Part 1 – Initial Exchange and Timeout Discussion

Ahmad:

Salaam, brother, I was sending you a voice message, and out of nowhere it disappeared. So Inshallah, I’ll send you a second one. I hope you’re doing well, brother, look, I’m a bit busy today, so if I don’t answer quickly, please don’t take it personally. Please don’t, you know, don’t think I’m ignoring you.

Response:

Ok.

Ahmad:

So first things first, to talk about the reason for the very original reason why we timed you out at the very beginning. You walked in. I don’t know when you signed up exactly. I can check the log if you want the details of the times and everything. I can check the log for all of this, and I can send you screenshots. Inshallah, that’s not an issue. If you like details, if you like proofs, if you like screenshots, I can send you this.

Response:

Yes, please. Send me all the logs and proofs you can get with dates and times, please. For example, if you muted me or someone you mention in this conversation, please provide when you muted/banned, why and the duration, if you tried to resolve it, if you provided the reason before/after the mute/ban to the person, and why you believe your decision was justified based on the information you have. You may have reasons, but that does not mean they are correct, justified, or even make sense.

Ahmad:

Inshallah, so at the very beginning, that was two days ago, if I’m not mistaken, you were having an argument with Zohair, which, by the way, was also not responding in a very respectful way … Therefore we timed you out, both of you, if I am not mistaken, … to try to solve the issue.

Response:

Argument about what? Why did you feel the need to interrupt a discussion between two willing participants on an app meant for discussions?

How long was he timed out? I either get banned or timed out for a full 7 days. He has been active every day all day while I couldn’t even if I wanted to.

Why was he never banned like me?

Please, again, provide all logs and proofs such as when you timed me out or banned me, the context behind it and how long the timeout or ban was for, and please do the same for Zuhair. It seems you did not treat us the same way, which seems unfair and cherry-picking based on who your friend is.

Ahmad:

That’s usually what we do when people are not responsive. When people text very quickly, and we send a text trying to tell them to calm down and they don’t see the text because the texts are flying by too quickly, we time them out … to calm the situation down so people can take a breath, relax and then come back on Discord with a clear mind …

Response:

Not responsive to what? We don’t have to obey every single one of your demands for no reason. You are a mod of a public university Discord; you are not here to force us to abide by your random rules and feelings on what is right or not. There are very specific rules, laws, and policies, and your actions must follow those and you must reference them each and every time you take an action. Otherwise you will face the same accountability as each one of us does.

What is the issue with texting very quickly? That makes no sense. Why do you need to “calm down” someone who is typing fast and conversing on a university Discord about the very topic being discussed?

Why does that necessitate a timeout?

Why did you never time out Zuhair for a full week, which you have done to me every single time, and why have you never banned him if you also admit he was not being respectful?

“Take a breath, relax … and come back with a clean mind” — to do what? You imply what we are doing is destructive. We are allowed to speak, brother. This is none of your business.

What would you like us to speak about all day on a Muslim Discord server — cats?

In regards to the timeout, I was never timed out for that short of a time. You know it and I know it, and I would like you to provide proof as you offered. You banned me almost every single time, and it almost always included a 7-day mute.

You are just making stuff up to justify your behavior.

Ahmad:

So that’s usually what we do. But on top of this, I wanted to add something that you have said about the harappah that we’re holding …

Response:

Being fat is haram because gluttony is haram. When your daily purposeful choices cause you self-inflicted bodily harm by being obese, then yes, it is haram.

Being obese harms my body. If I have the choice to not be obese by following the way of life Allah laid out for us but I purposely choose to stay within my comfort and allow this self-inflicted harm upon myself, then yes, I am practicing haram by being fat.

Those are the facts and that is the argument. You may deny them, but you will never be correct or just until you break it down and prove it wrong — which should be very easy for you to do if your accusations of me being wrong are correct. So please, enlighten us.

I didn’t make it haram. It just is haram.

