Yahoo Reverses Allah Ban

damnal writes "Yahoo's ban on "Allah" in users names, has been reversed. The ban was instituted due to a number of people registering for IDs using specific terms with the sole purpose of promoting hate. Yahoo's comment on the reversal: "We recently re-evaluated the term 'Allah,' and users can now register for IDs with this word because it is no longer a significant target for abuse.""

Comments

Allah=God, hate who ??

[Bahrani]

Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Arab Christians use it to mean 'Jesus' and Arab Jews use it too, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah#Usage

Re:I think I've snapped from all the loonie news

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean this speech?

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_of_Gore_speech_ 0116.html

Re:Considering recent riots...

[Distinguished Hero]

Allow me correct that for you:

1. Find images
2. Make t-shirts
3. Suffer at the hands of those who may not agree with what you have to say, and will fight to the death to suppress your right to say it.

Note: the link is an article about someone who did Steps 1 and 2, and has reached Step 3.

Calling your bluff

[MarkusQ]

Ah yes. You must be one of those people who has "conclusive proof" that the moon landing was faked. Ofcourse, yor evidence is almost non-existant, and whenever anyone challanges whatever little evidence you DO have, you simply ignore them and continue saying that your point of view "has been proven". Right?

Kind of ironic, coming from somebody that is objecting to the contents of a speech he didn't hear and can't find a transcript of, isn't it? But I'll bite.

My claim, which you are objecting to:

This is now known to be false; the treatment was in fact authorized (by redefining torture) and Bush has yet to recant his position. It looked for a minute as if McCain had cornered him into showing some sense, but his signing statement makes it clear that he still endorses torture. The only thing that clearly wasn't authorized (and what the Bush administration has actually objected to) is taking pictures of the torture and leaking it to the media. The "perps" who have so far been charged are (last I heard) only the low level grunts who got caught.

My proof (or at least a sampling thereof--there's lots more):

• The Bush administration redefined 'torture' to permit techniques such as used at Abu Grabe
• The Bush administration defends the need for torture
• The Bush administration has a system of secret prisons in which such torture is conducted
• McCain pushes to have torture outlawed
• Bush dodges with a "signing statement" saying he isn't bound by the ban
• The Bush administration primarily objects to the fact that pictures were taken
• ...and blames the leakers
• Only the low-level grunts who got caught have been nailed, and they got slaps on the wrist

There is, of course, a lot more where that came from.

Now, can you please back up your claim that Gore told the Arabs to attack us?

--MarkusQ

Re:You can use Mehammererd in your name

[Lady Jazzica]

Apparently images are forbidden to Sunni Muslims.

Are Pictures of Muhammad Really Forbidden In Islam?

There is not a single verse in the Qur'an that prohibits making or having pictures of Muhammad or people or animals or trees.

[...]

However, the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni Muslims, who regard six authorized collections of hadiths as the highest written authority in Islam after the Qur'an. The hadiths are records, often very detailed, of what Muhammad taught and did. [...]

Where multiple trustworthy hadiths agree, Sunni Muslims will take this as binding. [...]

Pictures of Muhammad are "not exactly" forbidden in the hadiths either. The hadiths do not single out Muhammad's picture. Rather, in the hadith we find the prohibition of all pictures of people or animals [...]

Several examples are listed at the link above.