Recently some of my answers are getting deleted by system for being spam or offensive. get deleted automatically.

One example is this answer:


My answer to this question is based on Shia view and is a valid shia view without any insult or disrespect to any sect. I wonder how it can be spam or offensive.

In Shia view this question asks about conflict of a non-Sahih and partial narrated version of a hadith with Qura.

The question has the basic problem in its assumptions. my answers in fact shows the hadith basically has problem and so complete version of hadith has no conflict with Quran.

Why a hadith that is not complete and has problem should be assumed true and then we try to resolve its conflict with Quran?

  • @BleedingFingers if it is right may God guide me. and if it is accuse may God guide you. Commented May 20, 2014 at 12:59

2 Answers 2


Spam has nothing to do with containing "any insult or disrespect", it's pretty much by definition an unsolicited advertisement. Flagging your post as spam is a tricky judgement call (I'm not the one who flagged it, by the way), but it seems justified since it appears you're using your answer more as a medium to advertise Shi'ite beliefs than to actually answer the question.

Promoting a "product" (in this case your beliefs) is of course acceptable on Stack Exchange, but users who appear to use answers as an excuse to shill their product with no attempt to establish relevance get flagged as spam. This may result in false flags (any activity does, really) but the onus, as always, is on the poster to demonstrate that that promotion is actually relevant.

In the case of your answer, I don't think there's any doubt regarding the fact that you're promoting a Shi'ite perspective (you claim as much in your first line). So the question simply becomes: Are these promoted Shi'ite perspectives relevant?

You start by stating the Shi'ite opinion that no book of hadith is considered 100% authentic. Is this relevant? I can't see how; just because OP quoted a hadith and cited two references which were transmitted through Muslim and Bukhari, he never once made the claim that these two books are 100% authentic. Heck, he doesn't even make the claim that the two hadith themselves are authentic, he merely referenced them.

Sure, the authenticity of Bukhari and Muslim is a common Sunni belief, but it's not really relevant here since the question doesn't ask about the rest of the books. The only thing that really matters is "Are either of these two transmissions authentic?" Your claim against the books does absolutely nothing to either support or refute that.

Secondly, you bring up a Shi'a hadith with added context. This is the start of a good (some could say great) answer since you claim it establishes the context that the hadith in question was a precursor to the Battle of Khaybar. However, you don't emphasize that fact, instead you emphasize regarding the added context that "that part is about virtues of Imam Ali…".

The hadith (at least the translation) doesn't even so much as mention the Battle of Khaybar, which was the only important aspect of this included context. It does allude to being about a battle (rather than a general command as the shorter version of the hadith would suggest), but it doesn't establish which so it's still not clear why bringing up the "virtues of Imam Ali a.s. at Battle of Khaybar" itself was important.

Thirdly, you then go into a lengthy paragraph refuting Abu Hurayrah's reliability as a narrator. Again, a common Shi'ite belief, but again, how relevant is it? Of the two narrations OP cited for the hadith — not to mention the citation you included in your own comment on OP — only one was narrated through Abu Hurayrah. Your case does absolutely nothing to disestablish the narration through Anas ibn Malik, nor the narration through Ibn Umar, nor any number of other narrations of the same event.

It does, however, effectively disestablish the very narration you had just quoted, which was narrated through Abu Hurayrah. Which brings up the question of why you even bothered mentioning it in the first place.

Finally, we get to your conclusion, where you just go ahead and assume that the hadith was sahih anyway. Unless "sahih" means something completely different in Ja'fari fiqh than it does in any hadith sciences I've ever learned, assuming that a hadith is sahih after effectively proving that it was narrated through an unreliable source is incredibly irresponsible, not to mention absolutely useless. Your conclusion is based on "the complete version of the hadith" (which you had just finished proving was a weak hadith) which demonstrated that the incident in question took place during the Battle of Khaybar (a fact which you claimed but failed to actually establish).

