Censorship on other Islam forums

C

cyberpi

Guest
Now that I have been banned from yet another Islamic website for saying what I believe is true in accordance with every verse of the Qur'an or Hadith that I have read and have studied, and despite my attempts at learning and judging in a loving and civil manner, my hands are up in the air. Don't shoot. But my tongue is a sword that some people like to censor. I have a few questions:

What are the Qur'an verses or Hadith that call for or support censorship?
Is a Kafir not a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth? Is that not a person who censors?
Doesn't even the smallest of infants who have learned very little of this world still have a truth to tell?
Doesn't even the vile, the liar, the thief, the rapist, the murderer who has or might do wrong in this world still have a truth to tell?
Should there be a human punishment for censoring a truth?
Should there be a human punishment for telling a lie?

I confess that I have yet to meet a person who has not told a lie in their lifetime... anyone here? But I aim to speak the truth and yet I am good at getting censored from alledgedly public forums that obviously did not want to hear it. The issue is that they are not public... they claim to be public and they look public, but they are still very privately owned. They are private billboards on public display, with the pretense that they are a public forum. They are public for contributors with a single message. I think what is public and what is private has become vague... we draw borders and erect walls around alledgedly independent countries, only to run wires between them so that we can communicate easier and become even more networked and dependent on each other. Full disclosure: In my opinion communication is good and censorship is bad.

Conversely though in the USA after 9/11 a few al-Qaeda or other web pages disappeared, perhaps with the belief that this would help prevent the spread of hatred or that it is a way of fighting back. Some exist, but not in the USA. In Europe similar hate laws seem to justify censorship. A history book writer who writes something believed or known to be false about WWII can expect to get prison time. The topic for what information we feed to our children is certainly a hot and recurring topic in any country... or that is created and fed to people via press... it is only debated more in some than others. In every case though, no matter what anyone considers to be vile or false, all material that is presented always represents a truth. It always represents a truth about the author's beliefs. I submit that any action to censor in the USA or Europe has done far more harm than good... and it is not clearly seen why. Censorship is privately considered good while overtly considered bad.

We each know that a malicious lie or false judgement can hurt people, because it is read by and spread by people like a virus. It may hurt the intended target personally or through the actions of others. A lie is similar in nature to a virus that infects the body using its own reproductive capabilities, or that of a modern computer that propagates before you can respond. If a business wants to sell a product, how unfair it is to slander and lie about their competitor's products. For politicians in democratic countries, how convenient it is to slander and lie about their opponents. For actors who also depend on popularity, the rumor mill can destroy their career. A restaurant or business owner loses customers while a public lie (or alledged truth) is debated. By the time evidence is collected and an informed public judgement is made, the damage is already done. For a religion, such as Islam, that is the ultimate concern behind what is termed 'disrespect' for the message from the messenger Muhammud (pbuh). Correct? Identically, some prominent Christian churches were up in arms over a recent movie and book... calling for censorship.

In European or Western law, colorful names like slander, libel, defamation, or defamation of character are used to describe the lies or character attacks against a person or business. In many legal systems a judgement of the guilty requires there be a lie told that is proven false. However by adding the three words, "In my opinion," you can render any sentence into an absolute truth assuming that it is your opinion. While it may be hard to read a history book that in every sentence says, "in the author's opinion", this is always the case. No matter how true the information is, it was first produced in the mind of the author and then reproduced by his work. The author may have the references and may be able to prove that his opinion was formed accurately from history, but unless there was outright plagiarism it was still arranged by the mind of the author.

So we try to write laws and administer justice, which is a common subject in the 3 Abrahamic religions. One of the commandments is to not give false testimony. Jesus Christ... Isa (pbuh) indicated that law was a matter of Justice, and Mercy, and Faith... and that when your enemy plants a weed in your field, to NOT uproot it because you might uproot the wheat with it. Being the religion of truth, the Qur'an certainly has a good deal to say about lies and justice... but I will lick my wounds from being censored again today and leave it to others to answer my questions that I have listed above.
 
Re: Censorship

If people feel offended on their own boards, and dislike the behaviour of members, then I don't see this as an Islamic issue at all.

What comes across is appealing that as your opinion is "Truth", therefore you should have the God-given right to express that opinion, regardless of the thoughts and feelings of others.

Regardless as to whether that "Truth" is right or wrong, forums are perhaps best considered as like visiting friends in their own homes. If someone visits my home and causes disruption, I will likely see them removed, not according to any religious or secular laws, but because of common regard for hospitality, not least for my other guests. :)

2c.
 
