Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Yahoo! Bans "Allah" in Screen Names 1072

szembek writes "According to The Register it seems that Yahoo! is banning the use of the string "Allah" in all screen names. The issue apparently became apparent when Linda Callahan attempted to use her surname in her screen name. The following link has an interesting list of terms that Yahoo does allow, and ones they don't."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo! Bans "Allah" in Screen Names

Comments Filter:
  • Why Allah? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Physician ( 861339 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @12:04PM (#14768113) Homepage
    Why is the name of Allah banned while the use of the god of other religions is not? Who should feel slighted? Muslims or others?
  • Does this apply... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mangus_angus ( 873781 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @12:04PM (#14768123)
    to people who already have accounts with these names? After 9/11 I remember them popping up a lot in chat rooms.
  • by Ender_Wiggin ( 180793 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @12:09PM (#14768172)
    Oh all the Muslim-bashers and Islamophobes are going to come out of the woodwork.

    Let's look at the article


    Nor will Yahoo! accept yahoo, osama or binladen. But it will accept god, messiah, jesus, jehova, buddah, satan and both priest and pedophile.


    I guess Yahoo is trying to avoid the trolls and hatemongers. You can't have a screenname "I<3Osama," but you can have a name with Jesus in it. I suppose that makes sense from a certain standpoint, Jesus is a popular hispanic name (but so is Osama and Usama as a male name in the Arabic world).

    I could have iHeartJesus, but not iLoveAllah?
  • why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @12:12PM (#14768197)
    I am wondering why. IS it because they (Yahoo) "respect" Muslims and wouldn't want to "offend" their religion? We all know about the cartoon saga. For those who do not know, Allah is God in Arabic. Arabis is the language the Quaran was [originally] written in.

    Or do Yahoo fear losing revenue from Muslim countries...or do they fear a bomb?

  • Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @12:20PM (#14768294)

    A theological perspective [desiringgod.org] on the difference.
  • by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @12:21PM (#14768299)
    More like a wife under the age of ten.

    Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

    Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

    Sahih Bukhari 8:151, Narrated 'Aisha: "I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet , and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
  • Reminds me of AOL... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Iphtashu Fitz ( 263795 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @12:23PM (#14768323)
    ...when they banned the term "breast" in all their forums in an a misguided attempt to keep their service as family-friendly as possible. The result was that all the members of a breast cancer support forum had to suddenly start referring to themselves as survivors of "hooter cancer" until AOL finally realized they had f*cked up pretty badly on this one.

    Sounds like the guy who created/designed the username filter for Yahoo was hired right out of college with little or no real-world experience, or at least no imagination whatsoever...
  • This (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @12:37PM (#14768470) Homepage Journal
    Oblig.: [tourvic.com]
    I know what you're thinking... did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, I've kind of lost track in all the excitement myself. But seeing as this is a 44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and will probably blow your head clean off, you have to ask yourself one question... do I feel lucky?

    Life was simpler when street crooks and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. were the bad guys, and our heroes always won.

  • by suwain_2 ( 260792 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @12:44PM (#14768537) Journal
    I ran Geeklog for my personal website. I was really surprised one day when my post ended up talking about airplane ****pits. (I'd think that anyone that can be trusted to post articles could also be posted to not post "censored" content?)

    Another time, I got really frustrated with the language filters on a forum I used to run, and set a filter to "censor" various letters of the alphabet and replace them with others. I wouldn't recommend trying this one, as it meant that all posts on the forum were complete gibberish, and it tooks me ages to go back and change them all. (You can't really script it, because you might have change E to T, but that doesn't mean that all T's should be E's.)

