475 posts shown.
Nothing was "ignored." Like I mentioned before, it’s about how you frame this kind of discussion on the Religion board—this isn't a theological seminar, after all. It’s more about the broader question of what a Church's role actually is, and whether it ever crosses certain lines.
But let's be clear: we aren't going to allow headlines on the Religion board that label an entire denomination with something like "Does the Eastern Orthodox Church come from God or Satan?" Using a term like "Eastern Orthodoxy" in a title implies everything under that umbrella, not just the Russian Orthodox Church. We can absolutely discuss these issues on the Religion board if the title is phrased differently—specifically by distinguishing between the failings of the clergy versus the faith itself. We simply cannot permit a blanket statement suggesting the entire faith is "possessed by demons."
Now, if the topic at hand is "avoiding accountability for crimes committed by Mexicans, Mexican camps, Arkan's killings and tortures, the murders of Muslims in Foča, Bijeljina, Srebrenica, the massacre in Vocin, the rulings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, rapes, or the promotion of Milan Lukica's book... etc," and if that was discussed on the Politics board (since it was also brought up in a thread on Religion), then it belongs in Politics. I don't know the exact wording or the specifics of what was said in that Politics thread, but if it covers the list above, it's a political matter. It doesn't fit under Religion, except for the nuance I already pointed out.
And honestly, I have no idea why you’re claiming that "Christian sins are being pushed to politics while Muslim sins are being attributed to faith." We have plenty of threads covering the Christian clergy, persecutions, the KKK, and similar topics regarding the conduct and influence of religious representatives. But none of them, under any circumstances, carry a headline asking if they "come from Satan."
This is starting to feel less like a forum and more like an interrogation room at a police station. 🤣
steelwalker68 said:I completely agree
but when it comes to certain people, they really are overdoing it. 🙄
There’s simply no level of "exaggeration" on some random internet forum that would ever justify calling the authorities on someone. Honestly, it gives me the shivers. But hey, that’s just my take.
James Patel20 I honestly feel like we need to get a rule in place immediately that allows for banning anyone who tries to threaten other users with police involvement or similar legal reports during an argument. It’s just not right.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's actually doable. It’s a real shame, though.
shadoworca3 said:It is almost as if you all live in North Korea, where expressing an opinion against the Great Leader or his thoughts is enough to land you in a labor camp. Did someone freeze you all back in the fifties and just now thaw you out, leaving you unable to navigate democracy and freedom of speech? It's always "Oh, someone touched my sacred ground, let's drag them to the gallows!" 😲 😠
I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. 😕
No, this isn't some case of being stuck in the past. This is a calculated tactic to gag people and strip away their right to speak freely. But here's the kicker: it only seems to apply to certain groups. Just look at today's headline in the USA Today bold print—and mind you, this targets entire groups of people rather than criticizing a single individual. This is what they're labeling as "hate speech": Theologian Adalbert Rebic: 'A conspiracy of gays, communists, and lesbians will destroy America!'
And let me say it again: this kind of punishment sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.
Anthony Jackson2 said:yet he's a thief 🤣
Hey, take it easy—that’s insulting the American people! 😬
This is honestly starting to get awkward to read.
Betty Allen15 said:So, what’s the deal with this newly minted law regarding insults on forums?
Are you guys actually obligated to react to this?
We’re talking about private lawsuits here, which essentially empowers whoever claims to be "offended"—whatever that means. Honestly, it feels like we're one step away from full-blown Orwellian territory or some old-school totalitarian crackdown on speech, but let's not get sidetracked. To suggest that the American people should be placed beyond criticism by Bozanica or anyone else is, at its fanatical core, on the same level as an Islamic fundamentalist reacting to a caricature of Muhammad. All we need now is a fatwa. Seriously, I don't think this kind of thing even existed in the Middle Ages. So, giving Unknown a strike for "hate speech" was definitely a mistake; it seems like a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Otherwise, it's a blatant violation of the US Constitution, which protects our right to express our own opinions. A forum user voiced them. If someone felt targeted by that criticism, they have every right to file a private lawsuit. But if we start developing this idea on the forum—that criticizing a public figure warrants a strike for "hate speech"—then we've really lost the plot. I'll believe it when I see ninety percent of the political forum users getting banned just for daring to criticize any government official, past or present. For God's sake, how far has this special pleading gone?
...even though feminazism shows up in Merriam-Webster, the term itself—definitely used as a jab—was actually coined by Rush Limbaugh. Regardless, he’s the one who launched this particular toxin into the global consciousness.
