 <_____ Saying that whether beating your wife is okay depends on how hard you are beating her

He also clearly means that it doesn't matter whether it's illegal or not:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Also this confuses me. I thought Western Muslims were supposed to be steadfastly refusing to change their beliefs to fit cultural norms and that is what made them bad.

Correct, we're supposed to be that way. Unfortunately the kufr (disbelief) and DHulm (wrongdoing) of society changed a good amount of us.

Now the "makes us bad" is just a satanic opinion we (at least I) don't care about.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
What elected office does not entail making policy or law?

Department of education, department of environment, etc.

San Lumen wrote:The US isnt a country where one can implement laws from the Quran. The state constitution is supreme in the state and the US constitution is supreme law of the land.

Hence why Muslims shouldn't be in kufr offices.

San Lumen wrote:I welcome Muslims in public office. Its about time they had more representation in government. To be perfectly clear i dont care what someone's religion, race or ethnic background is when running for office . If they are best for the job they ought to get the nomination and win the general election.

False. What's halal is halal and what's haram is haram. Ruling by kufr and not Al-Islam is haram and should be stopped.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Zizou wrote:Alhamdulillah brother, that was a pleasure to read


Considering slavery was discouraged to begin with, and is now pretty much banned worldwide, this is somewhat irrelevant, although it does contain some information on sexual relations between husband and wife.

Yes, slavery is discouraged in Al-Islam, it's not banned tho. As for it being banned worldwide, I do not hate what daarul-kufr enacts as law, Allah's SWT Law is superior.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Baltenstein wrote:
Pretty sure that you'd get legally prosecuted in the US too if you were to, say, whip or stone someone because Shariah Law (or at least your intepretation of it) says so.

Not if you don't get caught. Also stoning isn't part of Shari'ah.

Complaint noted, I have a feeling this will need discussion. Please standby...

2 lies and 1 half truth:
Never advocated for domestic violence nor marital rape - or any kind of rape for that matter. And I support Islamic slavery, not just slavery.

I like how you don't quote my posts saying that husbands can't force themselves on their wives. Selective much?
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=441628&p=34722482&hilit=Rape+their+wives#p34722482
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=451078&p=34760759&hilit=Rape+their+wives#p34760759 ("Nor can the husband force himself on her either")
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=441628&p=35484521&hilit=Rape+their+wives#p35484521 ("And no, husbands can't rape their wives.")
Like good gosh. Just because you don't like me supporting my religion (or if you don't like me at all) doesn't mean you have to lie about me.

It's being discussed. Please be patient.

Can we get an update after 6 days?

It is still under discussion. Please Stand By.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Can we get an update after 6 days?

Please remember we are an international group of volunteers in different time zones. That logistic makes it difficult to have full on conversations because you have to wait to get a response to your own comments.

Can we get any updates? It seems like it shouldn't take 12 days for a mod team to decide whether domestic violence and slavery is the kind of thing they want advocated on the site.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Can we get any updates? It seems like it shouldn't take 12 days for a mod team to decide whether domestic violence and slavery is the kind of thing they want advocated on the site.

It takes as long as it takes.

A couple of things to note:

"Stuff the entire mod team agrees is wrong" is not the same thing as "stuff the entire mod team agrees is actionable."

And when we have a team discussion, we don't just need a consensus on whether something is actionable or not. We also need a consensus on what the appropriate action is.

So please be patient.

USS Monitor wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Can we get any updates? It seems like it shouldn't take 12 days for a mod team to decide whether domestic violence and slavery is the kind of thing they want advocated on the site.

It takes as long as it takes.

A couple of things to note:

"Stuff the entire mod team agrees is wrong" is not the same thing as "stuff the entire mod team agrees is actionable."

And when we have a team discussion, we don't just need a consensus on whether something is actionable or not. We also need a consensus on what the appropriate action is.

So please be patient.

Out of curiosity, are Max and [v] involved in this discussion?

Ever since my initial report,—which given the thread was locked, and this is a follow-on from the same issue, I will post here—El-Amin Caliphate has begun to use the word 'kufr' with a greater degree of frequency and with a certain derogatory sense (not all examples here are actionable but serve to provide context).

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Duhon wrote:
Nonsense: for one thing, "our values" were formulated recently, especially those against LGBT discrimination: even two decades ago, you'd still see significant challenge against accepting women and LGBTs in the military, for instance. We're not that far removed in time from where most Muslim jurisprudence is now, and we still wouldn't be if not for increasing secularism and emphasis on universaling principles like human rights.

It "our values" are capable of reform, then so can Islam.

Please keep your kufr to yourselves.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=35510556#p35510556

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=35530956#p35530956

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket wrote:The great struggle we approach is not between capital and labor, but between Islam and the forces of sissification

It's a lot of thing depending on who you're talking about. But in our case, it's the long battle of Islaam vs kufr, not sissification.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket wrote:Pretty sure you have to keep faith with them too, Muhammed did. He only violated treaties if the other side did first.

