I recently wrote an answer on an important theological question. I presented a Sufi/Shia view while concluding with a jab at a serious flaw in Salafi/Wahhabi theology that has been the basis of inordinate secterian violence against Shias, Sufis and even non-conforming Sunnis. But within five minutes of posting my answer, goldPseudo suddenly jumped out and deleted my answer based on the charge that it was "rude" and "attacked" the Salafis. Here's may concluding remark that provoked his decision:

But sadly nowhere you find any recognition of such brilliant wisdom outsidee the Shia and Sufi world which is a pitty because the prevelant political biases and sterile theologies of Salafi literalists have kept the Muslim world in the dark about these most profound realities of their faith and have instead ravaged the Muslim world by a Wahhabi misguided obsession to chase out and cleanse all the "mushriks" from the face of the Earth!

First of all, calling Salafi theology "sterlie" was closely backed up by the previous two paragraphs in which I explained how the other alternative theological positions undermine the very basis of faith and religion by making them null and void.

As for my supposedly so outragous statement "Wahhabi/Salafi obsession to cleane the Shia and Sufi 'mushriks' from the Muslim world" it happens to be a matter of public record and an evident truth among all scholars of international relations and Mid-Eastern politics, because virtually all internationally-designated terrorist groups with a history of violence against Shias and Sufis belong to the Salafi and Wahhabi school. Yet, pointing out this obvious indisputable fact even implicitly and even within a scholarly context of the theological roots of this historical abomination by Salafis, is considered "rude" and "attack" by goldPseudo! The irony with associating the word "attack" with me here is quite interesting because we Shias have been the biggest group to suffer en masse as a result of "attacks" by Salafi armed groups for our supposed "shirk" and "mischivious influence" in the Muslim world!

The question is why an ideology that has almost become sysnomous with bigotry and terrorism in the international media must be protected from even mild criticism on a platform like SE? Is this is a Salafi website where you protect this ideology from frank criticism?

  • 3
    The stack exchange format is not aimed at debating and critiquing. It's for presenting unbiased objective facts. Anytime you have to phrase something as "with a jab", or try to justify attacks like calling something "sterile", you have over stepped the mark. Commented Jul 14, 2020 at 22:03
  • @Pureferret, First you have to note that when it comes to religions we seek less "objective" facts than opinions emerging from reasoned analysis of scriptures and theological positions. Second, my jab emerged from a comparative consideration in a such reasoned analysis. It was directed at an ideology of almost each and every terrorist or extremist group, from the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to ISIS and al-Nusra. To say people have to speak nicely about errors of such an ideological abomination is comparable to expecting people to talk nicely about Nazism as both ideologies have genocidal doctrines.
    – infatuated
    Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 3:59
  • ... or doctrines that are only one step removed from enabling genocide. In my other meta post I also provided a direct evidence from the mouth of a Salafi user espousing such genocidal attitude. Imagine how you would react if a Neo-Nazi on the site was trying to justify killing Jews. The only difference is that Nazism has been doomed, but Salafism survives due to the West's geopolitical interests in the crime family that has been sponsoring it out of Arabia.
    – infatuated
    Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 4:02
  • First, if a person is espousing something hateful, then that is a matter to do with them. We don't need to assume it's to do with their creed or beliefs, no matter if they claim that's where it's from. Second, if someone makes a mistake, you don't jab at them no matter the reason. If someone prays the wrong number of rakats for prayer, it is claiming zakat is 1 5% not 2.5, you don't start accusing them publicly and jabbing at them. Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 8:38
  • @Pureferret, the most influential traditional and modern-day Salafi authorities have declared Shias as corrupt, polytheists and apostates, authorizing war and violence against them which has the basis of Salafi jihadis' unprovoked war and atrocities against them. Yet, people expect us to pretend that it has nothing to do with their creed! It is part and parcel of their creed!
    – infatuated
    Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 11:08
  • 1
    @RebeccaJStones, If I am not even allowed to present my case, then that defeats the whole purpose of meta. Note that this meta-post was exactly written to contest the charge that my answer was "offensive", so the "offense" charge can't be taken as granted in my meta and my explanations suppressed. Therefore I rolled back your deletions.
    – infatuated
    Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 19:58

2 Answers 2


Following the Code of Conduct in order to use this site is not negotiable. There is no room for selective application to only those people or groups you feel deserve it, it applies to everyone:

We commit to enforcing and improving the Code of Conduct. It applies to everyone using Islam Stack Exchange and the Stack Exchange network, including our team, moderators, and anyone posting to Q&A sites or chat rooms.

