[Q] ECKU

[Jolthig]

Not that I wanna intrude in any of you guys' affairs with El-Amin/ECKU, but why did he get DEATed? I know he's started controversy and continued link dumpings as soon as he returned from his three day ban, but I failed to find a specific post explaining why nor a report thread which is surprising and shocking, given the appearance of the early nature of this ban.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

viewtopic.php?p=35915028#p35915028

USS Monitor viewed some of his posts to be trolling.

[Dresderstan]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=35915028#p35915028

USS Monitor viewed some of his posts to be trolling.

That was when his last nation was DEAT'ed, I think he means ECKU, his new nation was DEATed after only a couple of weeks and there was no report/address about it on MOderation, and I have failed to find said red-text from a mod.

[Jolthig]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=35915028#p35915028

USS Monitor viewed some of his posts to be trolling.

That was for El-Amin Caliphate. I'm talking about his latest account. There was no public announcement but he simply disappeared a couple hours ago. It was shocking because of how sudden it was. Of course I wouldn't surprised if he voted DEATed again had it been later but today? Quite surprising

[Farnhamia]

We're off talking about the situation. Please be patient.

[Jolthig]

We're off talking about the situation. Please be patient.

Affirmative.

[Great Algerstonia]

Is there going to be a mod announcement about this situation? Or will this remain classified?

[Farnhamia]

Is there going to be a mod announcement about this situation? Or will this remain classified?

viewtopic.php?p=35958460#p35958460

[Great Algerstonia]

Is there going to be a mod announcement about this situation? Or will this remain classified?

viewtopic.php?p=35958460#p35958460

Thank you for linking that. ill wait.

[ElCKuT]

Hello. This is El-Amin Caliphate/ECKU, now ElCKuT. I'm typing this message to ask a few questions:
1: Why was ECKU deleted without giving any reason? That seems very unjust and I don't see a reason why it's taking so long to answer why a nation was deleted without warning.
2: Is advocating for Shari'ah punishments allowed on NS?

[NERVUN]

Hello. This is El-Amin Caliphate/ECKU, now ElCKuT. I'm typing this message to ask a few questions:
1: Why was ECKU deleted without giving any reason? That seems very unjust and I don't see a reason why it's taking so long to answer why a nation was deleted without warning.
2: Is advocating for Shari'ah punishments allowed on NS?

File a GHR and please stand by. Remember, volunteers scattered around the world meaning it can and does take a whole day to conduct just one round of a discussion sometimes.

[ElCKuT]

Hello. This is El-Amin Caliphate/ECKU, now ElCKuT. I'm typing this message to ask a few questions:
1: Why was ECKU deleted without giving any reason? That seems very unjust and I don't see a reason why it's taking so long to answer why a nation was deleted without warning.
2: Is advocating for Shari'ah punishments allowed on NS?

File a GHR and please stand by. Remember, volunteers scattered around the world meaning it can and does take a whole day to conduct just one round of a discussion sometimes.

I filed a GHR yesterday. But sure thing, thx for the reminder.

[ElCKuT]

Just realized that you didn't answer the second question, NERVUN: is advocating for Shari'ah punishments allowed here?

[Jolthig]

Just realized that you didn't answer the second question, NERVUN: is advocating for Shari'ah punishments allowed here?

I'm not NERVUN, but yes it is okay as long as its within the framework of Islamic schools and books:

viewtopic.php?p=35850763#p35850763

Also making it clear, I believe this is only allowed for IDT only. Everywhere else is banned if I am not mistaken.

[Iciaros]

Just realized that you didn't answer the second question, NERVUN: is advocating for Shari'ah punishments allowed here?

I'm not NERVUN, but yes it is okay as long as its within the framework of Islamic schools and books:

viewtopic.php?p=35850763#p35850763

Having read that specific post, I'm not sure that's what NERVUN is saying. It sounds to me more like describing Islamic (or any) viewpoints is acceptable, but agreeing with - and advocating for - some of those viewpoints could be in breach of the rules, though under what circumstances that could happen was intentionally left unspecified.

Well, that's how it read to me at least. Maybe NERVUN has a different interpretation?

[USS Monitor]

Just realized that you didn't answer the second question, NERVUN: is advocating for Shari'ah punishments allowed here?

I'm not NERVUN, but yes it is okay as long as its within the framework of Islamic schools and books:

viewtopic.php?p=35850763#p35850763

I think Nerv's point there was that that post was just discussing punishments, not advocating them. Discussing Shariah without advocating it is certainly allowed.

Advocating it depends on how offensive the specific punishment is to secular people or followers of other faiths. There's no blanket ban on advocating things derived from Shariah, but there's no free pass that says it's always allowed either. NS rules are not based on Islamic sources, so "Is it Shariah law?" is not something we need to ask ourselves when we're deciding if something is actionable.

Also making it clear, I believe this is only allowed for IDT only. Everywhere else is banned if I am not mistaken.

If it's trolling outside the IDT, it's still trolling when you do it in IDT. The only reason why something might be more acceptable in IDT, but not elsewhere, is if the discussion gets detailed and you want to avoid threadjacking.

[Jolthig]

I'm not NERVUN, but yes it is okay as long as its within the framework of Islamic schools and books:

viewtopic.php?p=35850763#p35850763

I think Nerv's point there was that that post was just discussing punishments, not advocating them. Discussing Shariah without advocating it is certainly allowed.