So given that absolutely everything up to the conclusion does nothing to actually support the conclusion, the question is, why did you even include it? And then there's the open question of whether this conclusion even answered the actual question, which is to say reconciling the hadith with the Qur'an; even if the incident in question actually was specifically regarding the Jews of Khaybar, the overall question of how to reconcile that command with the Qur'anic ayah against compulsion remains.

I can easily get behind it being flagged as spam, as it strongly promotes your beliefs without actually establishing any relevance whatsoever. Either way, I would've deleted the post: Even without determining it to be blatant self-promotion, it's still completely useless as an answer.

  • I think there is some misunderstandings in this post. I said about 100% to the answer not be offensive to sunni brothers. not for advertise. previously I had bad experiences whey saying a hadith of Bukhari is not authentic. yes OP did not claim it is authentic but Bukhari is considered all authentic by sunni Muslims by default. I said non-sahih about the shia version. not the sunni version necessarily. also a non-Sahih does not mean weak. it can be still strong or reliable for other reasons. Sahih in shia is like sunni but has an extra term.is there any problem in writing you have not learned? Commented May 20, 2014 at 3:51
  • about some parts of your post I agree and Insha Allah improve it. for example showing how it is about the Battle of Khaybar. but you should not interpret parts about shia as ads before you ensure it. when the majority of a site are sunni and are ready to flag the answer there are some extra introductory explanations needed to they not get offended by answers against their beliefs. this site has many posts advertising sunni beliefs but they are not deleted like this one. I do not accuse them for spam and I assume they are needed for their post unless I be sure they are only ads. Commented May 20, 2014 at 3:57
  • Thanks, your post include useful information for improving my answer. but it can not be edited because system deleted it as spam. reading your link I see my answer was not spam or unsolicited advertisement. because spam is sent at form of bulk messages. Commented May 20, 2014 at 5:39
  • 2
    There is no misunderstanding. By that definition of yours al the post on Islam could then be counted as offensive to people of (non)religion X but they are not. Then write another one. Do not copy-paste. And @goldPseudo accurately analysed. Kudos. Commented May 20, 2014 at 14:12
  • Any hint the spam/offensive flag is being ab/misused? I recently came across a few which were marked such but really weren't, although they were poor answers or not even answers. Commented May 20, 2014 at 17:40
  • @BleedingFingers I don't see anything overtly suspicious (some cases are a bit borderline) in the recent deletion activity; if you can point out specific posts on which it seems suspicious (either via moderator flag or meta discussion) they can be investigated.
    – goldPseudo Mod
    Commented May 20, 2014 at 18:01

I don't think it's a spam. But I know for sure it doesn't answer the question and hence the appropriate deletion.

The question is ask how can the apparent contradiction between the Quranic verse and hadith be reconciled. That answer actually shows no attempt on doing anything in that regards. Instead it's trying explain the hadith and narrate the complete version of it (in accordance with a particular interpretation) which could have been important for the reconciliation but the point of doing that was not proven.

Please understand the nuance of the questions. If in doubt whether you completely understand the question ask the user for clarification. Go to the site's main chat room and seek explanation. Somebody will surely (observational) try to help you out. You are in no manner obligated to answer the question.

We'd rather have a completely unanswered question (goldPseudo once said in the chat room can't find it though) rather then have a poorly answered one.

  • how mentioning the complete version can answer the question? also if the hadith is not Sahih in shia view so it is a valid shia answer to say it is not a Sahih hadith. anyway it is a shia view answer that answers the question but in a valid shia view. Commented May 19, 2014 at 18:18
  • @BattleofKarbala Please carefully read the answer again. Understand it. Commented May 19, 2014 at 18:20
  • I read have your answer more than one and understand it. also I understand the related question. when some one asks about conflict of a non-Sahih and partial narrated of a hadith with Quran what can be the answer? the question has the basic problem in its assumptions. my answers in fact shows the hadith basically has problem and so complete version of hadith has no conflict with Quran. why a hadith that is not complete and has problem should be assumed true and then we try to resolve its conflict with Quran? Commented May 19, 2014 at 18:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .