My issue is particularly with goldPseudo, who's unfair and bullying. Editing or deleting posts of which, in his mind, are irrelevant even though they're completely part of the topic.

Once he's questioned, he makes the claim that I'm making rude and offensive comments, even though they're not.

No doubt, if someone is lying about Islam and slandering Rasolullah with false hadiths, those hadiths should be exposed.

| |
  • 2
    Bring your proof? I have never found gold to do anything like that. Realize this is not a Islamic site rather a site about Islam. – Bleeding Fingers Mar 25 '14 at 6:03
  • false hadiths? those hadiths should be exposed? i think there are a team dedicated to grading the hadith and accepting/rejecting them. – user2724 Mar 25 '14 at 7:22
  • By non-sectarian people? – Sayyid Mar 25 '14 at 7:26
  • 1
    non-sectarian doesnot exist in islam. from the creation of the first sect ( shiism), the remaining portion is considered another sect ( sunni). but scholars of each sect are doing their best to make the ahadith as clean as possible. – user2724 Mar 25 '14 at 7:29
  • al-Bukhari and Muslim didn't follow a sect. They were neither sunni nor shi'a. They were just Muslim. I trust their judgments. But even they could've made mistakes or information in their names could've been distorted throughout time. So we have to make sure everything we say about Rasolullah is true. – Sayyid Mar 25 '14 at 7:36

To be more accurate, I told you that "Rude and offensive comments get deleted. As do non-constructive comments in general." But, since you insist, let's start with those quotes that I actually did consider to be either rude, or downright offensive…

From your answer on 'What is the “Hinge on Thursday”?':

  1. "I see many foolish people giving me negative."

    • By any reasonable definition of "rude", your claim that the people who downvote you are "foolish" would easily apply. Downvoting is an essential aspect to this site, and even if you're unwilling to respect the fact that other people can disagree with how useful your answer is, that's no excuse to deride them.
  2. "Delusional beliefs should be left out."

    • This is even worse; the insinuation that simply referring to the hadith as the "Hinge on Thursday" is somehow a "delusional belief" is blatantly offensive, even if only to the questioner who obviously believes it is referred as such.

(Your comment to the questioner that "I doubt you actually read the hadith." was also entirely uncalled for.)

If these were the only problems with that post, I probably would've just edited them out for neutrality and left it. However, as I clearly stated in my comment on the same, the post also did nothing to answer the actual question asked. It merely attempted to disprove the authenticity of the hadith, which was not something the questioner was even asking about.

When I then chose to point you to our meta post on why sectarianism is not welcome on this site, in particular the part about how you should "assume that each sect's hadith are valid," you insisted that it was your "duty to protect Islam from satanic sects and their lies." That comment was also deleted, for reasons that should be fairly obvious if you read the linked post.

Whether you chose to read the post or not, I will summarize it here: Sectarianism of any sort is not tolerated on this site. This includes, but is hardly limited to, referring to those who disagree with you as "foolish," "delusional," or "satanic." You are free to believe as you will, but if you are unwilling or unable to show respect for the fact that other people can also believe as they will, perhaps this is not the site for you.

And now on to your second post. In your answer to the post "Is forced marriage to a religious man allowed?", you started off with the rather strong claim that "The Hadith you mentioned is actually a fabricated hadith."

Now in this case, unlike the previous one, the authenticity of the hadith is actually relevant for answering the question; I had no problems with this. I merely pointed out that, according to one easily available source, it was in fact not fabricated, and simply requested that you back up your claim with an actual reference. The questioner herself also pointed out via a different source (multiple sources, really) that the hadith in question was not fabricated.

Rather than providing any evidence backing your claim, you then chose to argue that our sources were flawed. This included, but was not limited to, claims such as:

  1. "Allaah is superior to sunnah.com"
  2. "Sunnah.com is run by unknown people."
  3. "I think you should question the honesty of the imams and sheikhs"
  4. "I would like to challenge anyone who thinks this Hadith is Sahih, to prove it."

These were all borderline rude, but were deleted primarily for being non-constructive. We provided evidence countering your claim, but the onus of proof is not on us to prove you wrong; you're the one making the unsubstantiated claim, apparently against evidence to the contrary. If you choose to reject that evidence, fine. But your answer remains weak because of it.

The reliability of sunnah.com, or of the questioner's imams and sheikhs, is irrelevant to the answer; I could have just as easily referenced my copy of Jami' Tirmidhi which grades it as hasan (I probably would have too, if I'd had access to it when I wrote the comment), or any number of other websites or print versions to the same effect. The relevant point was that you made an unsubstantiated claim, and that your answer would be stronger if you provided evidence to support it. Especially since finding evidence against it was fairly trivial.

