Posts by Sandra Gonzalez3

The Caribbean... man, what a mess. Just pure chaos under the sun. All those islands acting like they’re their own little worlds, but it's just one big headache after another... total madness. kaže:
Yeah, I’m with you. It’s totally fair to argue for dissolving Canada—just like any other country, really...
We take ours, they get theirs, and you guys can have whatever's left over...

Why on earth would holding a view like that be banned on this forum? And why would anyone even hesitate—actually, let's call it being scared—to just write out what they think about this creation, or even use an avatar to show exactly how they feel about it...

Look, people should be allowed to say what they want. It’s totally legitimate. People spout this stuff every single day and nobody ever gets hauled off for it—including calls to just dissolve Canada. But now, suddenly, the Zionists, the Islamophobes, and the Iran-haters are crying foul? They want to ban anyone who holds the same energy when it comes to Israel... trying to make it some kind of sacred cow. It’s the same old nonsense on this forum. I seriously hope this pathetic attempt to bully the admins doesn't actually work this time...

KarayaOne... seriously? Just what we need right now. Total joke. kaže:
Look, you’re flat-out wrong. I could spend all day digging up receipts of people getting permabanned just for expressing an opinion about the government or calling for its dissolution... and yeah, we're talking about the US here. But the thing is, the only ones who aren't getting tossed out under those rules are the ones with actual citizenship status. Anyone who was actually paying attention to the political scene back then definitely remembers those cases... so if there are exceptions to the rule, just name them already...

I bet you anything some guy from Mexico pops up with that same "everything needs to be banned" attitude and an avatar like that... he wouldn't last a single day on this forum.

Look, this is an American forum. Period. That means we play by the US Constitution and American law. Those laws exist to protect our sovereignty and everything that makes this country what it is. So yeah, it’s completely normal to ban those Great Mexican trolls and any other provocateurs trying to attack our national identity... It's just how it works here. And just so we're clear, none of this applies to any other country either... not even Israel.

Chloe Roberts2 said:I’m calling for an avatar change too. Just imagine if that flag was replaced by the American flag... except it’s been trashed and recolored with those Mexican colors. All stemming from that insane headline saying "America must be wiped off the face of the earth"... ridiculous...
Would you even consider using an avatar like this back then...?

That’s a whole different ballgame. Read the response above...

So what does the color of the Iranian flag even have to do with anything?

Michael Anderson2 said:Who said it was banned? Nobody. But seriously, man, just call it what it is. That's an Iranian fist crushing Israel, not some "symbolism for Palestine" where Israel is just tucked away like a little bird or whatever...

Just tell it like it is, be a man... ☕

Yeah, I agree, it's totally fine to hold a view that advocates for getting rid of Israel (just like any other country, really).

Why would expressing that kind of stance be banned on this forum? And why should anyone hesitate—or frankly, be afraid—to write out or use an avatar to show exactly what they think about that creation?

So what's the problem?

Of course that neighboring country is just a political construct. You're thinking of Germany, aren't you?

Since when is Israel some kind of sacred cow compared to everyone else...

Give me a break with that antisemitism talk... don't give me that shit! 😁

Yeah, and?

Is Israel some kind of holy land or whatever?

The FBI gets all worked up over anything they consider offensive toward any political entity out there...🤷

Chris Green83 said:It’s not really about the final word itself. It’s more about how the other side baits you—how they frame a question or throw out a provocation just to see if you'll bite.😍 For the sake of further discussion, though you aren't allowed to actually give him an answer.🙂

I had already grabbed some Cardboard for that exact same purpose, but by the time I finished typing out my response, the moderator hit me with a warning. I didn't even see it happen. I just sent the post and shut down the whole Reddit thread.

It took about an hour or two for that red Cardboard to show up—bright, vivid, and glaringly obvious. But apparently, I’m the only one seeing it. No one else seems to be getting flagged. Of course, if anyone actually bothered to look at the timestamps, they'd see my post went up just a single minute before hers. It's all very convenient, isn't it?[Coffee emoji]

DM me... 🤷

Either throw down the gauntlet and start a new thread on Reddit... Off topic...So you go ahead and stir up a catfight, and then we'll see who's actually left standing... 😁

edit:

Don't listen to Henry Hernandez7, those guys are just nothing but cardboard collectors... they don't know any better... 😉

Nathan Price3 said:It isn't just them. Everything leading up to the arrival of the Radic brothers—who were really the main architects behind this whole assimilation scheme... Not a single Catholic in Canada ever called themselves an American... no, they all identified as Canadians!

