This came up in the concubine thread, and a few others.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702

Under what conditions may Muslims take slaves? I had been lead to believe that it could only occur through war, and that wars could only be fought when outsiders attacked Muslims. However Abu et al were very vague about what the actual conditions were. Also, in the Dhimmitude thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/2#2

sprint quoted a claim that Dhimmis risked death or slavery if they violate any of the rules intended to force them into a life of humiliation. Is this an additional mechanism for aquiring slaves? What other mechanisms are there?

Does this include the Arab slave traders?

Yep, those congolese were very big on attacking mecca. :D

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 12:39pm:

This came up in the concubine thread, and a few others. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702 Under what conditions may Muslims take slaves? I had been lead to believe that it could only occur through war, and that wars could only be fought when outsiders attacked Muslims. However Abu et al were very vague about what the actual conditions were. Also, in the

freediver,


WAR #1

ISLAM  is  at war......
.....with all ppl who endorse and support un-ISLAMIC political systems.

This war against 'unbelievers' exists because [don't ya know?] all un-ISLAMIC political systems, are 'oppressing' muslims, because non-muslims are making devout muslims subject to secular, un-ISLAMIC laws.

This is very, very, unjust!

And this is why the existence of un-ISLAMIC nations, and systems of government, is offensive to all devout muslims.

All mankind must be made subject to ISLAMIC law, Sharia.

And when muslims are strong enough, that is what they will seek to accomplish.

If only those non-muslims would surrender [now], and adopt Sharia, and give all authority to muslims, then we would all enjoy the peace of ISLAM.
/sarc off


+++++++

WAR #2

ISLAM demands intolerance of the Jahiliyya [an un-ISLAMIC] lifestyle.


"THE RIGHT TO JUDGE"
"It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya
which are current in the world
or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system........"
by SAYYID QUTB
http://www.islamworld.net/justice.html


"....Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia law, without which Islam cannot exist;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyya#Jahiliyya_in_contemporary_society


+++++++

WAR #3

Here with clarity, ISLAMIST 'logic' and 'intent', is explained,

Islamic Dictionary for Infidels
"......[resorting] to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of "opening" the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur'an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, CREATING OBSTACLES FOR THE DA'WA, ARE BLAMED FOR THIS STATE OF WAR, for the da'wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE WHO RESIST ISLAM CAUSE WARS and are responsible for them.
.....Aggression is something only infidels do.
.....it is not seen as aggression or war when Muslims attack non-Muslims. On the contrary, it is seen as aggression when non-Muslims resist the Islamization of their lands and thus "place obstacles in the way" of the spread of Islam. They are defying the will of Allah.......subjugation to Islam alone can bring peace.....
......[To the ISLAMIST mind, 'aggression' is...] When non-Muslims do anything to preserve their culture and resist the Islamization of their country."
http://wolfgangbruno.blogspot.com/2006/07/islamic-dictionary-for-infidels.html



+++++++

WAR #4

DIVISIONS OF THE WORLD, ACCORDING TO ISLAM

Dar al-Islam = = the house of Islam, house of Peace [those places where Sharia has authority].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam#Dar_al-Islam

Dar al-Harb = = "house of war", those countries where Sharia does not rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam#Dar_al-Harb

Harbi = = "one under a declaration of war", a non-muslim, WHO DOES NOT LIVE UNDER MUSLIM RULE.
".........A harbi has no rights, not even the right to live."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbi

Perhaps we should start separate thread on war.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 5:46pm:

Perhaps we should start separate thread on war.

Has Yadda done it again....off topic!

:-X





freediver,

To make all mankind SLAVES of Allah, is ISLAM's  raisons d’être  [reason for being].

I would suggest that 1/ ISLAM , and 2/ ISLAM's war against unbelief, and 3/ slavery [submission to ISLAM] are all interconnected.

ISLAM  is  submission [slavery] to Allah.

And the purpose of ISLAM's war against 'unbelief', is to bring about slavery [submission to ISLAM / Allah].




Hadith....

"Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' ...."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.196


"Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." "
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.025


Koran,

"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.216

What status do the children of slaves have?

Judging by your 'understanding' of Islam so far fd, what do you think it might be? I'm honestly interested to gauge how accurate your 'framework' view of Islam is. I will answer.. just wanna see what you would prognosticate the answer to be.

Btw, common misconceptions thread has been updated to include slavery. The article used is taken from Hizb ut-Tahrir who are the primary Islamic political movement calling for the re-establishment of the Caliphate.

I have no idea Abu. I thought this came up before but I couldn't find it, hence the qeustion. Normally if I think I know the answer I will tell you what I think it is and ask you if it is true. I have not been backwards in doing so.

The common misconception thread should be called "Common Means of Deceiving Infidels About the Truth of Islam' thread.

Quote:

sprint quoted a claim that Dhimmis risked death or slavery if they violate any of the rules intended to force them into a life of humiliation. Is this an additional mechanism for aquiring slaves? What other mechanisms are there?

Yes dhimmis themselves are not actually *slaves* but second class citizens, I guess a bit like serfs where you have the ruling overlords being the Islamic fighters. Fighters, are of necessity out fighting, so you need the dhimmis to work for a living. But, dhimmis who misbehave can be collectively punished as a community, or become slaves as a punishment. Or be crucified.

Dhimmis also should be smacked on the back of the neck from time to time by muslims so they know their place. They must wear distinctive clothing to show they are dhimmis. Their buildings can never be higher than muslim buildings.

Slavery is integral with Islam. Part of the war booty are infidel women. Who become the 'slaves', and are known as what their right hand possesses...the slaves. So you can sleep with your female slaves, no need for marriage there.

But as Abu will tell you, you politely ask your slave if she will sleep with u, and if she says no, then of course you dont rape her. That would NEVER happen. No sir.

The Reliance of the Traveller - A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law says slaves can only be created from war booty, no other way.  In a sense though, dhimmis that misbehave and are put down, would be 'war booty' rising against the Islamic state, so, they could become slaves that way.

Calanen,

Most of what you've just claimed is absolute nonsense. As far as I'm aware there's no Islamic text stating ahl al-dhimma must wear distinctive clothing. Got an ayah or hadith for that one mate?

Just because Caliph Fulan did it in such and such a time/circumstance doesn't make it part of Islamic law/belief. Otherwise we could say Christianity sanctions cannibalism, because some of the brave soldiers of Christianity once ate people.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 9^th, 2009 at 9:51am:

Calanen, Most of what you've just claimed is absolute nonsense. As far as I'm aware there's no Islamic text stating ahl al-dhimma must wear distinctive clothing. Got an ayah or hadith for that one mate?

Might be quicker to say what is nonsense according to you and why, rather than it is nonsense.

Treaty between the Christians of Hira and Muslims, from Abu Yusuf:


Quote:

"They [dhimmis] shall have the right to wear any kind of cloths save military uniforms, provided their clothes shall not be similar to those of Muslims.'

Umar ratified - letter Christians of Syria to Abu Abayda:


Quote:

'not to resemble the Muslims in wearing the Qalansuwa, the turban, shoes, nor in the parting of the hearir, nor in their way of riding; not to use their language nor be called by their names; to cut the hair in front of and divide our forelock; to tie the zunnar around our waists....'

The zunnar is a distinctive belt.


Quote:

'They are required to wear distinctive clothing such as the ghiyar, a yellow patch on their dress, the zunnar (girdle) and a tall and coloured qalansuwa (headgear).

War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Majidd Khadduri, p 196-197.

When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph considers the interests ... (of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.  'Umdat al-Salik, 9.14.

Abu it's kind of absurd that you have a go at everyone else for posting 'rubbish' about Islam, while at the same time refusing to answer even the most basic questions on the grounds that telling the truth might help me put together a wiki that reveals the truth about Islam. You can't have it both ways.

Quote:

War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Majidd Khadduri, p 196-197.