Part 2 – Religious Reasoning and Respect Claims

Ahmad:

The harim of something is a big issue. It’s not something small. It’s not something we can say very easily in this religion, “this is haram.” Al-Ahmad, this is a matter for the Shu. If you have proof from a shaykh that spirituality is haram, you can bring it forth, say this shaykh has said that, so on and so forth. A shaykh that you trust, maybe your imam, whoever it is, you can say “I talked to him; he said 1-2-3,” right?

Response:

So shut up and listen to random people without actually thinking about the very religion you are following? That cannot be how understanding works.

I have already provided reasoning for why being fat is haram. If that reasoning is wrong, it should be simple to demonstrate how, show the logic and the textual basis. Please do so.

And for the record, I have spoken with shaykhs in Jordan. They agreed with me, not reluctantly, but because it follows straightforward logic within Islam.

Ahmad:

But the way that you threw this out is very disrespectful, and it puts a bad image on the MSA, saying the halaqah we are holding is haram, implying that the shaykh will be talking about a haram topic. That’s a big thing, especially since we’re bringing the shaykh all the way from the UK. He’s very renowned, known on YouTube, has great lectures. The brothers in the MSA are working hard to make this happen. Then you come and say it’s haram … it’s insulting.

Response:

In your opinion, it’s insulting. That does not make it objectively wrong. You assume your opinions define what others must abide by; the world doesn’t orbit your sensitivities.

That the shaykh came from the UK means nothing about correctness. Truth is not geographic.

It is haram because it’s centered on “spirituality,” a concept Islam does not treat as a separate practice outside the deen. Naming something “spirituality” and importing it from modern trends is bid‘ah, not piety.

Ahmad:

It is very insulting to say something like that.

Response:

It is equally insulting to me to be banned, muted, and disrespected publicly while you walk away thinking it’s justified. It is insulting to see haram promoted as if it were a virtue under Islam’s name.

Ahmad:

You kept complaining; you kept wanting to argue, so I had to time you out. About the timeouts and the bans, we ban the alt account when someone makes another to continue talking. That’s the rule. So yes, we banned your second account but only timed out the first. If you see that it’s banned, I can look into it. In my case, I did not ban your original account; I only banned the second one.

Response:

I didn’t complain; I made observations. You interpreted them through defensiveness, not through clarity.

Many times I acknowledged when you were correct. Had I been seeking only to argue, I would not have done that.

And yes, I created other accounts, openly and transparently. I even told the MSA Instagram I would.

You banned all my accounts except the one I’m using now, which itself is muted for seven days. Please produce the proof for each action you claim, date, reason, and log, as you offered.

They are not “fake accounts.” They’re all under my name. Merely different logins.

You say you’ll “look into it” to see what happened. You should already know what happened if you stand by your moderation decisions. Acting without awareness, then later checking, is the core issue here: you act first, think later.

If you are busy, don’t send long, meandering voice notes. Make time, sit down, and address the points properly.

You banned my original account. Show proof it was only timed out, not banned.

Why would I need alternate accounts if I were never banned?

How exactly can you accuse me of circumventing bans if you claim no ban existed? That’s self-contradictory.

Ahmad:

So that’s what happened two days ago.

Response:

You’ve made it clear you don’t actually know what happened and will need to go back and check. So, no, that is not what happened two days ago.

Part 3 – University Escalation and Respect Allegations

Ahmad:

Now, the fact that you’re bringing this up all the way to university is very, it puts a very bad image again, a second time, on the MSA. Not only have you disrespected the MSA on Discord and social media, but you have also disrespected the MSA on the internet, on a web page that either you or your friend have created, and you have posted on it that the MSA is holding something haram. You try to argue it, and so on. Both things are very disrespectful and put a bad image on the MSA. I have asked you very respectfully to take it out, and you have also put my name on it, which I do not agree with. You say you don’t need my permission. No worries, but it’s a matter of respect, of being respectful to each other, especially as brothers in Islam. Also try not to put a bad image on the MSA in front of the university because as you know, most of them already have a bad image of Islam. You don’t want to worsen it by showing Muslims fighting. If these things can be solved internally, I asked if you wanted to talk to a higher-up. I don’t remember you asking me for names or people you can text. Things went very quickly and you were timed out quickly. Let me know if you still want to talk to someone higher up. I can provide names, or you can discuss this matter politely and respectfully.