Re: Censorship

Yes I agree, but with some difference because the walls are transparent so that everything is seemingly on display, not just for your neighbors but the entire internet world... or with a video camera or megaphone in every room so that the world can witness the conversations if they are looking. To me it can be more like a press conference where the questions are staged and all dissimilar points of view are prevented. It is like a sneeky infomercial where there exists the lie that it is a public forum or news. Why should anyone care? Well it is for the same reasons that anyone would want to censor... the fear is that it fools or corrupts the young minds of those who are easily misled. For instance, anyone can put up a web page and call it a source of information about Islam.

Maybe another comparison though is a public retail business where customers of all varieties may enter into the privately owned store. As long as a customer does not steal, cause civil disturbance, or otherwise break a law of that city our country, then it is a requirement that they be welcome. I suppose in some countries a store owner could select their customers... discriminate only those who think the same, look the same, or share the same ancestry. However, it is still a private store or website. Businesses usually don't discriminate because they want the business, but that is not always the case.

I think censorship is bad, but I am NOT advocating a law that prevents a person from banning someone from their personal forum. It is definitely a privilege to post on someone else's personal website. We are each able to censor for ourselves, and we do select the content that we present. If there is nothing stopping a person from making their own private / public forums for themselves, then that is the freedom of speech. We are each the Kings of our own domains, free to censor as we please. I am opposed to censorship, but I advocate everyone's right to censor. However, then how do we resolve conflict or compare differences?

I do think a possible law to pass is to require more information. To require a website owner to openly disclose and display who owns the website... and what city and country it is managed from. This is kind of done by the domain registry, but I mean make it a requirement on the home page. Businesses naturally do this because they want to be known and they want to be contacted. For the private forums that want to appear as public forums though, it might help to show that they are still private, and it lets everyone know who the private owner is and where the content is coming from.

Taking it a step further, for things like pornography a law could require something like the word "pornography" to be on the home page. There needs to be a way so that a person's browser can quickly turn off and disable ALL websites with the word pronography, so that they and their children don't accidently stumble across it. The search engines do a great job of sorting out the information, but a few requirements of a website owner to provide additional information would help. Now I realize of course pornography is NOT considered Islam, Christian, or Jewish by many people's standards... but unless someone informs me differently I think censorship is NOT considered Islamic, Christian, or Jewish either. In my opinion, censorship is a far greater evil... but we must each be able to censor for ourselves.

I am a fan of the library. Anyone can write a book or journal, but the libraries have the right to select the category that the book or journal falls into. The public has a right to categorize your web page. Additionally, the publisher does require that the author be known.

In the evolving capitalist economies, I think it needs to be taken a step further. A movie that recieves money from a company to display their add within the movie should be required to present in the credits all businesses which paid for the advertising. I want to know who is paying money to influence me. I want to know who pays for the advertising. I want to know the source of information. Similarly it is unknown who really owns a company or a newspaper these days. Make that information a requirement immediately from the home page of a website.

As an example a few months ago, many Muslims would like to ban or not purchase anything from the state of Denmark, among other actions. While I question the motive of punishing a country... that is capitalism. I suggest that it be promoted by requiring the "Made in Denmark" stamp so that anyone can struggle as they please... or "Made in USA". Make it known. In step with my philosophy of requiring information, every cartoon writer would have to personally sign and denote who the author was.

Sorry that I digress. I am clearly tending to think that there is a problem and that the solution is to require more information from people, not to censor them. I am interested in the solution of Islam. My questions remain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the Qur'an verses or Hadith that call for or support censorship?
Is a Kafir not a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth? Is that not a person who censors?
Doesn't even the smallest of infants who have learned very little of this world still have a truth to tell?
Doesn't even the vile, the liar, the thief, the rapist, the murderer who has or might do wrong in this world still have a truth to tell?
Should there be a human punishment for censoring a truth?
Should there be a human punishment for telling a lie?
 
Re: Censorship

Well, every forum has the right to run itself as it wishes to be run - and I assure you that people who wish to treat CR as a press event are certainly stepping out on the wrong foot. *I* view CR as like a reception room where I serve a varied range of guests with hospitality, and try to ensure they don;t abuse it by abusing other guests. I recommend you take that to heart. :)

As for this overall thread - most of it isn't about Islam at all - you're simply posting loaded questions, looking for support that your as yet unstated opinions are "Truth" and therefore have every right to be expressed - which isn't at all fair on the Muslims members to be expected to adjudicated a specific situation they know nothing about.