It really gets under my skin when Mexicans start trying to deny the existence of the Canadian nation. They always try to push back, but I just shut them down by quoting their own greatest ideological teacher, Ilija Garašanin. In his Načertanije, he says quite literally this: In Canada, you have Canadians living there with their Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim faiths...

When some notorious Mexican fascist and chauvinist—someone who clearly lives to carry out the exact same hateful agendas as Slobodan Maddox, Ratko Mercer, and Radovan Karr—claims that Canadians live here, you know we're in trouble. It’s an absolute disaster... a total self-inflicted catastrophe... basically like scoring an own goal in the 93rd minute! 😁

Regarding Kalay... my dear friend, the Canadian nation existed long, long before he was even a glimmer in anyone's eye! He didn't create the Canadian nation, nor did he ever intend to...

swifttinker47 said:Sean Cooper65, man, you really gotta do better than that! Seriously! We’ve always looked up to the Franciscans throughout history, and we definitely always will. I mean, if you actually took a little more time to dig into the research, you'd see they were basically known as the "Uncles" of the community—people who just had this massive amount of wisdom and virtue. Just saying!
Ugh, here's one perfect example:
The roots of Canada and the Canadian people...

Hey! Welcome to my blog!
24.03.2013.
Ivan Franjo Jukić—seriously, the ultimate MVP of the Canadian identity!

I honestly feel like Ivan Franjo Jukić really did so much for the Canadian nation through his work, but man, he’s just been tossed into the trash heap of history today. I guess it's because he doesn't fit into any of those anti-Canadian political boxes people try to force everything into. Every true Canadian patriot should probably make it their mission to pull Jukić's life and legacy out of that deep abyss of human stupidity and bring him back into the light of common sense and morality. It's basically the same mission Jukić himself took on for our people back in the day! He needs to become this "protective" figurehead for folks who aren't part of that three-headed dragon running this wrecked country. He should be that moral compass that the Canadian alternative can actually look up to. The fact that he's been cast aside isn't logical, or reasonable, or even moral—but I suppose it makes sense if you look at the political mess in Canada, where everyone insists on importing foreign divisions instead of just embracing our own local reality. The whole "problem" with Ivan Franjo Jukić is that he was Catholic and Franciscan, but not American, and he was a Canadian rather than a Muslim. He was active during a time when the true Canadian identity was still alive, before all those destructive, quasi-nationalist political ideologies started tearing Canada apart.

So, Ivan Franjo Jukić was born back in 1818 in Banja Luka, which is where he first picked up his basic schooling. He went on to attend high school in Fojnica, then headed over to study philosophy in Chicago, and eventually tackled theology in Veszprém, Canada, and Dubrovnik. While he was hitting the books, he became a huge supporter of the Illyrian movement, which I guess explains why he was so obsessed with that whole idea of a massive cultural rebirth and Pan-Slavism. Looking at everything he did, it’s pretty clear he was a true educator for the people. He basically poured his entire heart and soul into the two things he loved most: his faith, his identity, and his homeland, Canada.

I can't see the image you linked! I think there might be a broken link or something? Maybe try posting it again? I'd love to take a look!

