Banned from Facebook

The post which got me banned:

The image I initially responded to:

There isn't a single expletive or profanity in the above. Not a single gratuitous insult. Yet this post got me banned by Facebook. Of course, the post can be called “offensive” -- criticism of Islam is, by definition, offensive. It can also be classed as “racist” -- criticism of Islam is, after all, racist. It can also be called “intolerant” -- criticism of intolerant Islam is indeed intolerant.

Basically, what this shows is that the majority of Muslims literally cannot take any criticism whatsoever of their religion. And when they do come across criticisms, their gut instinct is to ban them (as with this Facebook case). Alternatively, the critic could become a victim of sharia blasphemy law and, amongst other things, be killed. Or he could become a victim of a terrorist attack instead. Whichever way works, in fact. Whichever way silences all criticism -- literally! -- of Islam.

No wonder Islam has survived so long -- and has so many adherents -- when Muslims disallow literally all criticism of Islam.... except, of course, all those criticisms which they can't -- as yet - do anything about. However, even in these instances, as this case shows, Muslims sometimes do manage to silence the critics of Islam.

Facebook & Islam

I guess that Facebook is almost completely automated. Thus, if enough Muslims (or the Leftist whores-of-Islam) complain, then Facebook acts. That may not necessarily mean that FB is biased against any particular group. FB may only be biased against those pages and persons which/who will stop them from making more money or from spreading itself even wider... which is fair enough.

So, perhaps unknowingly, the automated machine that is Facebook will mainly respond to Muslim and Leftist 'reports' without looking into their true nature; and, therefore, seeing that it is, in fact, being taken for a ride. And because Facebook is free, it simply won't have the manpower to check all reports. That means that Facebook often bans indiscriminately on reports alone. Either that, or the Muslims and regressive-progressives who work for Facebook are taking matters into their own hands by imposing sharia blasphemy law on Facebook without its owners -- or those at the top level -- knowing this.

It’s easy to see that FB is automated because there are literally hundreds of violent and extreme jihadist pages and posts which haven't been banned. They aren't banned because not enough people complain about them -- there are too many. And even if people do report a jihadist page and it gets banned, a new one will immediately spring up in its place.

Of course, the worst aspect of Facebook is that you don’t know who -- or where -- to go in order to ask questions about your ban. No doubt this is deliberate ploy on Facebook’s part; and, again, it's probably largely due to its automated nature.

Okay, perhaps Facebook is politically biased

Despite my scepticism about blatant bias, I do remember that at one point -- over a period of a couple of weeks -- Facebook clamped down heavily on various (around 40) counter-jihad and patriot pages. The administrators of these pages were shocked when they logged on and found that their pages had disappeared. In some cases,  Facebook said that the aforementioned pages were “flagged for content containing nudity, pornography or sexual solicitation”. What will have happened is that Muslims -- and/or the Leftist whores-of-Islam -- will have reported these pages for “sexual content” knowing full well that it would be much more difficult to make a political  case for banning them. These pages will therefore have been consistently reported by Muslims for actual anti-Islamic content, not for sexual or violent content. 

This campaign to get sharia blasphemy law implemented on Facebook dates back to at least 2010. To take just one example of this. There was a page which was honest in its extremism and about how absolute it was about all criticism of Islam. Its name alone betrayed that Islamic extremism: “We want Facebook to remove all groups & pages that [are] against Islam.” In that page, you could have found the following statement:

"This page is created for the sole purpose of removing all the groups and pages that are against Islam. If 50,000 people report those Groups and Pages than Facebook will disable [sic].”

All this means that the sharia blasphemy law campaign (on Facebook) is merging into the Leftists' “no platform” policy. (All totalitarians together, eh? That campaign should now be called The Blasphemy Law Policy or No Platform for Blasphemy Against Islam.)

The Muslim Facebook page ‘Remove all Groups and Page that are against Islam' was doing what it did so that Muslims would be free to go on killing and oppressing without anyone doing anything about it. So that Islam could remain unscrutinised; as it has been -- at least in the Muslim world -- for up to 1,400 years.

For those who want more detail on the subject of the post which was banned, here's some extra information.

The Niqab/Hijab/Burkha & Islamist Politics

Despite what many people think, even in the Arab world -- as well as in Iran and Afghanistan -- the burkha and niqab didn't start being widely worn until the late 1970s. In the UK and U.S., on the other hand, it's an even more recent phenomenon. The burkha and niqab only began to be worn in the late 1990s or even in the early 2000s (in many cases even later than that).

