2.5 Million Muslims Threaten to Quit Facebook on 21st of July!

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (8 votes)

Go to Facebook Blog and read the comments on any of the recent blog posts. You can’t help but notice a templated comment left by quite a few people who are threatening to boycott on 21st of July if their demands are not met.

The group in question belongs to the Muslim community that is angered by Facebook’s decision of removing a few hugely popular Islamic pages from the social networking site.

Fans of the removed pages are demanding that Facebook brings back those pages which did not violate any of the Facebook’s policies and also create new policies that stop people from posting anti-religious or Islamic messages on Facebook.

Most of the fans are allegedly planning to quit Facebook on 21st of July if their demands are not met and join, what looks like a Facebook knockoff, Madina.com, made for Muslim community.

An overall of 2.5 million fans are said to be effected by the removal of those Islamic fan pages. It will be interesting to see how many of the 2.5 million fans switch from a social networking site that has all of their friends (Muslims/Non-Muslims) and family to something that’s engineered for Muslims only (though the site does not say that).

Following is the Notice message being posted by the group

Facebook Admins, Moderators, Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz, Sheryl Sandberg, and Matt Cohler;

Although you have attended the world’s best communication skills courses you have been most successful in growing great hatred and hostility between you and Muslims around the world, but seriously this time you have caused an almost unrepairable damage.

Only a few weeks after your irresponsible behavior during the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day events you most aggressively removed four of the largest Islamic Facebook Pages of total fans/likes over 2.5 million Facebook members. That happened on the morning of Thursday 8th July, 2010.

These four Facebook pages were totally peaceful and free of any hate speech, but you removed it ignoring the feelings of more than 2.5 Million Facebook Muslims and disrespecting over 1.5 Billion Muslims worldwide.

And now since that is what it had come down to you, with your irresponsibility and fake preach of freedom of speech, have left us no other choice other than permanently boycotting Facebook. And now we are giving you a 2 weeks notice – ending at midnight of 21st July, 2010 – to fulfill our demands or else we will leave Facebook for http://madina.com/.

Our demands are:

1- Reactivating the four pages that have been disabled
2- Adding a Facebook Term that illegalizes disrespecting Islamic religious symbols
3- Disabling any Facebook Page, Group, or Event that shows direct or indirect disrespect towards Islamic religious symbols

The pages that were unfairly removed are:

Facebook.com/Rassoul.Allaa h – About 1,600,000 Likes
Facebook.com/Logo.Ramadan – About 600,000 Likes
Facebook.com/Love.Mohammed  – About 200,000 Likes
Facebook.com/Quran.Lovers – About 70,000 Likes

Lead the trends. Join us on Facebook and Twitter to stay updated!

Download as PDF

Leave a Comment

125 Comments on This Article

  1. By: Daniel Knight on August 30, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    ""Author: trent1280
    Daniel Knight would do well to learn our language before presuming to lecture us on our culture."

    By the way ultra moron who are you talking to? Might wanna not make straw men and actually point out what you think I am saying is wrong, not pulling imaginary words out of your narcissist head to bash. What a crazed demonic moron.

  2. By: Daniel Knight on August 30, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    "trent1280 on August 28, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    "Luckily for Mr Knight, even people with his aberrant and un-American views are allowed to speak their 'minds'. "

    Super idiot, did I say Muslims should be removed from facebook? So what are you talking about insane moron? What an arrogant liar, hypocrite and delusional idiot. Go back to your cave stalker troll.

  3. By: Daniel Knight on August 30, 2010 at 3:13 pm


    "Daniel Knight would do well to learn our language before presuming to lecture us on our culture. His latest remark is a howler of bad spelling, bad syntax, and bad grammar.

    Beyond that, his 'reasoning' is ridiculous.

    America is a secular nation, devoted to liberty and freedom of expression. In our country, 'tolerance' is a high value. In Mr Knight's view, it is a dirty word.

    In Mr Knight's world, we would be governed by a theocracy, answerable only to his crazed view of a Diety whom only he can see. His world is childish and ridiculous. It is against democracy. It is against the idea of America.

    Luckily for Mr Knight, even people with his aberrant and un-American views are allowed to speak their 'minds'. "

    Translation of your rant: "Do not tolerate what Daniel Knight says, how dare he speak his mind!" Hypocrite narcissist with a God-complex fails again.

  4. By: Raymond Griffith on September 11, 2010 at 8:21 am

    We are all supposed to be reasonable people, right? In that spirit, Daniel Knight might want to think how his words affect others. Calling names like "super idiot", "crazed demonic moron" and "Hypocrite narcissist with a God-complex" is counterproductive.

    Certainly one may be critical of Daniel Knight's viewpoints, as he may be critical of ours. Such criticisms may be harsh at times. That said, resorting to name calling by either side lessens the thrust of the argument and makes the user seem childish. Calling names is an attempt to shut down debate over the real issues and avoid dealing with them.

    Daniel would do well not to set up straw men of his own. If the content of a remark is objectionable to him, he might want to explain himself further rather than get out of control. Again, we are all supposed to be reasonable people, right?

    Actually, Daniel's original complaint reflected the way a great many people feel, even if the feeling is not reasonable. Many Christians have a persecution complex, seeing themselves as being "persecuted" if they are disagreed with. This kind of thinking is actively encouraged from the pulpit, and is dangerous in my opinion.

    I think Daniel should be free to voice his complaint, but that we should be free to disagree with it. And perhaps we can now go from name calling back to substance?

  5. By: Jason on October 20, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    As long as the pages were free of hate speech, I think Facebook should not have removed the pages. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs whether we agree with them or not, they should be allowed to express themselves as long as it doesn't harm anyone. If the pages were about Christians and Facebook was owned by a Muslim country, I wouldn't want them to remove those pages.