Response:

I either insulted or I did not. If I did, you would have provided proof, but you have not, so we both know I did not. Do not tell me what others felt. What I feel also matters, and what I feel is that I have been treated unjustly. That clearly does not seem to matter to you.

I did not disrespect anyone. I spoke truthfully. If what I said is wrong, correct me and I will acknowledge it. The MSA is not a protected or sacred entity beyond criticism. I am allowed to discuss and post about it publicly as long as I do so respectfully, which I have. If you believe otherwise, show where I was disrespectful rather than repeating accusations.

Ahmad:

I don’t remember you asking multiple times. I see this is the first time you have asked me. I personally texted your second account, your alt account, and you did not respond. My colleagues also texted you on other accounts of yours. They said you did not answer either. So the fact that you are asking multiple times about reasoning, that’s the first time for me. You asked two or three times today but that’s because I did not answer this morning. I was a bit busy. I saw your email to the university saying you asked multiple times. Look, I don’t remember the multiple times, but taking it all the way to the university is really, in my opinion, nonsense. Lastly, if you like debates so much, then just say it straightforwardly. People usually don’t debate. But if you like to, just say, “I like to argue, I like to debate, I like to go back and forth.” That way we know what is happening. I see you have a website for debates. Just say it clearly, “Hey guys, I like debates, let’s debate.” Be straightforward, because people see it as disrespectful to come up and argue without them knowing this is what you like to do between brothers. Otherwise, it looks like a random person joined the server and started arguing.

Response:

What I enjoy or do not enjoy is irrelevant. The only relevant question is whether I violated any rules. I did not, so there was no justification for a mute or ban.

Neither arguing nor debating is prohibited. They are fundamental parts of learning and understanding in Islam. If respectful debate offends you, that is a personal matter, not a rules violation.

I publicly posted in the group chat that I had reported you, and you deleted that message and banned me. In that same message, I stated you had your messages turned off, which prevented me from contacting you. You later turned them on, but only after acting on assumptions.

Whether your colleagues messaged my other accounts or not, I cannot confirm; those accounts are gone. In any case, that contact was unnecessary. You should have simply provided a clear and timely explanation for your actions instead of sending long monologues and involving multiple people.

You say you ban alternate accounts. Fine. Then why was my main account muted, and what specific rule did it violate? Produce the reason, the evidence, and the rule reference. Vague claims are not justification.

Part 4 – Fairness, Accusations, and Resolution

Ahmad:

Also, please don’t try to, I’m reading the text so I can answer all of your questions. You say, why is this brother not muted or banned? Look, don’t put the blame on other people. I told you, Zuhair was also timed out. I have seen that he was quite disrespectful also. So he was timed out as well. If you are talking to him one-on-one, you can have your own talks, but he was timed out too. Now, don’t point fingers. Why me, not him? This is not a game that should be played. At least I know him very well and I know that he is joking by saying this, and in my opinion this is not disrespectful at all, unlike what you have done. I do not know you personally. Maybe I have seen you at a brother circle years ago. If that was you, fine. But if not, then I don’t know you. So if you want to come up and joke, be straightforward. Tell us you like to argue. Otherwise, people misunderstand. Let’s not attack others or point fingers.

Response:

You continue to make assumptions rather than refer to actual, verifiable facts. This is the central issue with how you handled this matter. I did not “point fingers”; I raised a legitimate question of consistency and fairness. If you time out both parties equally, that is one thing. But if one continues to participate freely while the other is repeatedly muted or banned for a week, that is unequal treatment and must be addressed.

Your personal familiarity with Zuhair is irrelevant. Moderation requires impartiality. Knowing someone “very well” is not justification for lighter consequences. Rules apply equally to all members.