Anyway, I'm going to move this thread to the Feedback section - if you have any specific questions you'd like to raise, please feel free to raise them - but please be reminded that we're not here to pass judgement on other forums, nor where you are looking for support on vague situations.
 
So you have the same problem then? A reception room has walls around it for a locally private meeting. Words die instantly if they are not recorded or you are not attending. Whereas the computers and internet record and categorize the words and put them on display globally 24 hours a day. It is not a reception room... it is a public stage where the event and every conversation is recorded. That is a fact. Private ownership maybe, but whatever content is presented here is on display for anyone who wants to read it, in any part of the world, globally 24/7. If you wish to argue with that fact that is your choice. If you wish to erect walls and make for a private reception room that is not recorded, not on display, and where you can see who is in attendance then a private chat room would be more equivalent. But a forum like this is recorded, made available 24/7, and globally displayed. Is that not a fact? I am not opposed to that, but it is important to recognize it for what it is. It is a public display whether or not that is what you or anyone else intends.

Why someone would move my questions to a group of threads pertaining to feedback of their private forum is beyond me. Nowhere have I denoted any specific website and there was no feedback intended pertaining to this website. My questions pertain to what is righteous with censorship per the Qur'an... not necessarily by you and this forum.
 
Well, I certainly agree that the information on forums is open to public use - that's a big part of the intention.

However, like any kind of publication - virtual or non virtual (such as a newspaper or magazine) then any forum owner has the right to edit and administrate that publication as they see fit.

Even press conferences are stage managed...

Bottom line is - no one has the inherent right to demand that any act of publishing be done to third-party standards. They can provide feedback, and make their opinion known - little else.

In this instance, you've made your opinion known, and I should state that there's no Freedom of Speech supported on CR. It's a very American concept, and often alien to simple British sensibilities such as civility. :)

It's not a point I plan to argue - merely state. :)
 
Well thank you for reiterating my point that behind the sheepskin of an alledged public forum is just a private forum... public availability to read but private contol of content and 'standards'. In case I was not clear, I was providing zero feedback to your private forum. It is not your standards that I seek. I made no judgement of this forum. I seek the opinions from others who are Muslim who have knowledge of the Qur'an or Hadith. Is that you? Are you Muslim? I was not here to learn from your standards unless you claim to be Muslim, in which case I would like to know the verses that guide you.

I have placed zero demands on your forum. You can clearly be whatever type of publisher that you wish to be, regardless of whether I were to make a demand or not. In my religious beliefs however, I make no public generalization and judgement of a person by their country or race... especially when I have yet to personally meet the majority of them. That is just my personal standard, whether it is 3rd party to your private forum or not. Likewise I will also not argue with your standard of doing so, nor ask you to cease. You clearly choose your standards, as do I.

I am further not trying to judge a religion by a person or judge a person by a religion. Hopefully you don't either... but I am unfamiliar with the British standard of civility that you claim to represent and follow.
 
cyberpi said:
Well thank you for reiterating my point that behind the sheepskin of an alledged public forum is just a private forum... public availability to read but private contol of content and 'standards'. In case I was not clear, I was providing zero feedback to your private forum. It is not your standards that I seek. I made no judgement of this forum. I seek the opinions from others who are Muslim who have knowledge of the Qur'an or Hadith. Is that you? Are you Muslim? I was not here to learn from your standards unless you claim to be Muslim, in which case I would like to know the verses that guide you.

I have placed zero demands on your forum. You can clearly be whatever type of publisher that you wish to be, regardless of whether I were to make a demand or not. In my religious beliefs however, I make no public generalization and judgement of a person by their country or race... especially when I have yet to personally meet the majority of them. That is just my personal standard, whether it is 3rd party to your private forum or not. Likewise I will also not argue with your standard of doing so, nor ask you to cease. You clearly choose your standards, as do I.

I am further not trying to judge a religion by a person or judge a person by a religion. Hopefully you don't either... but I am unfamiliar with the British standard of civility that you claim to represent and follow.
Click to expand...
Well,I am an Ahmadi,a faith in Islam.What are your questions,may be I help to answer the same?Please
Thanks
 
cyberpi, your posts here come across as disrespectful and combatative to the forum staff, and that's not what we want to see on CR.