Just as I suspected, not a single Islamic text that contains it. Just our friend the peer-reviewed academic Khadduri, whose name I see you're still having trouble spelling  ;D

freediver, I've answered a multitude of your questions. To claim I refuse to answer basic questions is really just absurd. I don't answer what you want, when you want, all the time, that's correct, nor am I obliged to. That doesn't mean I don't answer your questions. If this is in response to the children of slaves question, as I said, just wanna gauge what you'd estimate it to be first.. nothing wrong with that is there? Can't you just do that for me? Since I've answered many more questions from you than you've ever answered from me.

Anyway if you read the slavery article in the common misconceptions thread, you'll see that the impending Caliphate would not re-institute slavery anyway, which is what I've tried to tell you all along. Unless of course people starting imitating the pagan Arabs and carrying large amounts of wealth and women into battle, to show off their courage...

Quote:

To claim I refuse to answer basic questions is really just absurd.

Yes it is absurd. But you have openly stated that you will refuse to answer my questions because I would use the truth against you in my wiki. So don't blame me for the absurd situation where you respond so frequently, but so rarely answer the question.


Quote:

I don't answer what you want, when you want, all the time, that's correct, nor am I obliged to.

Fair enough. But it's the "I'm not playing any more because you put what I say on the wiki" that is the absurd part.


Quote:

If this is in response to the children of slaves question, as I said, just wanna gauge what you'd estimate it to be first.. nothing wrong with that is there? Can't you just do that for me?

Sure. I might as well flip a coin Abu. I don't know, but as far as I can tell it could go either way. So stick that in your gauge. Like I said, I am always forthcoming with what I think Islamic law is. Now, must we really play this silly game for such simple questions? This would be over in no time at all if you spent as much time giving a straight answer as you did deflecting.


Quote:

Anyway if you read the slavery article in the common misconceptions thread

I've tried reading that thread many times. It is vague waffle that seems to list the criticisms of Islam that you think are most obviously wrong to give yourself the most leeway in giving a vague response that appears to paint Islam far more progressive than it actually is. It is incredibly frustrating trying to use that thread to find out what Islam actually says. It's fine if you want to know a list of things that Islam doesn't say, but it is completely useless otherwise.


Quote:

you'll see that the impending Caliphate would not re-institute slavery anyway

I saw that claim. It appears to be based on the standards set by non-Islamic nations. How about we start with what Islam actually says before going into how it can be interpretted more progressively.


Quote:

which is what I've tried to tell you all along

This is why it is so incredibly frustrating asking you about Islam. I ask what the Islamic law actually is, and you respond by ignoring what I actually asked and instead saying what it would do under ideal circumstances. I don't want the lollipop version of Islam with the bad bits censored for the eyes of Dhimmis. I don't mind if you want to give your opinion on how it might work in a future situation, but just give the general rule first rather than pretending the ideal situation represents the extent of Islamic law. This BS you carry on with is transparent deception. It is a lie by omission, where you omit the answer to the actual question and substitute an answer for the ideal question that avoids the true nature of Islam. We are not naive children and this crap won't work on us.


Quote:

Unless of course people starting imitating the pagan Arabs and carrying large amounts of wealth and women into battle, to show off their courage...

So that is the only situation where Islam would allow taking of slaves? You aren't making much sense here Abu. How about you just answer the question rather than trying to second guess what we 'really' want to know. Honestly, it would save everyone a lot of wasted time.

I'm sick to death of your rubbish accusations of lying by omission etc.

I've told you and others several times, in no uncertain terms, that only women and wealth brought into the battlefield (as was the custom of the pagan arabs) can be enslaved. That's the general rule. As the article in the common misconceptions thread states, since people don't do that anymore, then there's no circumstance in which it would occur.

That article is extremely detailed, gives very clear descriptions about the rulings that would be adopted by a future Caliphate, and gives Islamic evidences for them all. If you don't like what it says, I couldn't give a stuff, go write your wiki from your own fantasies, as you'll do anyway.