Advocating it depends on how offensive the specific punishment is to secular people or followers of other faiths. There's no blanket ban on advocating things derived from Shariah, but there's no free pass that says it's always allowed either. NS rules are not based on Islamic sources, so "Is it Shariah law?" is not something we need to ask ourselves when we're deciding if something is actionable.

Also making it clear, I believe this is only allowed for IDT only. Everywhere else is banned if I am not mistaken.

If it's trolling outside the IDT, it's still trolling when you do it in IDT. The only reason why something might be more acceptable in IDT, but not elsewhere, is if the discussion gets detailed and you want to avoid threadjacking.

Thanks for clearing this up!

[ElCKuT]

I'm not NERVUN, but yes it is okay as long as its within the framework of Islamic schools and books:

viewtopic.php?p=35850763#p35850763

I think Nerv's point there was that that post was just discussing punishments, not advocating them. Discussing Shariah without advocating it is certainly allowed.

Advocating it depends on how offensive the specific punishment is to secular people or followers of other faiths. There's no blanket ban on advocating things derived from Shariah, but there's no free pass that says it's always allowed either. NS rules are not based on Islamic sources, so "Is it Shariah law?" is not something we need to ask ourselves when we're deciding if something is actionable.

Also making it clear, I believe this is only allowed for IDT only. Everywhere else is banned if I am not mistaken.

If it's trolling outside the IDT, it's still trolling when you do it in IDT. The only reason why something might be more acceptable in IDT, but not elsewhere, is if the discussion gets detailed and you want to avoid threadjacking.

In that case what happened from here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=464493&start=9375 to here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=464493&start=9475 is against site rules correct? "Advocating violence against groups of people" is against site rules, and adulterers are a group of people. Also your reasoning is flawed. Since when did we have to watch out for the feelings of other posters? Ethnonationalists speed racist bs and don't get banned because they stay just inside the rules. Atheists and other irreligious groups slander and insult the religion religious people might adhere to, which btw does offend religious groups. Yet ethnonats and religion slanderers are not banned nor warned. Also, if advocating violence against groups of people is against site rules, why are we allowed to advocate for warfare?

[The Archregimancy]

Just realized that you didn't answer the second question, NERVUN: is advocating for Shari'ah punishments allowed here?

You know as well as we do that Sharia law covers a wide variety of different interpretations. Regardless of what you might personally advocate, there is no single 'correct' interpretation of Sharia law. As such, we can't possibly give you a blanket answer to that question. It will depend on the context of the particular variety of Sharia law that you personally choose to advocate.


Unless, of course, you mean شارِعِ law rather than شريعة law. I see nothing absolutely wrong with advocating for improved street laws.

[ElCKuT]

Just realized that you didn't answer the second question, NERVUN: is advocating for Shari'ah punishments allowed here?

You know as well as we do that Sharia law covers a wide variety of different interpretations. Regardless of what you might personally advocate, there is no single 'correct' interpretation of Sharia law. As such, we can't possibly give you a blanket answer to that question. It will depend on the context of the particular variety of Sharia law that you personally choose to advocate.

I'm talking about what's in the Holy Qur'an like 100 lashes for illegal sexual intercourse or 80 lashes for lying about someone committing said act. Cutting of the hand of a thief, execution or exile for spreading corruption. Or in the Sunnah, like lashing for drunkenness and many more. Are these things we Muslims are allowed to support and advocate for on this website?

Unless, of course, you mean شارِعِ law rather than شريعة law. I see nothing absolutely wrong with advocating for improved street laws.

I mean the latter. Afaik/iirc both refer to Islamic Law in terms of Islamic terminology.

[Free Arabian Nation]

I mean the latter. Afaik/iirc both refer to Islamic Law in terms of Islamic terminology.

Nooooooooooooooooo, not at allll

The former is, quite literally, "Street Law"

Now please stop using Arabic like a weeb, on behalf of all Arabs

[Fartsniffage]

Just realized that you didn't answer the second question, NERVUN: is advocating for Shari'ah punishments allowed here?

You know as well as we do that Sharia law covers a wide variety of different interpretations. Regardless of what you might personally advocate, there is no single 'correct' interpretation of Sharia law. As such, we can't possibly give you a blanket answer to that question. It will depend on the context of the particular variety of Sharia law that you personally choose to advocate.


Unless, of course, you mean شارِعِ law rather than شريعة law. I see nothing absolutely wrong with advocating for improved street laws.

When the Arch shows up and slaps down the knowledge......

Please be more in the British politics thread Arch. We miss you and your insane amount of knowledge....

[NERVUN]

I'm not going to answer a hypothetical. Again, it comes down to the post, how it's being presented, and the like.

[ElCKuT]

Now please stop using Arabic like a weeb, on behalf of all Arabs

This has already been ruled as flaming

[Inhorto]

Unless, of course, you mean شارِعِ law rather than شريعة law. I see nothing absolutely wrong with advocating for improved street laws.

Not to defend ECKU, but I think this jab is unfounded and Arch is wrong. Shari'ah, albeit unstandard, is actually a more accurate romanization of شريعة (the most accurate being šarīʿa, but I digress). A romanization of شَارِع would probably be shari' (more accurately šāriʿ). Also, Arch's ḥarakāt (the diacritics on the Arabic abjad) are incorrect; شَارِعِ (šāriʿi) means "of [the] street" (it is the genitive construct form), and شَارِع is correct.

Further edit: ECKU is also not wrong when he says the terms are related; شَارِع and شريعة are related to the root Š-R-ʿ, meaning having to do with a road or way.