    And I can't forget the time iTunes recommend an audiobook of the classic story, Moby ****.
  • by Distinguished Hero ( 618385 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @12:53PM (#14768622) Homepage
    I forgot to mention this, but in the second link above you'll find evidence that Muslims were trading "black" slaves long before Europeans. You might say that they had prior art. Mohammed himself owned "black" slaves: Mohammed referred to blacks as slaves. He even owned several black slaves. Bilal, Abu Hurairah, Usama Ebn Zayyed, and a "Ghullaam" (youth) named Rabbah, were among Mohammed's slaves. [blackapologetics.com] It goes on:
    Even in modern times, in Saudi Arabia the homeland of Islam, the common word for "black" is "Abd" meaning slave.
    " What was Mohammed's position on freeing the slaves? In one instance, a man freed a slave that he kept as a sexual partner. When Mohammed heard what happened, he auctioned the boy and sold him for 800 derhams to Na-eem Ebn Abdullah Al-Nahham. (Sahih Moslem vol. 7, page 83)"
  • by Guuge ( 719028 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:02PM (#14768721)
    I seriously doubt that terrorist organizations consider the Yahoo screen name issue a victory. After a full day of sending lackeys out to blow themselves up, what Islamic terrorist doesn't want to kick back on Yahoo and shoot the breeze with AllahIsGreat and ILoveAllah? Now they'll have to switch to MSN.

    If Yahoo were to ban the use of "Jesus" in screen names then you'd see some outrage from those "kooky right wing christians". (It's a war on Jesus! We're all being persecuted!) People like you would blame it on western media bowing to Islamic extremism.
  • by lowrydr310 ( 830514 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:04PM (#14768747)
    The NFL is very dumb. Up until recently, you couldn't get a replica of New England Cornerback Randall Gay [nfl.com]'s Jersey from their website, NFL.com. According to the NFL, "naughty words" can't be put on a jersey (despite that naughty word being someone's last name).

    Unfortunately I can't find a good link to the article I originally read, but it's listed as #96 of the 101 dumbest moments in business (2005) [cnn.com].

  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:13PM (#14768825)

    I consider it a completely irony that Islam is supposed to be a religon of peace and tolerance. Someone decides to write a dumb cartoon and the Muslim world gets upset.

    I consider it sad that even on a self proclaimed site for "nerds" some people insist on describing the actions of a few people as "the muslim world."

    Muslims are always getting upset about something. Threatening death, riots, bombings, etc...

    And then they insist on making prejudicial remarks, about what "muslims" are always doing. You might as well say, "christians are always bombing foreign cities. We should ban the religion."

    Christianity, people may get upset but the world doesn't do a damn thing. What's wrong with this picture?

    Your ignorance. When was the last time Christians murdered someone for being homosexual? I seem to recall a mass murder a few weeks ago. How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?

    Muslims want the world to change for them but refuses to adapt in any way shape or form.

    Yeah, that is why they keep invading countries half a world away... oh wait, that was a predominantly christian country wasn't it?

    The problems with your "ideas" are multiple and fundamental. First, you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion. Second, all your information about those actions is what you have seen promoted by mass media, who has a vested interest in sensationalism over truth. Third, you are failing to account for the fear and anger of a people who is being invaded and conquered by a nation composed primarily of another religion and who has repeatedly openly scorned their religion, as you are doing now.

    The christians I know would act no better, and probably worse given a similar situation. After a united middle east had just finished conquering the US, the mexicans and the refugees from the US who escaped the bombs would be less then kindly disposed towards and muslims. When they start making excuses to invade mexico, who has little hope of defending itself, and after seeing on TV the sexual abuse of captive Americans, if some other muslim nation were to print sacrilegious pictures of Jesus being raped by a dog, while also including in these cartoons some of the lies used to justify the invasion of the US, well there would be plenty of riots and lynching of muslims in Mexico. And I have no doubt there would be christian priests trying to stop the violence, just as there were muslim priests throwing themselves between the mob and the danish embassy. And I have no doubt ignorant muslims would make comments similar to those you are making about how the uncivilized christians need to grow thicker skins.

  • Guantanamo (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jefu ( 53450 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:18PM (#14768871) Homepage Journal
    How about the estimated half of the prisoners in Guantanamo who don't seem to have actually done anything?

    How about the protesters arrested in NYC during the Republican convention - held in jail and mostly released with no charges?