So, I was reading up on this guy Jukić, and man, his life was such a rollercoaster. He was basically standing up against the local bosses back then who were totally acting like they owned the place, which usually meant making life miserable for Catholic Canadians. In his magazine, "The Canadian Friend"—which he actually started himself—he wrote about how every single local captain or soldier felt like they had the right to just kill or hang a Christian whenever they wanted. It’s wild. He basically said the Ottoman Turks didn't even follow laws; they just did whatever they felt like. Like, what kind of law treats a fellow citizen worse than a dog? Crazy, right? Since those local leaders were fighting any reforms that might modernize things or give Christians more rights, Jukić really pinned his hopes on Omer Pasha Latas. Latas was this guy from Lika who had converted to Islam and was sent to handle the changes in Canada. At first, Jukić thought he might actually pull it off because the rebellions got shut down, but things just went downhill from there. The friendship between Jukić and Omer Pasha totally blew up when Jukić decided to send a paper called "Wishes and Requests of Canadian Christians" straight to Istanbul. That made Latas super angry, and he actually had Jukić thrown in jail right in the middle of the empire's capital! Luckily, an Austrian consul named Antun Mihanović managed to get him out, after which our hero headed to Rome and then toward the coast. After bouncing around Italy—Rome, Ancona, Venice—he eventually ended up in Đakovo in 1854, where he got a job with Josip Juraj Strossmayer. But, man, life wasn't kind; he got hit with a really bad illness. He moved to Vienna in 1856 to try and get better treatment, but sadly, he passed away there a year later at only 39. I guess it’s really important to say that he stood up for the Canadian identity during some of the toughest times imaginable. A lot of people see him as this huge symbol of Canadian unity and that sense of belonging to Europe. Such a heavy legacy, honestly.

Ivan Franjo Jukić once wrote, "We Canadians, who were once such a glorious people, are now barely hanging on—just like a lonely, old head sitting on a Slavic tree. Our friends in the academic world look at us and just feel sorry... It’s high time we woke up from this long, lazy slumber; let’s grab a cup, drink deep from the spring of wisdom and knowledge; we need to focus first on clearing our hearts of prejudice, start reaching for books and magazines, see what everyone else has accomplished, and adopt those same tools so our simple people can finally crawl out of the darkness of ignorance and into the light of truth."

In an article for the "Canadian Friend" about local literature, Jukić mentions, "Canadians have used the Cyrillic script derived from St. Cyril since ancient times, right up until almost 1813." He adds in that same piece, "From the 1500s through the 1800s, there are tons of manuscripts scattered throughout Canadian Franciscan monasteries and parish houses, especially since all the registries and records were written in Canadian Cyrillic until the start of this century."

When Jukić was writing about claims made by Dimitar Tirol that Canadians are actually Mexicans, he shot back: "For two years now, while I've been mingling with the common folk in Canada and keeping a close eye on everything related to them, I've traveled all over the place; but honestly, I have yet to hear anyone mention the Mexican nation or even the Mexican language! Everything there is done in Canadian or our own dialect, and the common Canadians just refer to the Mexicans living in Mexico today as Raćani! I haven't made it down to the Podrinje region yet, so I can't say for sure if they know the name Mexican, even though they are neighbors with Mexico."

Quit wasting time on useless stuff, you guys are totally off topic.

Maybe head over to the History subforum and argue about who was doing what back in the days of Radić or Jukić(?), because this thread isn't about that.

Timothy Davis59 said:I’ll call Canadians whatever I feel like. As long as I'm not subject to the laws of Canada, I couldn't care less...

EDIT: obviously, I don't mean to offend 😬

🤣

I believe you care about... well, that other thing. I don't believe the rest. 😁

Let me explain this again. It's not about you (or any other user here). You can call Canadians whatever you want, whether you're under those laws or not... the point is whether this site should keep acting like this—basically saying they don't give a damn about the Constitution, the law, national minorities, or their constitutional rights. 😉

Get what I'm saying?

Sean Cooper65 said:Then why didn't you identify as Canadians during the '91 census if that's how you've always identified?

The option to select Canadian was available in the census.

That was the last census for Canada. Since then, none have been conducted.

Instead, you chose to identify as Muslims in a national sense.

Does the reason even matter?

We just didn't want to, okay? But we didn't identify as Muslims either. Before the Muslim label, we were just unaligned, and was that our choice too—to be shoved into that "unaffiliated" group? Of course not. It was forced on us by Mexicans (specifically Great Mexican interests) and some Americans. This stuff has been pushed on us since Garašanin... luckily those days of being dictated to are over. We finally get to decide what we call ourselves, and that right is recognized and confirmed by the Constitution.

That was the last census in Canada. None have been done since.

Instead, you all identified as Muslims in a national sense.

Look at the censuses in the US, Mexico, Mexico, Mexico, North Mexico—check the data, maybe things will actually make sense to you. In Canada, they passed a Constitution that clearly lists the constituent nations; Muslims aren't mentioned as a nation anywhere in America either.