As for being rude and offensive, your suggestion that "goldPseudo, please don't make up your own religion." was blatantly inappropriate.

Comments are meant for constructive criticism. They are not meant for arguments, and they are especially not meant for attacking others who believe different than you. As a moderator, I felt that your comments were doing far more harm than good to the stability of the site, and had them deleted. I chose to do so silently at first, as I strongly dislike adding more comment-noise by explaining exactly what is readily found in the help centre, but you then accused me of being "deceptive" and "hiding behind the delete button"; I then chose to link you to Stack Exchange's comment policy directly so you could understand how comments are supposed to be used so you would not make the same mistake in the future.

If you feel that that was somehow "oppressive," "unfair," or "bullying," well, I guess that's your prerogative. But I fully stand behind every decision I made in this matter.

| |
  • 1
    "I think you should question the honesty of the imams and sheikhs" is not rude or non-constructive. it is very constructive. some scholars and Imams are like this: tanzil.net/#62:5 constructive should have a clear definition and should not be interpreted by a mod. perhaps something is non-constructive in view of one sect and constructive in view of another sect. – Battle of Karbala Mar 26 '14 at 18:39
  • @BattleofKarbala It was not constructive because it had absolutely nothing to do with either the validity of the question or of the answer. Debating a controversial point is explicitly stated as an unacceptable use of comments in the help centre. – goldPseudo Mar 26 '14 at 18:54

If you feel a moderator is abusing their power you can directly contact SE team and they will look into it. Use the contact us page.

That said, looking at what is written in your and goldPseudo's post it seems to me he hasn't violated any moderation rule. He is just applying the rules of the site which you are violating.

I have not looked at all of your posts but from a few that I have looked at it seems to me that you haven't understood the philosophy of the site. This site is not a place to preach what you believe is right, it is a place to learn from others. If you are not here for learning from others but just to preach your views and opinions then you are in the wrong place. There is absolutely no tolerance for rudeness toward other users, you have to remain respectful at all times. If you continue to behave in the way you have so far I think it is very likely that you will end up with your account being suspended. So if you want to keep using the site then I should suggest that you act more constructively.

Please understand: on this site it is completely irrelevant to the acceptability of answers whether you think the views expressed in them are right or wrong. The site does not run on user opinions and beliefs. You cannot object to answers because you do not agree with their conclusion or sources. All standard sources among Muslim scholars are acceptable. In particular all well-known hadith collections are acceptable sources, and of course being acceptable as a source doesn't mean they are all correct. If you feel the source of a hadith is not suitably stated (e.g. it is from a site you don't trust) then you can ask the author to provide a better source (e.g. the page which it is stated in one of the well-known hadith collections). You can even ask politely if the author of the answer knows if the hadith appears in other sources. But don't start arguments about reliability of sources.

Try honestly to understand where others are coming from in place of convincing or defeating them. If you disagree with an answer fundamentally what you can do constructively is to post a better answer with stronger evidence from Islamic sources for the view that you think is right, but don't engage in arguments with the goal of invalidating other answers. Don't diverge into side issues, focus you contribution on helping OP about the question they have asked. Engaging in extensive arguments is considered a nonconstructive behavior. This is not a debate/discussion site.

| |
  • he can contact the SE team and SE team will forward the contact to mods of this site. – Battle of Karbala Mar 26 '14 at 18:20
  • 2
    @BattleofKarbala, no, complaints about community moderators are not dealt with like that, you can check Mathematics Meta for an example of a mod that violated the rules (his mod powers got removed and he got suspended for a year). They may contact the moderator to get their explanation if they think there is a violation, but I can tell you that typically it is just users violating site rules complaining about moderators applying them, as it seems to be in this case. – Kaveh Mar 26 '14 at 18:26
  • 1
    at least about Islam site I myself have experienced it. the SE team do not pay enough attention about complaining. specially when they get complicated to decide which side is right. they do not have knowledge about Islam and its sects and forwarded to mods. – Battle of Karbala Mar 28 '14 at 18:38
  • @BattleofKarbala, I don't think SE needs to know anything about Islam to be able to check if a moderator has violated a moderation rule. Moderation rules and norm are general and independent from the topics of the sites. In my experience people complain more about actions which are not really violations of moderation rules and norms but simply disagreements about particular moderator actions. What you can do in such situations is to raise it on meta (as you have been doing) and try to pass a policy and if a moderator violates it repeatedly then you can refer to that when complaining to SE. – Kaveh Apr 7 '14 at 9:03
  • what if I brought it in meta and a mod deleted my meta question and suspended me? – Battle of Karbala Apr 7 '14 at 9:21
  • @BattleofKarbala, posts on meta are seldom deleted. If that happens and the OP complains to SE they will definitely look into it (and it doesn't need any knowledge of Islam to see if it was OK). There are two cases where such a deletion can be valid action that I can think of right now (there can be other valid reasons that I don't know of): repeatedly bringing up the same issue, strongly rude and abusive language or behavior towards others. (Feel free to post a link to the post below if one of your meta posts got deleted by a mod and I will have a look at it.) – Kaveh Apr 7 '14 at 9:28
  • by following all rules of SE still mods have a lot of room about how to deal with a user. I do not remember the link and do not know how to find it. but it was asked first time and I do not think it had problem of language. it was for more than 1 year ago. I do not claim I am right always. Indeed I had false actions according to tons of rules of this site. but this does not mean mods are right in all cases. – Battle of Karbala Apr 7 '14 at 9:55
  • @BattleofKarbala, Yes, moderators also make mistakes. ps: you can look up your deleted questions from your profile page I think, they should still be listed there I think. – Kaveh Apr 7 '14 at 10:01
  • the deleted list shows only deleted items in last 60 days. – Battle of Karbala Apr 7 '14 at 10:06
  • @BattleofKarbala, I see. – Kaveh Apr 7 '14 at 10:12