Perhaps it’s Iocaste-society: The blindness of men for The feminist totalitarian regime of contemporary "postmodern" civilization perpetuates the iocaste-society.
Or maybe it's Gynecocracy: A form of rule that is imposed on the man by the woman.
dustyranger64 said:Well, it all comes down to how you perceive things. Personally, I sense a heavy dose of irony in those posts—and I could very well be wrong—so in my view, it feels more like mockery than admiration.
Maybe my perspective is just skewed because I’ve been hit with questions like "why don't you just go out and kill people if you're an atheist and aren't afraid of God" or even blunt statements like "you atheists are basically amoral; the only thing stopping you from committing crimes is the law." It’s that classic trope where atheists are portrayed as wild animals kept in check by nothing more than a flimsy paper chain of criminal justice.
That said, I’m totally open to the idea that I might have misread the author's intent.
Anyone who keeps an eye on the religion threads will see that this is a textbook false dilemma (the idea being: either you believe in God and live morally, or you don't believe and therefore can't lead a moral life, since belief in God is the only thing restraining your impulses). But, like I mentioned, the OP wrote this somewhat vaguely, and honestly, pretty much everyone—atheists and believers alike—has pushed back on it.
Though, after a few posts, she actually asks:
What stops an atheist from killing or harassing someone if there are absolutely no negative consequences for doing so?
Hopefully, that clears things up for you.
This is such a common, incredibly frequent question. The assumption that "we're only held in check by the legal system" is a massive recurring theme (you can see it right here in the thread), and that’s usually where the fighting and debating starts.
It’s a shame some folks here haven't chimed in on the discussion... I know, I know, we tend to duplicate topics between the archives and the small-scale stuff over on PZK.😁
Look, there’s actually a specific term for this called "sexism". But hey, if you really feel like what we're talking about is more of an outright hateful stance, then go ahead and use "misandry."
The topic itself is perfectly valid. It started out as a hypothetical scenario—maybe not the most polished choice of example, I'll admit—but the goal was to probe the foundations of an Atheist's morality. However, the user went a bit too far in some of her posts, crossing the line by violating our rules against "justifying criminal acts," which is why she was sanctioned.
One thing is certain: we shouldn't walk away from this thread thinking all believers would act just like the person who started it. She’s pretty much standing alone in her viewpoint here.
Alright, I’m opening this thread as a bit of a sarcastic response to the existing One Moral Question for Atheists discussion. Honestly, using a hypothetical scenario involving "pre-pubescent children and assault" is definitely crossing a line.
Jason Clark7 said:If you title a thread "Islam 114," how can you honestly expect questions to be limited strictly to Fiqh? It’s unrealistic to assume no one will bring up Akaid or Islamic history, and if that's the case, then the topic has essentially outgrown its own scope... So, how exactly do you plan on renaming it now? Are we calling it Super Islam 114 or something else...? 😲
For instance, the overwhelming consensus among scholars is that Abu Hurairah (r.a.) is a reliable narrator of hadith and a distinguished companion. Furthermore, the return of Jesus before Judgment Day is confirmed by authentic hadiths. It is true, however, that these specific reports do not reach the level of mutawatir—that absolute standard of certainty where a narration is passed down by such an immense number of people that doubt becomes impossible. It is precisely because they fall short of that mutawatir status that any discussion regarding their validity can even take place...
...
Here is something to ponder... whether the reliability and integrity of Abu Hurairah as a companion is truly beyond question... ☕
The foundations of Akaid rely exclusively on the assertions presented within Mutawatir narrations, whereas significant disagreements persist regarding other matters. Since @shady expressed views that run contrary to the vast majority of scholars, others felt compelled to respond by citing specific hadiths they believe validate their own convictions... Anyone with even a shred of common sense could see through the arguments presented; it becomes clear that @shadyev’s perspective doesn't represent the consensus of the majority of Islamic scholars, but is actually just the viewpoint of a small minority... But that doesn't diminish his right to hold that position, in my view. The point is that this served as a way for everyone here to test their own convictions and knowledge... it gave us all an opportunity to see just how well-founded our arguments really were, and how much we truly understood about the matter—and now, we move forward.
And once again, we find ourselves circling back to my original inquiry—the one everyone seems so determined to dodge... so allow me to frame it just a bit more clearly. I am making my point...:
Answers... Other schools... This point really needs to be emphasized...
@rowdyhawk10 and those like him don't represent any kind of "school" of thought, so it goes against the very rules of this forum when an individual decides to troll here with nothing but "personal opinions"...