The niqab/burkha is a symbol of Islamism/fundamentalist Islam and of self-conscious difference. It's a symbol of the Muslim woman's complete separation from non-Muslim society. In other words, it's a political and religious statement.

In terms of the blatantly political nature of the niqab, it's interesting to recall that Muslim women began to wear the niqab -- mainly under Hamas direction -- in the West Bank during the 2001 intifada. In addition, all the female candidates in the election which brought Hamas to power -- in 2006 -- wore niqabs. As one would expect, the longer Hamas's harsh rule continued, the more women wore the niqab.

The strange thing -- at least to some Western non-Muslims -- is that the niqab/burkha and even the hijab have actually been banned in some Muslim countries because they too recognize the political implications of allowing people to wear them. They realize that it's a statement of Islamist intent. Consequently, the niqab was banned in Azerbaijan, Tunisia, and Turkey; though only when the Muslim woman is working as a public servant. In Syria, for example, 1,200 niqab-wearing teachers were transferred to admin duties in the summer of 2010. Nonetheless, this position was apparently reversed (possibly under Islamist and Sunni pressure) when it was reported, in April 2011, that teachers would again be allowed to wear the niqab. Before that, though, students wearing the niqab in Syria were stopped from enrolling for university courses in the summer of 2010.

And just as non-Islamist Muslim states ban the niqab, so Islamist and Wahhabi states legally enforce its wearing. This again stresses the political nature of the niqab/burkha. In Saudi Arabia, for example, women are required to wear the niqab; or at least they are in the main cities (e.g., Mecca, Medina, and Taif). In the case of Iran, the Shah banned all Islamic dress (or at least all head-coverings). The clerics, of course, were very much against this because they deemed it obligatory, in Islam, that women covered their hair and faces. Needless to say, after Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979, the niqab came into fashion.

Finally, rather than Muslims not wanting the niqab or burkha to be banned, this is precisely what many do want! Or, more correctly, through the wearing of these clothes, and the resulting political uproar, Muslims -- or at least Islamists -- can both assert their identity and challenge the secular “kuffar state”.

The post which got me banned:

The image I initially responded to:

There isn't a single expletive or profanity in the above. Not a single gratuitous insult. Yet this post got me banned by Facebook. Of course, the post can be called “offensive” -- criticism of Islam is, by definition, offensive. It can also be classed as “racist” -- criticism of Islam is, after all, racist. It can also be called “intolerant” -- criticism of intolerant Islam is indeed intolerant.

Basically, what this shows is that the majority of Muslims literally cannot take any criticism whatsoever of their religion. And when they do come across criticisms, their gut instinct is to ban them (as with this Facebook case). Alternatively, the critic could become a victim of sharia blasphemy law and, amongst other things, be killed. Or he could become a victim of a terrorist attack instead. Whichever way works, in fact. Whichever way silences all criticism -- literally! -- of Islam.

No wonder Islam has survived so long -- and has so many adherents -- when Muslims disallow literally all criticism of Islam.... except, of course, all those criticisms which they can't -- as yet - do anything about. However, even in these instances, as this case shows, Muslims sometimes do manage to silence the critics of Islam.

Facebook & Islam

I guess that Facebook is almost completely automated. Thus, if enough Muslims (or the Leftist whores-of-Islam) complain, then Facebook acts. That may not necessarily mean that FB is biased against any particular group. FB may only be biased against those pages and persons which/who will stop them from making more money or from spreading itself even wider... which is fair enough.

So, perhaps unknowingly, the automated machine that is Facebook will mainly respond to Muslim and Leftist 'reports' without looking into their true nature; and, therefore, seeing that it is, in fact, being taken for a ride. And because Facebook is free, it simply won't have the manpower to check all reports. That means that Facebook often bans indiscriminately on reports alone. Either that, or the Muslims and regressive-progressives who work for Facebook are taking matters into their own hands by imposing sharia blasphemy law on Facebook without its owners -- or those at the top level -- knowing this.

It’s easy to see that FB is automated because there are literally hundreds of violent and extreme jihadist pages and posts which haven't been banned. They aren't banned because not enough people complain about them -- there are too many. And even if people do report a jihadist page and it gets banned, a new one will immediately spring up in its place.