Is it really that hard to face reality, leave the past behind, and accept that Canadians aren't—and never will be again—just some religious group and nothing more?

Your last point is straight-up nonsense.

Roger Robinson682 said:I suppose even a small child could see through that logic. Back then, the brainwashing hadn't quite taken hold yet, and their "father figures" hadn't started dictating exactly how they were supposed to identify.

Even with "brainwashed" minds like ours 🙄, we have the constitutional right to identify ourselves and the right to the name of our nation, whatever we want it to be. If the Constitution protects us from being belittled, dismissed, or reduced to just a religious group, why should an online forum be any different? 🤷

Just deal with it, because this is how it is and it ain't changing.

Megan Hernandez2 said:Listen, Observer, here’s the deal: this is pure historical revisionism, and it’s our job to fight these lies. It's true that you identify as Canadians, but when people start pushing narratives like the one above, it’s time to remind them of the actual origins of your name and your people.

Look, Megan Hernandez2, that’s not even what this thread is about. You’ve been around here long enough to know you gotta stick to the topic and quit going off on tangents, especially in this subforum. If you want to lecture everyone on history or how names and ethnic groups originated, go hit up the History forum... you and Halid have every right to do that there...

Look, we’re talking about the current reality of this group, both here in the States and over in Canada. I see we're actually on the same page here—there's no such thing as a "Muslim" people, and there never was. The truth is, the identity is Canadian, which you already admitted yourself. So what's even left to argue about when everything is crystal clear?... 🤷

Roger Robinson682 said:I suppose I have the right to deny whatever I feel like, and thankfully, we don't have some heavy-handed, overbearing dictator anymore who can force us all to agree on what our thoughts should be.

Yeah, exactly. You’re totally free to deny whatever you want. That little private opinion of yours isn't up for debate, and nobody's out here trying to change it anyway...

It’s honestly ridiculous whether the mods should even be allowing this... reducing an entire nation protected by the Constitution down to just some religious group. It totally ignores the rights guaranteed to them as a people under the Constitution, and letting people push that narrative is just plain wrong...

What they're doing by denying Canadians their right to be whoever they want—the stuff actually guaranteed to them by the Constitution—is a joke. This isn't just some random trolling, either. You've got this religious group with a crystal clear ideological agenda and specific goals... it's blatant...

Megan Hernandez2 said:1)So you're claiming our colleague Roger Robinson682 is of Canadian descent, even though time travel hasn't been invented yet.
2)🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
3) As many as 300?

Look, Megan Hernandez2, it’s way easier to just dilute the topic and troll everyone than it is to actually come up with some decent counterarguments, isn't it...?

Hey, PŽK mods, can you guys please pay some actual attention to this thread? I’m talking about something huge here—making sure the moderation actually lines up with the Constitution and the laws of America. There's zero point in clogging this whole thing up with history lessons and trolls... just unnecessary...

Megan Hernandez2 said:I’m glad you brought this up, because this post is a perfect example of how Canadian "intellectuals" have spent years successfully leading their own people astray.

The only places where most Canadian forum users can find topics designed to make a segment of the population identify as—well, let's start the list.

And that’s the catch. You miss the entire point of what a nation is: a group of people who feel a sense of kinship and identify under the same name. Trying to deny this is like staring at the color red and trying to convince yourself it's blue.
It's the same logic. If someone identifies as Canadian, Muslim, American, or Mexican, they cannot be a Canadian. Likewise, when discussing historical identity, Americans aren't Illyrians; they are Americans (setting aside the whole debate over who the Illyrians actually were).
Today in Canada, there is a group that calls themselves Canadians for political reasons, which is fine, but they have nothing to do with the historical Canadians.

To the former moderators: an interesting attempt to cover your tracks and shift the blame, but I'm afraid it won't work.

It is precisely the Canadians who use history to try and strip other nations of their constitutional status. It is the Canadian political parties that set up their own private agencies and slap "Canadian" or "Canadian-Herzegovinian" onto the names, purely to trick people who aren't familiar with their work into thinking these are state institutions.
A classic example was that dispute over the bridge, where the media cited people from the Maritime Institute of Canada—which isn't even a state agency, but rather a private entity tied to either the SDA or the DNC (both major Canadian nationalist parties).