That's what I'm asking about. If the kufr side starts enslaving our brothers and sisters 1st then do we have the right to return the favor? Then again I think it'd be more important to liberate our brothers and sisters than enslave POWs.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:The same reason he'd show loyalty to any law of the nation he's living in, I presume. Civic courtesy.

Civic courtesy gets thrown out the window when the kufr state steps on my Muslim toes.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Zizou wrote:I mean, there are other reasons that theocracy isn't a good form of government.

There's also a reason why Al-Islam speaks against having government rule by kufr instead of ruling by Al-Islam.

The additional reported posts will be considered as context, and I would encourage Amin to see if he can rediscover his "civic courtesy," but they're not actionable separately from the larger discussion that's going on.

Amin, the fact that there is a larger discussion should be a clue to chill out.

USS Monitor wrote:The additional reported posts will be considered as context, and I would encourage Amin to see if he can rediscover his "civic courtesy," but they're not actionable separately from the larger discussion that's going on.

Also "kufr" isn't a derogatory word. It means "disbelief". By extension, "kaafir" also isn't a derogatory word. It means "disbeliever". So the mods should really review their ruling on that.

USS Monitor wrote:Amin, the fact that there is a larger discussion should be a clue to chill out.

So does that mean that I can't/shouldn't talk about Islamic slavery and what surah 4:34 means as often as I did?

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:The additional reported posts will be considered as context, and I would encourage Amin to see if he can rediscover his "civic courtesy," but they're not actionable separately from the larger discussion that's going on.

Also "kufr" isn't a derogatory word. It means "disbelief". By extension, "kaafir" also isn't a derogatory word. It means "disbeliever". So the mods should really review their ruling on that.

We previously decided that kufr isn't actionable because it deals with the idea rather than the people, but kafir is. I don't think we're going to reverse course on the kafir thing.

USS Monitor wrote:Amin, the fact that there is a larger discussion should be a clue to chill out.

So does that mean that I can't/shouldn't talk about Islamic slavery and what surah 4:34 means as often as I did?

In a word, yes.

USS Monitor wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Also "kufr" isn't a derogatory word. It means "disbelief". By extension, "kaafir" also isn't a derogatory word. It means "disbeliever". So the mods should really review their ruling on that.

We previously decided that kufr isn't actionable because it deals with the idea rather than the people, but kafir is. I don't think we're going to reverse course on the kafir thing.

So does that mean that I can't/shouldn't talk about Islamic slavery and what surah 4:34 means as often as I did?

In a word, yes.

So....does this mean that the mods have reached a final verdict of "stop talking about it so much"? Or are y'all still discussing?

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:
We previously decided that kufr isn't actionable because it deals with the idea rather than the people, but kafir is. I don't think we're going to reverse course on the kafir thing.



In a word, yes.

So....does this mean that the mods have reached a final verdict of "stop talking about it so much"? Or are y'all still discussing?

We're still discussing, but not talking about it so much would definitely help your cause.

USS Monitor wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:So....does this mean that the mods have reached a final verdict of "stop talking about it so much"? Or are y'all still discussing?

We're still discussing, but not talking about it so much would definitely help your cause.

Ok.

There's no way you guys are still discussing this after 17 days. No other rulebreaking behavior would take 17 days to decide on.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:There's no way you guys are still discussing this after 17 days. No other rulebreaking behavior would take 17 days to decide on.

We are indeed still discussing this after 17 days. This process will take as long as it takes. No more, no less.

Lamoni wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:There's no way you guys are still discussing this after 17 days. No other rulebreaking behavior would take 17 days to decide on.

We are indeed still discussing this after 17 days. This process will take as long as it takes. No more, no less.

I don't quite get how advocating rape can be such a tricky issue that it takes 17 days to decide if it's actionable or not.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Lamoni wrote:
We are indeed still discussing this after 17 days. This process will take as long as it takes. No more, no less.

I don't quite get how advocating rape can be such a tricky issue that it takes 17 days to decide if it's actionable or not.

Yeah true.

Just to add more evidence to this conversation... I had a small interaction with the individual under review back in December in which he said as is shown in the screenshot



link to the page itself: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=441628&start=8800

While not in direct support of slavery, it does have a slightly deeper meaning with the context of the other evidence included

Also guys, dont spam moderation with your opinions and agreement... these guys work hard to try to make fair rulings and we really shouldnt post anything here unless you have something that may help in the ruling by the moderation team, thanks

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Lamoni wrote:
We are indeed still discussing this after 17 days. This process will take as long as it takes. No more, no less.

I don't quite get how advocating rape can be such a tricky issue that it takes 17 days to decide if it's actionable or not.

Because I didn't advocate rape.

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote:Just to add more evidence to this conversation... I had a small interaction with the individual under review back in December in which he said as is shown in the screenshot

(Image)

link to the page itself: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=441628&start=8800

While not in direct support of slavery, it does have a slightly deeper meaning with the context of the other evidence included

Also guys, dont spam moderation with your opinions and agreement... these guys work hard to try to make fair rulings and we really shouldnt post anything here unless you have something that may help in the ruling by the moderation team, thanks

Expressing views isn't actionable. I've seen worse stuff expressed here.