    I agree that from my (insular american) standpoint the Islamic fundamentalists seem pretty bad, but there are fundamentalists of other religions who are pretty nasty too. For example there is the well known Westboro Baptist Church, who are now said to be protesting funerals of American soldiers because those soldiers have been upholding a regime (the Bush Administration) that is soft on "fags" (one of their favorite words) and so on.

  • by networkBoy ( 774728 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:30PM (#14769002) Journal
    A local right wing host on the radio here (California), Mark Williams on KFBK 1530AM tried to assemble a "milliom muslim march" to protest violence. While he had no whatsoever of getting a million attendees, he expected a few hundred at least as the three local mosques (sp?) have memberships several thousand strong. How many turned out?

    THREE

    To that I say WTF? If you don't want people thinking you tacitly support terrorisim, then at least take advantage of the oppourtunities to speak out against it. If even 100 people had shown up that waould have made a huge statement.
    -nB
  • by radelin ( 956197 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:37PM (#14769080)
    during that time, girls matured early because of the hot desert climate. noting the following, that ayesha (ra) who the Prophet (saw) married was engaged before the prophet married her to another man, a non-muslim. also, notice that these kinds of claims that the prophet was (God forbid) as you say only came about in the middle ages and afterwards - if this really weren't a cultural thing back then, his enemies would have brought this up so long ago, don't you think? perhaps you should study the history of this great man before making blind claims and just copy pasting things you find online. to quote a non muslim, famous playwrite, george bernard shaw, "I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today." -- search wikipedia for "George Bernard Shaw," you'll find it on that page.
  • by radelin ( 956197 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:44PM (#14769155)
    umm... maybe you should check and get your facts straight. people here typically think that the civil rights movements started in the past 2 centuries. absolutely incorrect. the prophet muhammad is the first one who abolished slavery actually. these people whom you refer to - do you know who bilal ibn raba7 actually is!? he was a slave to the qurayshis at the time (the non muslim idol worshippers). he was freed by abu bakr (ra) the prophet's companion. the prophet put him in such a high status - not only did he let him call the athan (which was a great honor), but he was also one of the prophet's closest companions. uhhh abu hurayrah wasn't a slave. he was of the very poor people of madinah who the prophet and other muslims used to feed and such. he wasn't a slave. slaves existed back then yes - but to the non muslims. the muslims did not have slaves, they freed them and were the first to bring equality between different races and colors. the hadith says something like, "no one person is better than another except by piety." uhh the word abd doesn't mean black also. the Prophet's name, as a matter of fact, was "Muhammad ibn Abd Allah" -- Abd means slave of. muslims all consider themselves as "slaves of God." if you want to be quoting ahadith, you should first: 1. learn arabic - so you know the real meaning behind things. 2. learn the knowledge of "jar7 and ta3deel" - learn what's authentic and what's not, the chains, what the origin of the story is. then come and quote hadiths. but blindly copying and pasting isn't getting you anywhere.
  • Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cygnusx ( 193092 ) * on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:48PM (#14769197)
    > I'm not sure of the reason. Maybe they agree with the sentiment.

    It's probably fear, but I don't think those masses actually exist. The Muslim masses in the West? First off, successful well-integrated middleclass Muslims in the West are a tiny minority and they'd prefer to stay avoid drawing attention to themselves (the majority are lower-middle-class, usually because of poor educational or professional skills).

    Here in the UK nearly every Muslim I know has gnashed their teeth about the violence done in their name in _private_ but no one will 'name and shame' them in public -- even though in most cases they have an excellent idea of who the troublemakers are (as in the Finsbury Park Mosque case, where most mosque-goers were aware that their new Imam was preaching violent Jihad but still did not ask him to leave -- instead choosing to stop attending prayers at the mosque!).

    As for the masses in the in the Middle East (ME) -- the vast majority in the ME live with a stupendous amount of misinformation because of their closed societies and seriously warped education systems (which are very, very religiously oriented). To makes things worse, ME governments have carried on a multi-decade propaganda assault on their own people depicting Jews, Christians and Hindus as scoundrels 'out to get' Muslims (primarily to protect their own turfs). The result of all of this has been to give the 'Arab Street' a HUGE persecution complex.