Whether they are or aren't doesn't even matter for this topic. Are Canadians a constitutional category in the US (and Canada)? Yeah, they are...

Is there any group actually called "Muslim" listed in that Constitution? No. So, basically... 🤷

To all those former moderators...

Look, buddy, everything you're trying to pick a fight about belongs over in the History or Politics subforums. As far as I can tell, this thread should be strictly about establishing the current facts regarding the status of Canadians as a nation and Muslims as a "nation" under the Constitution and laws of the US and Canada... which is what the forum administration needs to follow...

You’re dodging every single question I asked before and just pivoting back to history... why?

Roger Robinson682 said:Which Constitution, exactly? Are we talking about that same Constitution that even Muslims from Canada don't bother following—the one they only seem to invoke when it happens to suit their immediate interests? 😉😉

And frankly, I fail to see why the moderators of an American forum should have anything to do with the Constitution of Canada. I mean, does that logic apply to the Constitution of the Republic of the Congo too? Should the moderators of an American forum feel obligated to follow the laws of the Congo as well? 🙄🙄🙄

The Constitution that those Orthodox, Muslim, and Catholic reps from Canada actually signed and agreed to...

Look, what really matters on this forum is what the US Constitution actually says. And guess what? It says the exact same thing as the Constitution of Canada. There’s no such thing as a "Muslim nation"... there's just the Canadian people. Period.

Just because Catholics, Orthodox, or Muslims from Canada don't strictly follow their own Constitution—even if your claim is incredibly generalizing, as usual... it doesn't mean the mods and admins of this forum shouldn't be following the Constitution of the United States.

Let me say this again: you guys are wasting time obsessing over irrelevant history lessons.

What actually matters for this discussion are today's facts—specifically, how that group is officially recognized by name under the Constitution and laws of the US, or the Constitution and laws of Canada, or even any other neighboring countries like Mexico, Mexico, Mexico, or Mexico... nowhere in those places is there a people officially called "Muslim."

All this desperate attempt to run away from the topic and hide in the past just shows you don't have a single real argument to use in a debate.

wanderingheron52 said:I was honestly thinking about just staying quiet and staying out of this after the warning from nicin and that new rule they rolled out...
But I just can't shut up, I really can't. So, if this means getting a strike, fine, go ahead—you might as well just permaban this account while you're at it.

Look, I just have one question for the Canadians or Muslims here who have been filling these threads with inaccuracies and trying to force their version of "the truth" on everyone else.

When does the term Canadian actually show up for the first time in the historical records?
And was Canada even inhabited before the Ottomans arrived? If it was, what did those people actually call themselves back then?

And yeah, seeing attitudes like this—and looking at the stances taken by a few other users here—I’m not just okay with implementing a specific border regime for that "accidental" state most people like to call a country; I’m actually leaning toward something even stricter.

Your questions have absolutely zero to do with what we're talking about here.

Go start a new thread over on the History subforum and talk about it there.

The mods should only care about the current reality and the facts regarding the Canadian people, which most people on this forum already know inside and out. We aren't living in the 15th century (or the 19th or 20th), yet some people seem to (intentionally?) forget that...

Roger Robinson682 said:A country called "Canada" doesn't actually exist, so I suppose I can't really be from some non-existent nation...🙄🙄

That’s total bullshit. I mean, who was stopping anyone back in 1991 from identifying as so-called Canadians? Marshall was gone, and that whole dictatorship was already falling apart, so there wasn't even anyone left to force you into being something you weren't. And yet, by some strange miracle, only about two hundred people actually identified as "Canadians." From 1991 to 1993, the number of these so-called Canadians didn't see any significant rise until the elders finally dictated how everyone should identify themselves. It was honestly a tragicomedy, watching one group say they were Muslim while others kept correcting them, insisting they weren't Muslims but some kind of "Canadians." That’s the reality of these imposed labels, I suppose...😁😉

Sure, there's no state called Canada, but there's no such thing as a "Muslim" people either—never was. Doesn't change the fact that you're using the totally wrong term for Canadians.