You claim he was timed out. Then provide proof as you offered before. You have logs and timestamps; show them. Without them, your statements are not evidence.

As for joking or arguing, I did not joke, and I did not insult. I spoke directly and with reasoning. If that is mistaken for argumentation, that reflects a lack of tolerance for discussion, not a violation on my part.

Ahmad:

If I like to resolve this between us, of course, I don’t want the university to be involved. If you want to involve the university, I don’t mind. I can show them screenshots of what happened, how this is against the rules of the server, how you were timed out for that reason, and how your second and third accounts were banned. But if you want to keep it between us, that’s what I prefer. I am ready to talk in person, which I prefer because we understand each other better in person. On text, meanings can be misunderstood. In person is better. If you want to meet with a third person to moderate, or bring in the university person you emailed, we can do that. That’s not an issue. Whatever is best for you. It’s midterm season but I can always free half an hour.

Response:

You may show any screenshots or logs you wish, provided they are accurate and complete. Transparency is welcome. What is not acceptable is selective presentation or interpretation that omits context.

Your claim that I violated server rules must be supported by specific references to those rules. Show which rule I allegedly broke and how my words breached it. A moderator cannot impose disciplinary action solely on subjective feelings or personal interpretations.

Meeting in person is unnecessary. This is not a personal disagreement but a procedural issue regarding moderation conduct and accountability. The matter can be handled transparently in writing so there is a clear record for review.

Ahmad:

Look, if you have any other questions, any other comments, any other blocks, if you want to insult me, also, if you want—I don’t mean this disrespectfully—you can let me know. You can text me. Don’t expect a quick answer, because I’m working. Maybe tonight I’ll answer. My phone might die. Let me know if you have anything else. Inshallah, I’m ready to answer or comment. I hope you didn’t take anything personally or too roughly. What I told you is from my point of view. If you want to share yours so we can understand each other, let me know, Inshallah.

Response:

There are no insults here, only facts. What I take personally is not your workload or delayed replies but the repeated misrepresentation of my actions and the unequal enforcement of moderation.

You are entitled to your point of view, but in positions of authority, actions must align with policy, not personal preference. I have shared my point of view clearly, in writing, with evidence and logic. If fairness matters to you, review your own conduct in light of the same standard you expect of others.

Part 5 – Formal Closing Summary

Response (Final Statement):

In summary, every point raised above reflects one consistent issue: moderation decisions were made without proper reasoning, proof, or even clear recollection of events. I have repeatedly requested logs, timestamps, and justification based on actual server rules rather than subjective impressions or personal relationships. Those requests have still not been met.

My intent from the beginning was not to argue for the sake of argument, nor to cause disorder, but to request fairness and transparency within a public university community space. Asking questions, engaging in discussions, and holding differing views are not violations of conduct. They are part of the intellectual and moral fabric of Islamic and academic life.

Throughout this exchange, I have maintained a consistent tone of reasoning and directness. I have not insulted anyone, nor acted with hostility. I have asked for factual support for actions taken against me, and for equal application of moderation to all participants involved. In return, I have been repeatedly banned or muted without due explanation while others in the same circumstances were not.

The fundamental principles here are accountability and justice. A moderator must not act from emotion or personal bias. Decisions must be traceable, transparent, and supported by the community’s stated rules and values.

I therefore reiterate the following requests:

1. Provide the complete log of all moderation actions taken against my accounts, including dates, reasons, and durations, alongside the corresponding logs for the other participant(s) involved.
2. Clearly identify the specific rule or policy each action was based upon.
3. Acknowledge the discrepancy between your stated moderation standards and your recorded actions.
4. Reaffirm that discussion and critical reasoning—especially on topics related to religion and conduct—remain permissible within the MSA and its online spaces, provided they remain respectful.

Once these points are addressed, I am open to constructive resolution conducted respectfully and transparently. Until then, I stand by my record, my reasoning, and my right to fair treatment.

Respectfully,

Omar Alahmad