Facebook Discriminatory Policy Against Muslims and Islam

Comments

27 responses to “Facebook Discriminatory Policy Against Muslims and Islam”

1. 

   Nedim

   September 26, 2010

   Brothers and sisters from world my account on facebook was disabled and erased cause I am muslim and I stood up against insulting me as one, so brave administrator has rushed to disable my main account in order to protect the person who attacked me, please help somehow! Also I recieved threats but probably american administrator kisses ass to devil him self.
   I am from Croatia a european country so this just proves that facebook is spreading hate on muslims worldwide

   Reply
2. 

   Hammad Siddiqui

   May 25, 2010

   The Holocaust issue was resolved in 8 days and every single group was banned then…..

   http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2009/tc20090512_104433.htm?link_position=link1

   Reply
3. 

   Muhammad

   May 23, 2010

   James i can understand questions crowding your mind – that a sign curosity and an intelligent mind. At the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) his tribe the Quraysh was in charge of the Kaaba, which was at that time a shrine containing hundreds of idols representing Arabian tribal gods and other religious figures. There is no mention of Golden calfs or its representation (statue, idol painting whatever). If you dont believe that people dont worship statue or painting you need to look around you and you will find them plentiful. Since the beginning of time, man has been worshipping nature (sun, the moon, the star, the fire, the water etc) or worshipping men, mostly those men who had higher spiritual powers, or higher temporal authorities. So it has to do with man’s instinct or what you call psychology. Islam asks its adherents to refrain from making any images of the prophets or of any other sacred entity precisely for this reason so that possibility of idolizing them or worshipping them is pre-empted.

   Reply
4. 

   James Killian Spratt

   May 23, 2010

   @Shakir: Sorry, I overlooked your number 20. You’re right, what I do is, technically, verboten in Christianity, too. When I was a little kid I went to Presbyterian Sunday School every week, and we had arts and crafts activities in between Bible lessons, and Vacation Bible School at the local Baptist church, where we also had arts and crafts, at which I did well and was always patted on the head and told what a clever boy I was. To my knowledge I have encountered zero religious-based resistance to my artwork, ever.

   There’s a big difference between the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law,” whichever laws you’re talking about, be they secular, local or religious. The “letter” can be a spring-loaded pain-in-the-butt that causes grief for everyone near-sighted enough to get hung up in myriads of details and technicalities, but the “spirit” of it, applied to immediate circumstances with an eye to satisfaction all around, is a far more forgiving and happy interpretation, assuming that “law” at all is generally benign. Although our “letters” may be at great variance, I am growing a very strong feeling that our spirits are so alike as to be indistinguishable. (Well, I always knew it anyway.)

   Nice to know you, Brother! 🙂

   Reply
5. 

   James Killian Spratt

   May 23, 2010

   @Shakir: Probably because it really happened to Europe, and to cast doubts on it is nuts. Nuts screw things up and need to be taken off the streets. Reality-1, Fantasy-0.

   Facebook? I don’t know about facebook. I’d guess that the subject causes too much controversy, a waste of thought, harmony, satellite time and pixels; I doubt that you could find anything good to say about the Holocaust anyway, except maybe “Never Do This.”

   Doubting a historical event is okay, if it’s academic and there’s no balance of proof. Seems like a waste of time, actually, since here-and-now is ever the only really important set of issues to deal with. Blasphemy–well, anything that claims it is above reproach and suspicion instantly becomes reproachable and suspicious.

   Reply
6. 

   James Killian Spratt

   May 23, 2010

   Muhammad, thank you for a serious reply to a serious question, and for the background. It seems that the ban on graphic representations might have been made at a moment of disgust at all such things, having just cleared the Kaaba, and probably in response to some kind of recent irritating events. I am compelled to wonder what exactly he threw out, and why, but it probably doesn’t matter much. Golden calfs and such, maybe. We’ve heard of this before, since and elsewhere many times.

   Just a point: of all the religious–or any kind, really–, artworks that exist, painted or sculpted, I don’t believe anyone viewing them actually worships the object they are looking at, the art object proper, but rather the idea behind them. Most people recognize that no artist’s work is perfect–they’ll all be off a bit in technical details, and they are not realities themselves but mere representations–reminders, if you will, or recordings of an historical event–of a reality. For instance, a sculpture of a deer is not a deer–the sculpture might look like a deer, and very accurately, but it will never run like a real deer. Instead it serves as a convenient way to remember a beautiful scene once viewed, of the real deer, on your visit to the woods long ago, without having to go to the woods again and locate the real deer.

   And so it is with the recording of historical events, which happen once and are best recorded before memory fades or is altered by subsequent events, or historical persons, who live, do their great things and die, becoming harder to represent accurately with the passage of centuries and millennia, and in light of new interpretations on whether their “great” deeds were really great or not. (It is illegal in the US to portray a public official until 25 years have passed since he left office, to make sure that none of them use their offices to memorialize themselves. It is an interesting similarity, and says something agreeable, in my thinking, about Mohammed that he chose not to memorialize himself at that time when he probably could have easily done so.)

   Just in case you’re wondering, I’m not going to undertake a portrait of Mohammed, at least not without a fatwa that says it’s okay (I don’t do anyone’s portrait without their permission, and I’ll give you that much respect–we’ve trouble enough already, haven’t we? 🙂 ) and a commission to cover the costs.

   A great weekend to you, too, Muhammad! Jazakallaho.

   Reply
7. 

   Shakir Lakhani

   May 23, 2010

   @ James: Why is it that if a person casts doubts on the veracity of the Holocaust, he or she can be sentenced to a jail term in Europe? Why has Facebook bqnned any discussion on the Holoaust on its pages? Which is the greater crime: blasphemy or doubting a historical event?

   Reply