Of course, the worst aspect of Facebook is that you don’t know who -- or where -- to go in order to ask questions about your ban. No doubt this is deliberate ploy on Facebook’s part; and, again, it's probably largely due to its automated nature.

Okay, perhaps Facebook is politically biased

Despite my scepticism about blatant bias, I do remember that at one point -- over a period of a couple of weeks -- Facebook clamped down heavily on various (around 40) counter-jihad and patriot pages. The administrators of these pages were shocked when they logged on and found that their pages had disappeared. In some cases,  Facebook said that the aforementioned pages were “flagged for content containing nudity, pornography or sexual solicitation”. What will have happened is that Muslims -- and/or the Leftist whores-of-Islam -- will have reported these pages for “sexual content” knowing full well that it would be much more difficult to make a political  case for banning them. These pages will therefore have been consistently reported by Muslims for actual anti-Islamic content, not for sexual or violent content. 

This campaign to get sharia blasphemy law implemented on Facebook dates back to at least 2010. To take just one example of this. There was a page which was honest in its extremism and about how absolute it was about all criticism of Islam. Its name alone betrayed that Islamic extremism: “We want Facebook to remove all groups & pages that [are] against Islam.” In that page, you could have found the following statement:

"This page is created for the sole purpose of removing all the groups and pages that are against Islam. If 50,000 people report those Groups and Pages than Facebook will disable [sic].”

All this means that the sharia blasphemy law campaign (on Facebook) is merging into the Leftists' “no platform” policy. (All totalitarians together, eh? That campaign should now be called The Blasphemy Law Policy or No Platform for Blasphemy Against Islam.)

The Muslim Facebook page ‘Remove all Groups and Page that are against Islam' was doing what it did so that Muslims would be free to go on killing and oppressing without anyone doing anything about it. So that Islam could remain unscrutinised; as it has been -- at least in the Muslim world -- for up to 1,400 years.

For those who want more detail on the subject of the post which was banned, here's some extra information.

The Niqab/Hijab/Burkha & Islamist Politics

Despite what many people think, even in the Arab world -- as well as in Iran and Afghanistan -- the burkha and niqab didn't start being widely worn until the late 1970s. In the UK and U.S., on the other hand, it's an even more recent phenomenon. The burkha and niqab only began to be worn in the late 1990s or even in the early 2000s (in many cases even later than that).

The niqab/burkha is a symbol of Islamism/fundamentalist Islam and of self-conscious difference. It's a symbol of the Muslim woman's complete separation from non-Muslim society. In other words, it's a political and religious statement.

In terms of the blatantly political nature of the niqab, it's interesting to recall that Muslim women began to wear the niqab -- mainly under Hamas direction -- in the West Bank during the 2001 intifada. In addition, all the female candidates in the election which brought Hamas to power -- in 2006 -- wore niqabs. As one would expect, the longer Hamas's harsh rule continued, the more women wore the niqab.

The strange thing -- at least to some Western non-Muslims -- is that the niqab/burkha and even the hijab have actually been banned in some Muslim countries because they too recognize the political implications of allowing people to wear them. They realize that it's a statement of Islamist intent. Consequently, the niqab was banned in Azerbaijan, Tunisia, and Turkey; though only when the Muslim woman is working as a public servant. In Syria, for example, 1,200 niqab-wearing teachers were transferred to admin duties in the summer of 2010. Nonetheless, this position was apparently reversed (possibly under Islamist and Sunni pressure) when it was reported, in April 2011, that teachers would again be allowed to wear the niqab. Before that, though, students wearing the niqab in Syria were stopped from enrolling for university courses in the summer of 2010.

And just as non-Islamist Muslim states ban the niqab, so Islamist and Wahhabi states legally enforce its wearing. This again stresses the political nature of the niqab/burkha. In Saudi Arabia, for example, women are required to wear the niqab; or at least they are in the main cities (e.g., Mecca, Medina, and Taif). In the case of Iran, the Shah banned all Islamic dress (or at least all head-coverings). The clerics, of course, were very much against this because they deemed it obligatory, in Islam, that women covered their hair and faces. Needless to say, after Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979, the niqab came into fashion.

Finally, rather than Muslims not wanting the niqab or burkha to be banned, this is precisely what many do want! Or, more correctly, through the wearing of these clothes, and the resulting political uproar, Muslims -- or at least Islamists -- can both assert their identity and challenge the secular “kuffar state”.