User:OceanSplash/Islamofascism in Wikipedia

[The following is moved here from Talk:Islamofascism (term). See that page for detailed explanation. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)]

Islamofascism in Wikipedia

I am having a very important discussion on abuse of power in Wikipedia by certain administrators. This discussion is taking place in my talk page. But due to its extreme importance and because it is an example of Islamofascism in practice I decided to bring this discussion to this page. I believe more people should pay attention to this subject as we will all learn how Islamofascim works by having to deal with it on a personal level.

To give you a brief introduction: I had a dispute, (strong but respectful) with Svend on a certain article concerning Islam. Gren volunteered to act as mediator without either one of us asking him. He took the side of my opponent. I noticed his religious inklings and said he can’t be unbiased and he should step aside. He banned. I wrote [this complaint.] You can also see the rest of discussion in my Talk page. Here are Gren’s excuses:

Is it unethical? I am not sure that bringing ethics into this is necessarily correct. You would have to define the system and describe what level of ethical code it violates. I will make it a little more simple. Is it correct for Joe Bloe to say he is impartial? No. Joe Bloe (representing any human) is not impartial whether he is the same religion as either the defendant or the plaintiff or unrelated to either of them. One of my professors, a Muslim, is better at seeing faults in schools of Islamic thought than my Christian friend who is trying to remain courteous. The problem here is representing anyone as an impartial moderator and judging that impartiality based on their religion.

I have played the Joe Bloe game; now to the crux of the issue. I have no prejudged you. In fact, I completely agree with your depiction of some brands of Islam. However, your belief presumes a true Islam denying the rights of others to interpret it. Take this for example. Most Muslims believe that the seal of the prophets refers to Muhammad being the last. The Ahmadiyya disagree. Personally I am not sure how they come to their conclusion but they do and they claim to be Muslim and they are because they make that claim. We represent that. Truthfully, I agree with you in a sense. Why am I not Muslim? Because I have ethical differences with my interepretation of the Qur'an and hadith. (not to mention having a problem with prohethood in general, etc.) However, my interpretation of Islam is not Islam and this is where you I have a problem with how you write. You take your system of hermeneutics and impose it on Muslims. Every notable interpretation of Islam should be addressed. You have your war mongers and your pacifists and everywhere in between. In your talk on Jimbo Wale's page you said you know what Islam is like. But, you know an aspect and it doesn't seem that you knew a very good aspect and I feel sorry for that. However, you seem, to have a very prescriptivist view of Islam and that should not fly in this encyclopedia. Islam is defined by Muslims and outside academic views. We need Muslim theologians, academic historians and sociologists, demographers, etc. to represent this and all religions.

In any case, you still ignored my main problem. Don't insult Muslims or anybody and don't attempt to degrade someone because of their religion as you did me. What made it even more annoying is that you were just completely wrong for me. So, if you had stopped doing that you would never have been blocked. I don't mind you having open and honest discussions about your religious views so much on user talk pages; but it does not belong on article talk.

I forget what I was typing. gren グレン 05:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Gren: Ethics apply to all spheres of human life. There is nothing that falls beyond it. You can’t pick and choose and decide when it is convenient to be ethical and when it is not. When you override the standards of ethic you act unethically and in those instances you are an unethical person. You say: “You would have to define the system and describe what level of ethical code it violates.” What is this? Isn’t this moral relativism? The norms of ethics are clear to ethical people. You must not do to others what you do not wish to be done unto you. You abused your power. You volunteered to act as mediator when there was a conflict of interest. When I reminded you that this is unethical you again abused your power and instead of apologizing and stepping aside you acted dictatorially and banned me. These actions are unethical. And when you question the universality of ethics, it shows you are a moral relativist person. You can’t defend your position with logics and the only way you know to win an argument is through force. This attitude is reprehensible. It is dictatorial. It is the law of jungle and has no place in civilized societies.

You are not impartial. It is not up to you to decide whether you are impartial or not. Your bias is jarring. You have not been courteous to me as a non-Muslim but rather rude nd abusive. I asked you to step aside because I do not trust you to be fair. You should have stepped aside. You were not appointed to act as mediator. You self appointed yourself. You took interest in our dispute because you had vested interest. Everything you did was unethical. When I complained that you are biased and unfit to act as mediator you accused me of “disruptive behavior” and banned me. This is abuse of power. Are you ashamed of your conduct? Are you apologizing? No! You are justifying it and rationalizing your unethical conduct and even questioning the merits and universality of ethics.

You wrote: “and this is where you I have a problem with how you write.” You can have problem with what or how I write until cows come home. What you think of what I write is of no concern to me. You have no right to curtail my freedom of speech. You broke the rules of neutrality in this encyclopedia. And then you abused your power over differences of opinion and not because I had been in breach of the rules of Wikipedia. So until you learn the rules of Wikipedia, you should not serve as an administrator. You must step down until you overcome your weaknesses and learn that even though you have problem with someone else’s view you have no right to forcefully try to impose yours or gag them.