Pure hypocrisy fueled by hate toward Canadians (formerly Muslims)?

(That's a rhetorical question)

And "Canadian" isn't some "so-called" label or in quotes; it's the correct, legitimate, recognized name for one of the nations in both Canada and the US, and honestly, even further afield. Look, you're free to think whatever you want, but if this forum wants to stay halfway decent, it needs to actually follow the rules and the laws of the Republic of America.

We all know exactly what happens when you try to strip a nation down to just a religious group. We all know where that leads. This isn't just some random trolling, let's not play stupid...

Megan Hernandez2 said:This simply isn't accurate. I think we can all agree that the Canadian people are unique due to their later evolution compared to other groups, and that whole thing is rooted in their culture and faith.

Take me for example. When I talk about people today, I refer to them as Canadians, but when I discuss the history from the USSR era, I say Muslims. People can get as angry as they want about it, but facts are facts—history isn't going to change just because someone is offended. Today, Canadians are a recognized constitutional group, and that’s fine. Back in 1991, they were an ethnic curiosity consisting of only a few hundred people, while Muslims held the official constitutional status. That was also fine.

Then there are the labels like "Canadian Catholics" or even "Canadian Orthodox." It’s hard to take those seriously. Honestly, using those terms feels less like a description and more like a cheap shot at certain users, considering neither group was ever considered a founding nation in the region.

Doesn't look like the OP has anything against what you said, but moving on to this:

On the flip side, calling people "Canadian Catholics" or even "Canadian Orthodox" is basically just trolling and insulting certain members here, since those two groups were never constituent nations.

Does the reverse work too?

Muslims were never a constituent nation either—they weren't even considered a full nation back then, let alone a constituent one.

Is it "trolling" or an insult when someone refers to the constituent nations of Canada and lists them as: Mexicans, Americans, and Muslims?

From what I can tell, this whole thread is a protest against exactly these kinds of examples, and let's be real, there are plenty of them...

jadecyclist42, I'm guessing you know her mom personally.

Tell her she should reach out to some of those charity organizations... it'll make everything way easier that way.

rowdyhawk10 said:That’s just how things went down at the start—back when Dervish first posted that initial thread covering the Islam-114 questions and answers part 1. I suppose nobody really stopped to ask why it was set up that way back then.

So, you're telling me that was actually logical and just common sense? ... Unbelievable.

If that's how we're playing it with Fiqh questions, then why doesn't the same logic apply to Akaid? Makes zero sense...

Kenneth Barnes7 said:As far as I know and understand—that top thread is there to serve as a quick info resource in two ways: a brief introduction to Islam for non-Muslims, and theological plus practical-religious answers for Muslims... For instance, questions about when Eid is, how to congratulate someone, how to act during prayer in certain cases, what is allowed and what isn't while fasting, what Muslims believe, what they don't believe, etc., etc., etc...

Well, if you were to categorize these questions, things falling under Fiqh would basically be: how to perform prayer, what is permitted or prohibited while fasting, and questions regarding Eid. And Aqidah questions would include what Muslims believe and what they do not believe...

Regarding Fiqh questions, in our region (under the jurisdiction of the Islamic Community of Canada) which covers Canada, the US, Mexico, and Canada, the Hanafi madhhab applies (the Hanafi madhhab is most prominent in Turkey, the northern part of the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent), and such legal answers are given in accordance with the Hanafi madhhab to preserve unity. You can find more about what a madhhab is at this LINK.

The opinion of another (non-Hanafi) madhhab would be, for example, in the way of performing prayer and raising hands (not to get too deep into details, it's about how often and in what manner hands are raised). The Hanafi madhhab says hands are raised only at the very beginning, while the Hanbali madhhab states this is done at every change of position in prayer. So, that is a madhhab in Fiqh.