I've been very polite with you so far, but you've only given every indication of seeking to cause disruption. This isn't a point for discussion - I'm simply telling you, clearly and firmly, that if you don't chill your attitude, you can take it elsewhere.
 
Re: Censorship

Inhumility, Brian moved this thread here and renamed it. I created a new one under Islam that I would appreciate your thoughts on. I am interested in any Qu'ran verse, hadith, fatwa, etc... that you find guidance from on the subject. My questions at the top here were:

What are the Qur'an verses or Hadith that call for or support censorship?
Is a Kafir not a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth? Is that not a person who censors?
Doesn't even the smallest of infants who have learned very little of this world still have a truth to tell?
Doesn't even the vile, the liar, the thief, the rapist, the murderer who has or might do wrong in this world still have a truth to tell?
Should there be a human punishment for censoring a truth?
Should there be a human punishment for telling a lie?
 
Brian, yes I can be disuptive and I consider that a complement. Thank you. Thank you also for providing this service of trying to teach a person like me how to be polite like yourself, respecting, non-combative, cool attitude, non-disruptive with other British sensibilities like civility. Please slap me silly if I ever do the same, because rather than compare the character of individuals I came to compare and discuss religion or religious beliefs.

What is the difference? Well for starters one is in writing and visible. People can independently read and study the text of a religion or a religious belief, the web page here, the intent or rules of this forum, and whatever post a person provides. Is there a place here where a person can read about British sensibilities like civility, your definition of respect, politeness, combativeness, disruptiveness, or attitude? Those are important qualities to write down and compare, because I have found that the definitions of those words vary significantly and it is far from clear how one might apply them to someone, their posts, or their attitude. If you can describe them in further detail on your home page, or maybe a reference to a book or belief that you follow, or posted as a law or term of service, then hopefully some clearly challenged person like my self can read, learn, and equitably judge what is to be obeyed, or abandon as unacceptable per your chosen standards.

If you think I am being unduly argumentative, it is not you in particular that I argue with. I love anyone’s intention to compare religion. Allow me to compare the works of the translations of the bible. You chose point blank the word ‘respect’ in the form of ‘disrespectful’ to describe me, my post, or my attitude. Would that be per the translation of the New Internation Version, or maybe the King James Version, named after the first King of Britain? Following is a cross-translation between the two versions in the law of Moses (pbuh), Psalms, and the Gospels:

KJV = respect, NIV =
look with favor (Genesis 4:4, Genesis 4:5, Leviticus 26:9)
show partiality (Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 1:17, Deuteronomy 16:19)
concerned (Exodus 2:25)
accept (Numbers 16:15)
look (‘to’ Psalm 40:4, ‘upon’ Psalm 138:6)
regard (‘covenant’ Psalm 74:20, ‘decrees’ Psalm 119:117)
consider (Psalm 119:6, Psalm 119:15)

NIV = respect, KJV =
reverence (Matthew 21:37, Mark 12:6, Luke 20:13)
in regard (Genesis 41:40, Deuteronomy 28:50)
fear (Leviticus 19:3)
honour (Leviticus 19:32)
separate themselves from (Leviticus 22:2)
understanding (Deuteronomy 1:13)
known (Deuteronomy 1:15)

Notice that by the verses there is absolutely NO overlap, and most of these verses I would deem as very important to understand. Give them a read. So with a review of the context of these bible verses, perhaps someone who asks me to be ‘respectful’ is asking me to reverence them, or call them ‘your reverence’ or reverend, or to love them as son of the Lord of the vineyard per the Gospels. Or perhaps they are asking me to show partiality to a person in my judgment as commanded NOT to do by God (swt) per the British KJV. Or perhaps they are asking me to fear them or consider them to be well understood and accepted by the public. Maybe we need to learn Greek and Hebrew to get to the root of these dissimilar definitions. Regardless the word ‘respect’ is unclean both by vague use and by translation. If one wishes people to obey their standards in their presence the more words used to describe those standards the better so that anyone may judge equitably by them. This way if one attempts to compare the words in the Ibrahim (pbuh) religions, they can be guided to acquire and share intended definitions and hopefully obey the commandments from the creator of this universe, for which I am a believer in.

From what I know of the word ‘combative’, some standard arts of combat are: cover, armor, concealment, camouflage, secrecy, and even deception. From my point of view, that is in line with censorship rather than with the spirit of the words that I present. I certainly respect that anyone may think otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top