In short, the ruling is far superior to anything I'm going to tell you. I'm just going to summarise it for you. Since I'm now aware of your love  of twisting and misconstruing things to make your wiki as sensationalist as you can, I'm not going to bother accidentally introducing some minor error into my interpretation of those rulings, that you can use  to twist. Use the words of the article, they are the ruling by which Muslims will conduct themselves in this issue, in a future Caliphate, not my summary.

Quote:

I'm sick to death of your rubbish accusations of lying by omission etc.

Well then, what is the status of the child of a slave? Or did I not play the game well enough to deserve an answer? Maybe if we debate whether you should answer it for a few more pages you will let it slip.


Quote:

I've told you and others several times, in no uncertain terms, that only women and wealth brought into the battlefield (as was the custom of the pagan arabs) can be enslaved.

News to me. I was under the impression that men could be enslaved to. Don't give us this 'told you countless times' BS. You go to great lengths to respond to posts without actually answering the simple questions. Hopefully now you see why I am so persitent with trying to uncover the truth.

Also, why do you say that wealth can be enslaved? What does that mean?


Quote:

That article is extremely detailed, gives very clear descriptions about the rulings that would be adopted by a future Caliphate

Wouldn't it depend on the situation? It allowed it in past situations. The Americans bring women into battle. Doesn't that mean that the future rules bit is nothing more than crystal ball gazing? I can't imagine what the world might end up like if another Caliphate was set loose on it. Don't pretend that you can.


Quote:

I couldn't give a stuff, go write your wiki from your own fantasies, as you'll do anyway

I'd rather base it on the simple truth and straight answers, but whatever flaots your boat.


Quote:

In short, the ruling is far superior to anything I'm going to tell you.

So a straight answer is out of the wuestion I suppose?


Quote:

Since I'm now aware of your love  of twisting and misconstruing things to make your wiki as sensationalist as you can, I'm not going to bother

Oh, so now you are going to start avoiding the questions, unlike previously....


Quote:

they are the ruling by which Muslims will conduct themselves in this issue, in a future Caliphate, not my summary

I would rather base it on the truth about Islamic law, not crystal ball gazing under undisclosed assumptions.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 9^th, 2009 at 7:30pm:

Quote: War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Majidd Khadduri, p 196-197. Just as I suspected, not a single Islamic text that contains it. Just our friend the peer-reviewed academic Khadduri, whose name I see you're still having trouble spelling  ;D

I think you've slipped some hashish in your hubble bubble pipe. One of the three people I quoted from, was Abu Yusuf. Just to help you along there habibi:

Abu Yusuf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Abu Yusuf Muslim Jurist
Islamic Golden Age
Full name Imam Abu Yusuf
Death 798
School/tradition Sunni Hanafi
Main interests Islamic Jurisprudence
Notable ideas Evolution of Islamic Jurisprudence
Influenced by[show]
Abu Hanifa
Yaqub ibn Ibrahim al-Ansari, better known as Abu Yusuf (Arabic: أبو يوسف‎) (d.798) was a student of legist Abu Hanifah (d.767) who helped spread the influence of the Hanafi school of Islamic law through his writings and the government positions he held.

Beliefs

Monotheism
Prophethood & Messengership
Holy Books • Angels
Judgement Day • Predestination • Caliphate of Abu Bakr

Pillars

Declaration of Faith • Prayer
Charity • Fasting • Pilgrimage

Rightly Guided Caliphs

Abu Bakr • Umar ibn al-Khattab
Uthman ibn Affan • Ali ibn Abi Talib

Schools of Law (Shariah)

Hanafi • Shafi`i • Maliki • Hanbali

Schools of Theology

Maturidi • Ash'ari • Athari • Mu'tazili • Zahiri

Modern Movements

Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimoon • Deobandi • Barelwi • Salafi/Wahhabi • Jamaat-e-Islami

Hadith Collections

Sahih Bukhari • Sahih Muslim
Al-Sunan al-Sughra
Sunan Abu Dawood
Sunan al-Tirmidhi
Sunan ibn Maja • Al-Muwatta
Sunan al-Darami


This box: view • talk • edit

He was appointed Qadi (judge) in Baghdad, Iraq, and later chief justice (qadi al-qudat) under Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid (r.786-809) with authority to appoint judges in the empire. Some of his opinions differ from those of Abu Hanifah, probably on the basis of traditions not available to the earlier scholar.