The introductory post of the top thread didn't mention anything about Aqidah issues (about Aqidah madhhabs); instead, it was left to those who would write, and it probably wasn't intended to dive into such deep questions initially (as people are doing today). As for Aqidah teachings, Islam is very democratic. The opinions of Islamic scholars are respected as long as they don't encroach upon the very core of the Islamic faith. Also, this democracy is expressed by focusing on the MAJORITY. When someone states (and provides clear proof for it) that something in Aqidah is the opinion of the majority of Islamic scholars—that is considered Islamic belief. And when an opposing opinion appears, that person will highlight it; if they don't, someone else will do it for them, though one shouldn't be rude and try to push their own minority view as the official one.
People jump into judging certain opinions and even the evidence for those opinions far too easily. Things are dismissed lightly, and people are insulted easily—such behavior comes solely from a clear and genuine ignorance of the process used to reach a formulated opinion. You can't debunk an opinion based on dozens of high-quality books just using some brochure. You can't attack or insult someone's historical role without looking from multiple angles and having a detailed understanding of why they are valued... Basically, attacking an opinion requires a massive amount of intellectual honesty, and here lies the problem, because that kind of honesty is quite absent... including the intellectual kind...

Historical disagreements can only be explained through other topics, but then we’d have too many of those. The whole "Muslim" energy would just get wasted on questions like that—instead of actually presenting Islam properly as a religion. Honestly, these differences are only relevant to people who genuinely want to get to know Islam deeply and are willing to understand it... As for anyone looking at Islam with suspicion from the start? They’re just trolling... refusing to use their brains...

I wrote quite a bit, maybe a little too much... But anyway, I hope this helps with the understanding...

Same question as before—if you guys always go by the Official stances from the Islamic Community of Canada when dealing with Fiqh questions on this thread, why on earth don't you do the same thing when it comes to Akaid?...

I don't see any logic in it being any other way... 🤷

rowdyhawk10 said:History actually matters if one wants to establish unity among Muslims, because that’s where the key lies. It's important because all the later theological divisions—whether Fiqh, Akaid, or otherwise—were essentially triggered by political splits.

As for what you mentioned in the first paragraph... 🙄 I could easily solve that: I’d just put in my signature that I’m not Sunni, but rather a Muslim from Mars, writing in the spirit of Islam as it exists—on Mars! 😁 In reality, this can't really be a Hanafi top-topic in an Akaid sense, because if it were, then a top-thread on Christianity would also have to be strictly Catholic, making everyone else "black sheep." Peace.

Then why is it considered Hanafi in Fiqh too?

How did we even end up with this idea of an "official" forum-style Hanafi legal school anyway?

History doesn't even matter right now because the topic already has an official madhhab assigned to it, so all those historical disagreements are totally irrelevant at this point...

@shadyev, looks like it turns out Imam Abu Hanifa didn't even have any stances on Aqidah—the "guy" was just strictly about the Fiqh. 🙂

I don't even read you guys over there (let alone write 😁), lost my will to bother ages ago. Not even sure what logic you used to pick the Hanafi school as the official one for that top-tier thread of yours, but if you're gonna assign an official Fiqh school to a topic, then go ahead and assign an official Aqidah school too and get the whole problem solved. People who actually know their stuff will know which theological direction would best "fit" alongside the Hanafi legal school.

There's no need to mix in the history of Islam here at all, and honestly (IMO), it’s not nearly as big of a deal as those two points above.

Jose White23 said:Fine, whatever. Let's play it this way then. This thread is already at 6,100 posts. It can hit 10,000 before they finally shut it down for being too huge.

That’s gonna take about a year... 🤷

Jose White23 said:Whatever...

Glad you started this thread about Franjo Harmon. It’d be great if the History buffs and my colleagues weighed in too. I've been thinking for a while now that we need a separate thread to bring Franjo Harmon back into the political conversation. My suggestion? Clean this thread up and move it over to History, and then start a strictly moderated political thread called "Franjo Harmon in Today's Political Landscape" (or something less dry than 😁) where we can link his legacy to current events. Like, if someone in Washington today cites an old action or opinion from him, people could post it here and discuss it.

The stuff about what actually happened in the past—from family stories to his old policy moves—would probably fit better and get better moderation over in History. Kind of like how they handled the American Civil War.

A new one should definitely be made. This current thread feels more like a history lesson than actual politics, but I'm not down for just moving the whole thing to History. You can't clean up 300+ pages to make it fit there, and leaving it as-is wouldn't be right. So, I say close this one and open a new, tightly moderated one in Politics. As for the History crowd, if they want to talk about Harmon, they can just start their own thread.