"

Well, dear Ahasuerus: It is actually difficult to edit any page in Wikipedia without Muslims jumping at you and trying to censor you with all sorts of excuses. You must understand that the freedom of speech for Muslims is an alien concept. In Islamic countries if you say something against Islam they kill you. Where they can't kill you, they censor you. Wikipedia seems to be dominated by Muslims. This of course is not true in all the pages where Muslims have no interest, but when the interest of Islam comes in, they can be quite bullish in making their word prevail. But that is another story. This article started with some explanation like this:

In recent years especially after the 9/11 some observers, including Muslim dissidents have stated that Islam presents a threat bigger than Nazism not to just the Western world but to all non-Islamic countries. They have labeled those who defend Islam and try to be politically correct about it, the today’s useful idiots. 

[Ali Sina] states: “They are idiots because they speak without knowledge of Islam and its threat to mankind and they are useful to the Islamists with whose help they can penetrate the non-Muslim countries and destroy them from within.”  The same author writes: “More abhorrent than war is making peace with evil. In the words of the 18th Century British parliamentarian Edmund Burke, ""All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."" Those who advocate peace with Islam are idiots of this century. If we do not stand against Islam it will grow and then billions will die. Trying to appease Muslims is foolish. It is informed by ignorance of Islam. Most cancers are treatable, if detected in time. But if ignored, they will grow to a stage that will kill you. Today we have the choice. We can either fight Islam and extirpate it before it threatens our existence or wait and face the apocalypses.” 

Muslims obviously don't like Ali Sina. For some reason anything you post here from him they will delete at once. So the above passage that explained the concept was deleted. The administrator SlimVirgin despite claiming impartiality, has yet to show that in actions. I could be wrong but for reasons that I explained to her, I have still to be convinced of that claim. I found out that she is Iranian, like Ali Sina, but of course most Iranians are still Muslims. She even once tried to discredit Ali Sina saying that he is Islamophobic. Obviously she sees genuine criticism of Islam unwarranted and interprets that as Islamophobia. My judgement about her is just based on my first impression and I could be wrong. I have explained to her my concern about her impartiality already and I hope she will eventually show I had misjudged her. 

In Wikipedia there is a lot of Islamic propaganda which are not true at all, but generally critical views about Islam do not survive. Why? If Wikipedia is impartial shouldn’t we give equal space to both sides? Would we accept if e.g. scientologist or any other cultists try to take over the Wikipedia and disallow any criticism of their cult? What is happening is very disturbing. There are hundreds of pages in Wikipedia that are misleading because they are edited and controlled by Muslims and as soon as you try to post anything showing the other side of the coin they revert it and even call your contribution “hate speech”. What about the Quran? Isn’t that book a hate speech?  

Funny thing is that they throw at you the basic rules of Wikipedia when in reality it is they who constanly breach those rules. 

If you try to write anything that Muslims don’t like they will delete it with invalid justifications. This is a very disturbing trend. For example the quotes of Ali Sina were removed because, as they said, he is not notable. There are 200,000 pages talking about faith freedom international. There have been death threats in Islamic sites against him, there are a few Islamic sites created just to refute him. Doesn’t all that say that he is notable at least to be quoted? Finally if he is notable enough to have a page in Wikipedia why his quotes should not be published? 

I am not familiar with the structure of Wikipedia, but I suppose there must be some committee that would check into complaints. (All I am hoping is that this committee is not already taken over by Islamists)  Is there a forum where important questions such as the direction Wikipedia is taking is discussed? 

Sorry, this subject might have not belonged to this page but these are things I would like to discuss. Is there a place to do that?  My point is that if Wikipedia loses its impartiality and becomes the guardian angel of a certain cult or religion, it loses its credibility fast.  05:13 2