[edit] Works
His most famous work is Kitab al-Kharaj[1]

Kitab al-Kharaj is a treatise on taxation and fiscal problems of the state prepared for the caliph. [1]

Usul al-fiqh - the earliest known work of principles of Islamic jurisprudence. A portion of his works were devoted to international law.[1]

Kitab al-Athar, a collection of traditions (ahadith) he narrated
Kitab Ikhtilaf Abi Hanifa wa Ibn Abi Layla, one of the early works on comparative Fiqh

Kitab al-Radd ‘Ala Siyar al-Awza’i, a refutation of the famous Syrian jurist and tradition, al-Awza’i on the law of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Yusuf

Speaking of which, you can read Majid Khadduri for free if you like, online. Might learn a lot Freedriver.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UHWd6gLZsFIC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=coloured+qalansuwa&source=web&ots=Z7o8gPk-GG&sig=i4Km3a8XIUxjQXPSGQNiUq-1KDc&hl=en&ei=JBOQSaHkDca-kAXy8p2uDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1

It has the answers to all your questions, without all the 'spin' from Lord Alja Haw Haw.

It's not about avoiding or not answering. I am not an Islamic scholar. I have merely conveyed to you the rulings of Islamic scholars, as I understand them. My understanding is not authoritative, the ruling of the scholar is. Since it's become blatantly obvious your intention is to twist and play with my phrases, to sensationalise your wiki, I'm not going to allow myself to be placed in that situation. Therefore I'm simply referring you to the same source from which I've previously brought the rulings. I don't see your problem. You're still getting what you want, in fact you're getting it from the original source now, no middle man... unless what you really want is the middle man? my paraphrasing of the rulings?? so you know you've got some words to play on, rather than the carefully worded rulings of a qualified Islamic scholar.

At the end of the day, I cannot tell you anything that's not written by people like Sheikh Taqi-ud-deen in the common misconceptions thread, about slavery. So asking me to is just pointless. So I've given you a lengthy and detailed set of rulings, go and use them as you please. Don't ask me to provide more detail, as I simply don't have it.

The Caliphate will implement the rulings of people like Sheikh Taqi-ud-deen, not the summaries people like me. Therefore his rulings are far more relevant to  you than my mere summary of them is.


Quote:

Also, why do you say that wealth can be enslaved? What does that mean?

Come on you're just being ridiculous now. Spoils of war, booty... you know precisely what it's talking about.

I'm quite aware who Abu Yusef al-Qadi is, he's one of the greatest Islamic scholars, this is true, but there's still no Islamic text (Qur'an or hadith) that refers to this concept of special clothing. An opinion of a scholar, even the greatest, means nothing without Qur'an or hadith to back it up. This is one of the greatest and  well known safeguards in the Islamic scholarship system. It is known as Daleel (an evidence that can be presented to God on the day of judgement, to say why you did something), no daleel, no ruling, sorry. The name Abu Yusef, is not a daleel, and no Muslim can present his name on the day of judgement to justify why he did something.

Quote:

Muslims aren't going to help you understand Islam - the last thing we want is kafirs knowing the truth."

Which is why I'm writing my book. Because everyone has to know.

Calanen wrote on Feb 10^th, 2009 at 2:22am:

Quote: Muslims aren't going to help you understand Islam - the last thing we want is kafirs knowing the truth." Which is why I'm writing my book. Because everyone has to know.

I suspect that after writing your book, the only thing 'everyone will know' is how much of a tosser you are, and how ignorant (not to mention...a poor lawyer).