You wrote: “You take your system of hermeneutics and impose it on Muslims.” I do not try to impose anything on Muslims or anyone else. I want my first amendment right to show the other side that Muslims hide. I want equal rights to say that this subject has other facets too which is shared by many voiceless people. You and your zealot ilk have been strangulating me since I set my foot in this place. You kept breaking the rules of neutrality. You are in breach of the standards set by Wikipedia. You are the ones who are imposing your unilateral version. I am not trying to stop you saying whatever you want to say. I want my right to say what the critics of Islam say. You must come to term that the critics of Islam have as much right to express their views as its defenders and the only way to deal with them is not through assassination, terror and censorship. We are not a small group. But we are afraid for our lives to speak openly. Wikipedia should not become another tool of censorship and repression at the service of the Islamists.

You wrote: “But, you know an aspect and it doesn't seem that you knew a very good aspect and I feel sorry for that”. Although I have been on both sides of the fence and could easily prove that it is not me that knows only one side but you, however, let us for the sake of argument say I know only one aspect of Islam and there are many more aspects to it as well. That is okay. I represent the views of the side that I subscribe to and you represent the views that you subscribe too. If there are ten different views, all of them individually could be biased but if every one is allowed to express the view that he or she represent, the articles we write collectively will not be biased. By censoring opposing views you are making the article biased.

You wrote: “You seem, to have a very prescriptivist view of Islam and that should not fly in this encyclopedia.” Who is to determine whose views are “prescriptivist”? You think my views are prescriptivist and I think yours are. Why should Wikipedia reflect only yours and censor mine? Is the majority always right? I tolerate your prescriptivist views. Why can’t you tolerate mine? Wikipedia is not an apologetic book. It must reflect all views without taking side.

You wrote: “Islam is defined by Muslims and outside academic views. We need Muslim theologians, academic historians and sociologists, demographers, etc. to represent this and all religions.” This is nonsense. No one is checking the credentials of the contributors to Wikipedia on any subject. Why Islam should be different. Let those who think they are expert write too. Who is stopping them? How do you know who is expert and who is not? The "truth" is relative and it is not up to an encyclopedia to tell the "truth". We must states all sides. Let the readers chose which side is the truth. All these inane excuses boil down to the fact that you have no tolerance for opposing views. All this shows you want to be a dictator here and censor views contrary to Islam.

You wrote: “Don't insult Muslims or anybody and don't attempt to degrade someone because of their religion as you did me" Gren: You broke the rules of NPOV. You broke the norms of ethics. You did this out of religions zealotry. This is not an insult. You abused your power and acted dictatorially. You sound like any dictator that orders his subjects to “comply” with his fiat and then jails them and kills them if they protest accusing them of “disruptive behavior”. Dictators hate accountability. This is not an insult. This is what I am charging you of. I am charging you of abuse of power and of breaking the rules of Wikipedia. Why you did that is only my guess and my guess is that you are more motivated by your religious bigotry than by ethics or dedication to Wikipedia.

You wrote: “What made it even more annoying is that you were just completely wrong for me”. Really!? So if anyone annoys your Highness, you will abuse your power and ban him? Thank you for the revelation. You are also annoying me. What should I do? Your alibis are nothing but confessions of guilt.

You wrote: “So, if you had stopped doing that you would never have been blocked.” But of course! If all those massacred by Saddam Hussein had complied with his orders would he have killed them? All these prisoners of conscience rutting in jails in dictatorial countries have annoyed the despotic rulers. So according to your twisted sense of justice, it is their fault for not complying. It may not be politically correct to saying, but incidentally this is how things work in Islamic countries. As long as you comply with the whims of the ruler, you are left alone. But if you speak out, you will be accused of “disruptive behavior” and are jailed or killed.

You wrote: “I don't mind you having open and honest discussions about your religious views so much on user talk pages; but it does not belong on article talk.” Who set that rule? Would it be allowed also for Christians, Hindus of other religionist set such rules? Every sentence you wrote in this message proves you are a dictator and unfit to be an administrator. Everything you wrote is against the norms set by Wikipedia. OceanSplash 18 Dec. 2005 19:03

OceanSplash. You have claimed that I am both a moral relativist and a Muslim! I find that very interesting.

You say, "I want my first amendment right to show the other side that Muslims hide." In your quest remember WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

You also said, "But we are afraid for our lives to speak openly." OceanSplash, do I make you fear for your life? I ask this in all honesty because what you are saying seems to imply that I would harm you. Do you believe that?

" This is nonsense. No one is checking the credentials of the contributors to Wikipedia on any subject." I was referring to the necessity of citing scholarly sources and not amateur websites. This goes for Muslim and non-Muslim sources. When anyone is quoting from an forum we have problems.

"Dictators hate accountability." I am accountable. Please refer to WP:RFC and WP:RFAr if you must.

"Who set that rule?" Read Wikipedia:Talk pages. You talk about that article on its page. It's a rule.

--gren グレン 05:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)