    In all these societies people who want change probably exist, but they are a) outnumbered and b) they know they will get very little support from their governments and c) the way the tinpot ME governments are set up none of them have a snowball's chance in hell of actually making it to power. To speak one's mind in such an environment is a good way to invite trouble.
  • by Ender_Wiggin ( 180793 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @01:58PM (#14769291)
    Muslims aren't allowed to lie about Islam, to each other or to non-Muslims. Muslims can't lie to non-Muslims unless they're being threatened with death. For example, Ammar ibn Yasir (ra) was tortured until he gave up his religion, but Muhammad (peace be upon him) told him it was OK to say that if he didn't mean it. It ends there.

    I can tell you're just copying accusations from another poster. "Kuffar" isn't the proper grammatic word, so you're getting your so-called knowlege fourth-hand. This whole "Muslims are allowed to lie until they control the world" garbage I keep hearing smacks of the same prejudice as the Jews suffered because of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." It's propaganda that is always used when you want to get rid of people, "Sure they sound good in public, but in their secret meetings, they outline their evil plan."

    If you're going to say that Surahs and Hadiths make murder allowable, I'd like you to prove it.

    According to the US State Department's report [state.gov], South America has more terrorism than the Middle East. You just hear more about the Middle East on the news. False perception, its like how people are more afraid of flying then driving, when cars kill so many more.

    Good, now you can understand that just because terrorists or guerillas are "Christian," that doesn't make the religion to blame. From 1980-2003, the Tamil Tigers committed 76 suicide bombings, while Hamas did only 54. Even among Muslims, secular groups like the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades account for more than a third of suicide attacks. (source [iht.com])Therefore, you can't blame the religion if secular-minded groups do it.

  • by merc ( 115854 ) <slashdot@upt.org> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @02:27PM (#14769564) Homepage
    Does this mean that all users from Wallah-Wallah, Washington and Tallahassee, Florida are prohibited from having accurate Yahoo! profiles?

    When you ban the word "Allah", it means you can't say "Fuck Allah".

    *blinks*
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @02:35PM (#14769644)
    Who is trying to force you? Sheesh, why does everyone feel so threatened that Muslims are trying to force their religion on people?
    I don't care what religion people have, I just don't want to live en a muslim country. 20 years ago we had about 3% muslims, now it is around 13%. That is not a problem at all, what is a problem is all the constant demands of changes, not any single big things, just a lot of small things all over the place.

    - My local school no longer can serve any lunch made from pigs, and all the food is now halal.
    - We also just got shower curtains because otherwise their kids could not participate in sports.
    - The local public bath/swimmingpool/spa now is closed at certain times so muslim woman can bathe there.
    - One of my friends can't put xmas decorations on his desk anymore because it is not a muslim holiday and to avoid offending anyone, they forbid it.
    - The people working at the kindergarden are cancelling a lot of activities from pressure from muslim parents.
    Now this is just a few small examples, no point in going on. But how about in another 20 years, when it is 30% muslims? Then I think the demands will be much stronger.

    I think it is a minority of the muslims that are making all the fuss, but it angers me, and makes me wonder what they are doing here when they don't like how things are run.
    It is also why I don't move to a muslim country, I have been to many countries in the world, including from Turkey to America. While I enjoyed my stay here, I have realized from my travels that I only want to be living and feels comfortable and wants to live, are in scandinavia. And I most certainly do not want to live under rules guided by islam. So when I see local politicans and the local Hizb ut-Tahrir (or how it is spelled) say they want sharia law here, abolish democracy, it all bothers me

  • Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @02:45PM (#14769754) Homepage Journal
    I fully expect most of my Democratic priviledges to slowly dissapear in an effort to end terrorism, actually... Hooray for voting by party instead of voting by qualification. :(