Language that attacks people or groups, or the religions they believe in, is entirely unacceptable. Hiding behind terms like "frank criticism" and "evident truth" doesn't help if the end result is to paint a belief system — and the people who follow it — as enemies that don't deserve respect:

We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on […] religion.

Diamond moderators are expected to use their powers to enforce this policy, at their discretion:

Those who don’t follow the Code of Conduct in good faith may face repercussions deemed appropriate by our moderation team.

All actions will be taken on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of our moderators.

If you believe a moderator decision is unfounded, or that they are abusing their powers, you are free to contact the Stack Exchange team directly with your concerns.

The Code of Conduct applies network-wide, and it is unlikely to be modified or repealed for this site alone. If you feel that the existing terms are unnecessarily restrictive, you are free to present your arguments on Meta Stack Exchange where network-wide policies can be discussed by the greater community. However, they also tend to be a far more critical group than the moderators here, so you would do well to present your arguments clearly and dispassionately.

  • As usual you are doging the question. The code of conduct doesn't ban criticism especially critisicm of ideologies with characteristic history of violence, let alone deleting entire posts by such faulty misapplication of law.
    – infatuated
    Commented Jun 11, 2020 at 2:38
  • I thought I shall also comment on the part you said that my posts are undesirably "idealistic." AFAIK, there's no SE rule excluding "idealistic" posts, and then Shias are arguably idealist in their understanding of both religion and the world. Does that mean Shia beliefs must be excluded? And ultimately what does idealistic even mean beyond "it goes past convenient or mediocre beliefs"? Idealists generally are likely to offend many people, as we Shias often do simply by speaking our canonical beliefs even if not by extending their implications to various subject matters.
    – infatuated
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 7:40
  • So perhaps banning and repressing Shiism is the best course, as people have been doing it in real life for most of history.
    – infatuated
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 7:41
  • 1
    @infatuated Nowhere did I ever say that criticism or idealism is verboten: Your post was deleted for being offensive, and as-written was likely to alienate entire groups of people who have as much right to use this site, and as much right to be treated with respect, as you do. A claim, I would like to note, that you have as of yet not denied. Again, and at the risk of repeating myself, following our code of conduct IS NOT NEGOTIABLE if you want to use this site, it doesn't matter how justified you think you are in violating it.
    – goldPseudo Mod
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 9:10
  • I conceded my post can offend some people, but not that it is inherently offensive. Shia beliefs are in fact offensive to Sunnis and not just Salafis, just as Salafi and Sunni beliefs are offensive to the Shias and just as I was offended but your abrupt removal of my posts by calling them offensive. So keep in mind arguing from offensiveness gets you nowhere. We are all offended but for different reasons. Rather you should argue from things like factuality, consistency and reasonability. Is that clear? Or I'll be offended!
    – infatuated
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 9:23

I'm not an active participant on this site, but I see the same thing happening on other sites.

For instance, in Christianity.SE, it would be okay to ask:

  • Under what conditions does the Bible permit worshiping before statues?

The answers would almost all indicate that there are no such conditions, and then readers could apply their own conclusions to those denominations that follow this practice.

Asking for an answer from a specific denomination's viewpoint would be okay:

  • Why do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that worshiping before statues is a sin?

The answers would all be from a J-W point of view, using only the beliefs of that specific denomination, and then readers could use their own judgement to apply the answer to other denominations.

Even this would be okay:

  • How do Roman Catholics justify worshiping before statues?

The answers would include references to recorded tradition within the Church, and then readers could apply their own conclusions as to the value of those traditions.

But any question or answer that explicitly states that Roman Catholics are wrong to worship like that would not be allowed.

You must log in to answer this question.

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