First of all one can see the obvious sectarianism propagated by certain people and trying to put things into peoples faces.

Especially when it comes to making claims like Hadi made "I was reading some hadith and i pass by this" as to why I posted "I doubt you actually read the hadith" because this hadith =

حدثنا يحيى بن سليمان قال حدثني ابن وهب قال أخبرني يونس عن ابن شهاب عن عبيد الله بن عبد الله عن ابن عباس قال لما اشتد بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وجعه قال ائتوني بكتاب أكتب لكم كتابا لا تضلوا بعده قال عمر إن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم غلبه الوجع وعندنا كتاب الله حسبنا فاختلفوا وكثر اللغط قال قوموا عني ولا ينبغي عندي التنازع فخرج ابن عباس يقول إن الرزية كل الرزية ما حال بين رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وبين كتابه

Clearly isn't relevant to what he asked. There's no mention of Thursday, nor is it anywhere close to the questions he asked. Did he really pass by this?

Even when I made comments telling him the hadith he posted was wrong, you deleted it for absolutely no reason.

You probably didn't even read what he posted in Arabic. And he didn't make a mistake because he linked to whatever he THOUGHT he was posting.

So either he doesn't know what he's posting (copy n paste), believing things that aren't there (delusional), or he's trying to promote his sectarian belief.

Even though I had no idea it was a sunni-shia nonsense until System Down told me. I only worked off the hadith and the pointless questions that made no sense because they didn't match the hadith and neg'n me for catching on.

On top of that, the hadith contradicts Quran. So that's even worse.

As for the forced marriage topic...

Again, who are those behind sunnah.com? I bet you don't know. I can make a blog post and say "this blog post says the hadith is sahih." That's not a reference or even a reply.

Every hadith is to be rejected until proven otherwise. Especially when a hadith contradicts the Quran as to which it did. We're talking about putting words in the Prophets mouth here and not a small matter between forums. This is a matter of Iman and disbelief.

The hadith is fabricated bc it doesn't agree with the Quran and its chains of narration are unreliable. Even according to some scholars like Ibn Hazm, da'if and fabricated (maudu) are not so different. They can be used interchangeably since the revelation of Allah cannot have any weakness.

The unknown people of sunnah.com say the hadith is da'if, well it agrees with what i said. But I wouldn't bothering quoting them because I don't know who they are. And they have many mistakes in their translations.

People are being told or made to do things that are unislamic, all based off of hadiths that aren't even true. What kind of sheikh or imam is he/she if they can't even tell that a hadith is contradicting the Quran? They should be questioned.

As to some ym remarks, sure, there are better ways to say things. Some people are more sensitive than others and some come off as aggressive, but that's all subjective.

Anyways, I'll attempt to be more sensitive, but i will never allow sects to monopolize and taint the purity of Islam.

| |
  • It's plain arrogance to assume that just because you don't understand a question means the questioner is somehow illiterate and/or delusional. If you lack the expertise to even understand the question, why would you think you are in any position to try answering it? – goldPseudo Mar 25 '14 at 7:27
  • You obviously don't know what he posted in Arabic. So there's no point of me even trying to explain further. It's all connected to the Arabic. If you don't know Arabic, no reason to reply. – Sayyid Mar 25 '14 at 7:32
  • who are those behind sunnah.com? . i bet we can trust their sources. – user2724 Mar 25 '14 at 8:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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