    It's entirely possible, but it's not in the best interests of the oligarchy to do away with human-created law just yet, thus the conflict. You see, in Islamic theology, there is only one allowable author of law: Allah, who preaches it through his prophet Mohammed. This law was written a long time ago and no changes to it are possible, or even considered a good idea. That's significantly *NOT* good for the corporate oligarchy- who needs to be able to bribe politicians to change law to prevent competitors from eating into their market share. Thus- while democratic priviledges might disappear, this will do nothing to end terrorism, because the main beef the terrorists have with corporatism has nothing to do with how laws get changed, but rather IF they get changed at all. Large corporations are not possible under Koranic law, because they didn't exist when Mohammed was alive, thus they cannot be given government approval now. That's why you have, instead of a stock market, a few rich family names in Saudi Arabia who own everything.
  • by c_forq ( 924234 ) <forquerc+slash@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @02:59PM (#14769890)
    Trapshooting has always been dope! What is your problem with skeet? Would you rather me practice and compete with real birds?
  • Re:sigh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by deacon ( 40533 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @03:16PM (#14770036) Journal
    Of course we should. There is lots left to lose:

    Porn

    Booze

    Foreskins

    Pork Rinds

    etc...

    The current paint in the ass inconveniances are petty compared to the stoning of gays and beheading of adulterers and rape victims, which will be de rigur when sharia law is imposed.

  • Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @03:31PM (#14770160) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, but if it wasn't for them, it'd be something else. Corporate ethics reached the tipping point in the 1960s- for my entire life rights has not been what our government has been about, but rather the restriction of competition and the destruction of the market under it's own weight.
  • Re:Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 21, 2006 @03:43PM (#14770244) Homepage Journal
    The UK couldn't say "put YOUR historical differences behind you" as we were the party the IRA was opposed to. We were in talks with Sinn Feinn (for want of a better word, the "politically correct", not-blowing-everyone-up branch of the IRA) for years, but it never achieved anything because for years neither us nor Sinn Feinn were prepared to concede any ground, and we had polar viewpoints.

    The IRA hadn't had diametrically opposed point of view to the UK since the 1900s- there was no need left to keep up the occupation of Ireland and there is no real reason left to keep up the occupation of Northern Ireland today. The strategic value that Cornwall invaded Ireland for (as a buffer against Spain) is long gone. All that was left for the UK was a negotiated withdrawl- and being big brother smash flat would have gone a long way to getting the holdouts (the Ulstermen) to the table.

    Who's "They"? If we're talking about the Islamic extremists, the main reason they've taken it upon themselves to declare the Western world (and in particular, the US and allies) to be fair targets is because they don't like US foreign policy.

    Yes, but the reason has become eclipsed by their own rhetoric. To get the common man to fight, they had to bring back the idea of Jihad- and in a twist worthy of Martin Luther Himself, Sola Scriptura (the right of every man to define scripture for themselves). The original reasons don't matter anymore- all that is left is the hatred.

    They're hardly going to start liking US foreign policy if every time they have a minor victory somewhere in the world, the US response is to march over to the middle east and overthrow an existing government there. There are enough Muslims in the world today that if only 0.05% worldwide embrace violence (a significantly larger number than are now), the US is going to be playing a global game of Whack-a-Mole.

    And we're stuck that way- the only thing we can do is make the Whack-a-Mole more efficient by using a bigger hammer. Whack-a-Mole is an easy game if you use a sheet of plywood instead of the hammer- same thing here. bin Laden and al Qaida is no more in control than the guy who lights the fuse on a stick of dynamite- and a rather short fuse at that.

    On top of that, a number of nations which are likely to be at least slightly sympathetic to Islamic extremists (purely because they're likely to be sympathetic to any viewpoint that isn't pro-US) are within easy nuking distance of US allies. The US might have trouble retaining allies when North Korea is threatening to nuke anyone within range who proclaims US loyalty.

    Given current US trade balances- we might be better off without those so-called "allies". But I'd be willing to bet that if we became a global version of North Korea- and we can, there is currently a US nuclear submarine within range of every square inch of habitable land on the planet, and we've got the GPS targeting computers neccessary to surgically target a square inch of land- there would be no shortage of allies. Because in the end, it's the same equation- but North Korea can only hit 7 targets without a large amount of manufacturing- where the US can hit 7000 and still have warheads left over.

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Working...