:D

Lestat wrote on Feb 10^th, 2009 at 8:19am:

Calanen wrote on Feb 10th, 2009 at 2:22am: Quote: Muslims aren't going to help you understand Islam - the last thing we want is kafirs knowing the truth." Which is why I'm writing my book. Because everyone has to know. I suspect that after writing your book, the only thing 'everyone will know' is how much of a tosser you are, and how ignorant (not to mention...a poor lawyer). :D

As I've said before, I hang off your every word to validate my existence and professional wellbeing. So, I guess this year's income will take a dive now you've said something on a forum board, with what, 20 regular members?

Did my response get deleted?

Did it mention something derogatory about a religion, religious book or religious figure?

If so, then yes.

You know the rules fd, please stick to them, if your memory is failing you, then please re-read the forum guidelines.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 10^th, 2009 at 8:54pm:

Did it mention something derogatory about a religion, religious book or religious figure? If so, then yes. You know the rules fd, please stick to them, if your memory is failing you, then please re-read the forum guidelines.

Fd is so patient with you lot. Any other admin would be so banning ur sorry asses.

I have no idea why it got deleted. Normally Abu just removes the offending word, which at elast gives you some idea what he considers inappropriate. How he expects people to figure what he accepts or otherwise from that description is beyond me.

It's like with the thread about women being forced to wear the veil. He used some dodgy pretext deleted the entire article about Muslim men throwing acid in the face of women who don't veil up. He claimed the article uses offensive and derogatory terms, which it clearly doesn't. I can only assume he wishes to provide yet another way to deflect attention away from the actual issue at hand. Claiming that that useless 'clarification' thread somehow answered my question was a pretty big leap. Maybe he is trying to direct attention away from what a sorry excuse it is.

There is a very strange parallel here. Abu pretends that the rules he posted is a definitive explanation of why my post got deleted and that no more explanation is needed. Likewise he claims that the misconceptions thread is a definitive explanation of Islam and that no further questions need to be answered. Why would someone who cannot even see the value in the exchange of ideas and asking questions bother using an internet forum?

fd,

minor offences will result in the offending post being edited, major offences such as blaspheming Islamic texts/prophets etc. or mocking Muslim dress/practise will result in the entire post being deleted.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 11^th, 2009 at 10:26pm:

fd, minor offences will result in the offending post being edited, major offences such as blaspheming Islamic texts/prophets etc. or mocking Muslim dress/practise will result in the entire post being deleted.

Bit thin skinned arent we? Reminds me of this:


Quote:

"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious." -- The Ayatollah Khomeini

If there was an Islamic version of Father Ted, muslims would be burning TV studios. Humourless s.o.b.s'

well.... thems the rules. you like 'em you're welcome, you don't, take a long walk off a short pier.

Quote:

well.... thems the rules. you like 'em you're welcome, you don't, take a long walk off a short pier.

Good point.  It's amazing how many complaints there are about the moderation on different forums - yet those complaining keep coming back for more.

I could say the same about the Multicultural forum.  DT removed Lestat's comments to Grendel - yet didn't remove Grendel's & Calanen's comments to me.  DT also banned Oceanz for some ineffectual remarks.

I believe Lestat's & Oceanz' comments were less nasty - yet DT won't tolerate either of them on his forum.  He has that right because he's the moderator, regardless of how fair it is.

Quote:

Fd is so patient with you lot. Any other admin would be so banning ur sorry asses.

Don't exclude yourself Calanen.  We're all guilty of not being "perfect" at times.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 7:24am:

well.... thems the rules. you like 'em you're welcome, you don't, take a long walk off a short pier.

See you are open to feedback. How very Islamic.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 11^th, 2009 at 10:26pm:

fd, minor offences will result in the offending post being edited, major offences such as blaspheming Islamic texts/prophets etc. or mocking Muslim dress/practise will result in the entire post being deleted.

So how are people supposed to figure out what they actually posted that was against the rules? Are they supposed to read your mind? Do you think your rules are so unambiguous that nothing more needs to be asked about them?

I have had two posts deleted recently. Prior to that, nothing. In both cases, the entire post was deleted. I'm still not sure why, in either case. I can't understand how I could go from 'no offence' to 'major offence' without noticing.