In response to this question which asked "Is kingdom of Saudi Arabia Islamic" I wrote an answer arguing that if a government is found to be working with enemies of the Muslim Ummah, then it can't not be considered Islamic. Then I provided a factual story in regards with the KSA. The answer initially received 4 upvotes, but two users responded negatively one by calling it "a conspiracy theory" and the other calling it 'inflammatory'. The former prompted me to provide some documentary sources for my story. But I really couldn't conceive of a viable objective reason for why it was deemed as inflammatory. But then the whole answer was deleted for being 'offensive'.

Based on the comments I received, it seems that the users that might have probably flagged the answer as offensive, have not ever been a member of Islam.SE prior to their dissident comments on my answer. They have reputations of 101 with zero contributions to Islam.SE in the past whatsoever! So that means that an answer on Islam has been deleted in response to charges from users who have even no demonstrated interest in Islam for their charge to be even recognized as having any weight in regards with a specialized answer that belongs to our community.

Now with that said, the general question is: can arguing against Islamic virtues of a government by citing facts be ever considered offensive, rude or anything along those lines? Especially when the charge is quite subjective and moreover leveled mainly by those with no credible interest in/understanding of Islam?

If anyone was to be offended it was me because I was accused of offense for writing factually on an Islamic topic and that is the practice that should be even welcome and promoted by SE model not suppressed on subjective non-factual grounds.

  • 1
    It's enough to put certain words in a post to make it offensive toward certain people, no matter what is the original goal of the post.
    – Shadow Wizard
    Jun 26 '14 at 15:38

I happened to know the answer you speak of since I was one the of people who commented to say that it wasn't very high quality for SE.

I don't think the post was offensive but more that it was not that factual to what scholars/academics require of an answer.

You are in the unfortunate position that SE attracts a lot of people who will quickly and swiftly start an argument about anything even close to non-factual, especially if the link that is later posted to source information is, in itself, dodgy.

I do not doubt that Saudi Arabia has serious problems (Syria, Libya, etc etc) in its leadership and I have no doubt you know what your on about but your answer spoke a lot of flame and not a lot of references to back that flaming.

In many countries, including the UK and US it is in fact illegal to do that and you can be sued for Libel damages if it turns out there is even one piece of misleading or false information in your answer; of course this law is rarely implemented, save for celebrities vs. newspapers.


As to having no contributions: I am not a new user to SE sites, I just spend most of my time on Stackoverflow.

SE sites, all of them, follow the same base set of rules, and referencing comes under those rules; just as link rot does.

  • Thank you for your reply. I actually regret having not provided the references in my first post. That would have prevented the non-factuality charge. But by "dodgy" are you suggesting that some of the links don't work?! All the links work for me and I actually could open them all before posting them in my answer.
    – infatuated
    Jun 30 '14 at 10:29
  • @infatuated I remember only one link before your answer was deleted and, if my mind will serve me, that link in itself had references which could be questioned. This is the problem with answering these types of questions, unless you use news stories and actual recordings of events it is very hard to give authority
    – Sammaye
    Jun 30 '14 at 10:32
  • Thank you! You might want to check whether you can open global research home page at all. And yes, I agree about the problem you're referring to. I could've searched for original sources, if I knew it could be so strictly challenged. A lesson learned!
    – infatuated
    Jun 30 '14 at 10:35
  • Also let me remind that one of the links referenced a book, two of them GR articles.
    – infatuated
    Jun 30 '14 at 10:38
  • @infatuated Unfortunately, due to the complications of weekend life in the UK, I actually cannot respond to the references I browsed within the link supplied, but I would have been sure then that there was still some questions, but I do remember that when I commented there were no links originally, that's one of the main things, and that is where 90% of your delete votes would have come from
    – Sammaye
    Jun 30 '14 at 10:42
  • Yeah, I agree that the negative reception could've been avoided if i had introduced the links in the first place. Thank you for your answer, and have a nice weekend!
    – infatuated
    Jun 30 '14 at 10:50
  • The US has very strong freedom of speech laws, I haven't heard of any libel case in US, you can say almost anything without any legal lawsuit, and the US laws are the only ones that matter for the site as SE is located there. The UK laws are irrelevant, SE is not located there.
    – Kaveh
    Jul 7 '14 at 6:47
  • @Kaveh actually no, the internet is a grey area and comes under the laws of the respective country in which content is viewed. For example if infaturated wanted to sue you for a law in Iran for something you have done on here then they technically could within their own courts, I am unsure as the agreements between US and Iran since Iran agreed to lower its nuclear program but legal co-operation could be within that
    – Sammaye
    Jul 7 '14 at 7:01
  • @Kaveh and also USA does have a defamination law: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law I strongly recommend you get to know it since you currently, so it appears, do not.
    – Sammaye
    Jul 7 '14 at 7:03
  • @Kaveh another example of the internet grey area problem is that fact that Facebook must abide by UK/Saudi/Russian/etc laws as well as US laws on content and what it can show in respective countries. You will find that facebook prohibits content in certain countries due to their own personal laws.
    – Sammaye
    Jul 7 '14 at 7:07
  • I don't have time to argue over this with you, I would suggest that you read the Wikipedia article you linked above in place of posting opinions about matters you don't seem to be knowledgeable about. People live in different countries which have different laws, it is their personal problem to flow the laws of the country of their residence, not the site's.
    – Kaveh
    Jul 7 '14 at 7:18
  • @Kaveh I did read it and it states that defmination laws exist and some states go as far as to criminalise them. It does state that the US allows only courts in the publishing country unlike the EU which allows libel courts in any viewing country however, contrary to what you said the US has libel courts and defamination laws.
    – Sammaye
    Jul 7 '14 at 7:24
  • @Kaveh I am guessing that is why recently Google has been removing US links that breach the EU privacy act on their main database...
    – Sammaye
    Jul 7 '14 at 7:25
  • You haven't read the article, otherwise you would have learned that simply expressing opinions will not be a case for libel even if the opinions are completely false, unlike what you wrote in your answer. Sorry to say this but you are expressing opinions on a matters you are not knowledgeable about, and I am not interested in arguing with you, so please stop pinging me.
    – Kaveh
    Jul 7 '14 at 7:36
  • @Kaveh I have only used references and actual events to backup what I say, you have just said things and assumed I should, without reason or question, believe them. Unfortunately for your defamination to my own knowledge without reason or proof of truth you live in a commonwealth country, not the USA
    – Sammaye
    Jul 7 '14 at 7:42

If you check many Islamic forums like me, any answer or statement that has the word "wahabi" or criticize Saudi Arabia gets upvoted easily. This is clear from the question linked in your post (6 upvotes) and you stating that your answer had 4 upvotes before deletion. So I'm really sorry to say that the upvotes don't really mean anything.

I can't see the deleted answer of yours. But I want you to put yourself in the shoes of the person who flagged your answer. Would you be offended if someone has asked "is the government of Iran is considered Islamic or not ?"

I can easily write a full page answer that shows the government of Iran is considered a kafir government (war against Iraq, Helping Shia militias kill sunnis in Iraq, Providing weapons and money to Bashar to kill sunnis in Syria, and so much more). What if I told you that with the facts that I have here, Khomeni (founder of the government of Islamic republic of Iran) is considered kafir too. (unlawful sexual acts, killing sunnis in Iran,etc..) Thus, The Islamic revolution is actually a kafir revolution.

Yes, I know you disagree and you even have your own proofs which show the opposite. But this exactly why your answer needs to be removed. Such answers won't contribute anything to this site except partisan upvoting and more inflammatory posts. Not to mention, some of the facts are considered off-topic here.

Other than that, your post above shows you didn't actually answer OP's question. OP is asking if pointing a leader before death is considered Islamic or not.

PS: Any views or opinions presented in this answer do not necessarily represent me. I'm just giving an example of what would happen if we start accepting such answers.

  • Sohaeb, in my answer I provided a story and backed it up with documentary evidences from various sources. And unlike you I focused only on one issue. But I understand that politics can be very controversial and open-ended. But we still have politics.SE where we can postulate and examine different allegations separately. Plus, my protest was against calling my answer "offensive", simply for describing facts of Saudi relationships with American ruling elite which is no secret and nothing strange.
    – infatuated
    Jun 28 '14 at 6:10
  • but as for your allegations against Iran, well, I'm really not offended by them despite the fact you didn't provide any evidences (but then again I understand you didn't mean to prove anything). And I'm already aware of elements of anti-Iranian propaganda some of which are utterly false and nonsense (such as @UmarAdeel's accusation of idolatry which reflects his pure ignorance about the reality), and some are half-truths but judged purely like exaggerated or misinterpreted. But they all can be taken care of in politics.SE where everyone can present its evidences and proofs.
    – infatuated
    Jun 28 '14 at 6:16
  • 1
    You don't need to give examples. By those statements you are doing exactly what you say we should avoid. The postscript does not make it less controversial or problematic.
    – Kaveh
    Jul 7 '14 at 6:44

I don't think it even reaches to the point of the contents of your answer. As explained in the what is on topic page, politics of Muslim majority countries are off-topic on this site. Keep in mind being off-topic on this site does not mean it is not related to Islam or one cannot post answers based on Islamic sources, it means they are off-topic for this particular Q&A site because they create problems.

  • 1
    My question was whether it was offensive!
    – infatuated
    Jul 7 '14 at 7:43

You answers touched peoples heart initially because it was mostly against US and the West. It did not really answer the question itself. It pretty much put the filth on USA, Saudi Arabia and the West which really the question did not ask for.

  • The question is about appointing a successor in advance in an Islamic state. Your answer did not address that part.
  • The question is about kingdom itself (appointing a successor in one's own family only). Your answer did not address that part.

What your answer contains is historical facts (without any proof of course) how Saudi is collaborating with USA and the West and therefore it cannot be Islamic state. That is subjective opinion. I am not saying what you are saying is wrong but the question is not asking for that opinion. It is asking for an answer in the light of Quran and Hadith, what we know from Prophet Muhammad in the matter of selecting a new ruler. Digressing from the question and presenting your own views is not encouraged on stack exchange sites.

  • I agree. However I provided strong evidences for my view. My answer directed the title question, however, I admit that the body question must be taken into account when answering questions.
    – infatuated
    Jul 7 '14 at 11:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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