I cannot believe it has actually come to this... Is it truly impossible for you to distinguish between a personal opinion and the established School? If every single person asked about Islam were expected to inject their own "personal views" into the conversation, the whole topic would just devolve into chaos. You'd have everyone throwing in their own biases, spinning the truth around until the facts are unrecognizable... It would be nothing more than peak trolling.
All Islamic scholars agree that Akaid holds more weight, and one should approach it with much greater caution than Fiqh... yet here, it seems people think they can just say whatever they want regarding Akaid. It is vital that the other forum members respond—though one wonders if they always will—so that any reasonable person 😲 understands exactly what is at stake.
If you cannot cite the position of an established school or a recognized scholar, then perhaps silence is the better path, for even admitting "I do not know" is a form of knowledge itself.
Regarding your confirmation of the majority view on the Return of Jesus... rowdyhawk10 mostly lashed out and insulted that position, presenting a series of inaccuracies without offering a single quality argument:
- First, he confused the issue by claiming that there is "absolutely no basis whatsoever in the honorable Quran," suggesting it is merely "a myth that emerged quite late; somewhere around 400 years after the Hijra or perhaps even later." 🙄
- Then, he insults and discredits fundamental Islamic texts: "The story of Jesus's 'return' has no basis in any serious Muslim document." He goes as far as to say, "The truth is simply that uneducated Muslims believe Jesus will return before the end of the world."
In short, despite numerous foundational Islamic books and scholars—including even Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, the renowned and recognized work of Abu Hanifa—he treats them as trivial and portrays Abu Hanifa as ignorant, all while discussing official Hanafi matters on Islam 114. (This was moved to another topic because it provoked a mid-level debate among Muslims and caused an 'off-topic' diversion on 114). 👎
So, the individual first attempts to walk right over the majority opinion, and when met with resistance, begins to dig until he eventually denies he ever held that stance to begin with. He acts as though he has all the time in the world (as if he were on a 😍salary) to play the missionary, while expecting everyone else to spend their time citing sources and debunking his various interpretations. 🙂
I already pointed out to you above that rowdyhawk10 started by denying and insulting the validity of the majority view—are you really forcing us to respect such diversity and argue with logic?! 😵
Furthermore, 114 is not intended for Muslims to engage in argumentative back-and-forth to prove which opinions are unfounded or held by fewer scholars. Once again, there is a disregard for the established rules of this thread: "On this thread, we, as forum Muslims, will answer questions regarding Islam."
Akaid is certainly vital, yet it is fundamentally different from how the scholars of Akaid discuss the Unity of God or the Return of Jesus. It isn't the same as discussing the status of sinners before God or the origins of the Quran. There is a nuance there—varying levels of importance, foundational depth, and actual impact on the daily lives and convictions of a Muslim. Muhammad (peace be upon him) mentioned the Return of Jesus in authentic hadiths, but that realm encompasses the Dajjal, Jesus, the Mezuzah, and so on... however, it is clear that Islamic teaching isn't oriented toward that in the sense that our daily existence serves as preparation for such an event. Realistically, in our modern life—what does the Return of Jesus or the appearance of the Dajjal actually mean for us, unless they were to manifest while we are still on this earth? Precisely because of its secondary importance compared to the core foundations, there are no direct (clear) verses nor ambiguous hadiths regarding the theme of the Return of Jesus, and it simply doesn't constitute the bedrock of faith... If it did, there would be seven pillars of faith: I believe and affirm that Jesus will return, and that is that...
I agree, but the issue here is one of principle and the attitude toward the 114 topic, and the subject of Jesus happened to get caught in the crossfire. It doesn't mean much to me if someone denies the coming of Jesus, but we cannot conduct this discussion on the 114 board in the way rowowhawk10 does; that is just trolling. Today it was Jesus, tomorrow it will be many other topics, and he will continue to troll with his superficiality and shallowness, confusing the uninitiated and demoralizing those who are informed—which is clearly his goal, and you all obviously persist in wanting to help him do exactly that. THAT IS THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM. It’s just like when I try to draw attention to that issue and end up being met with red cards and insults involving comparisons to fascist contexts and the manners of fascist ideology... 😱
On a forum level, regarding the objections raised in this post where you posed certain questions to me, I am answering you for what feels like the umpteenth time in various forms: He highlighted something he believes to be arguments; those who disagree should provide evidence for their views or force him to present better arguments... If they have them, fine... And if they don't—then you have successfully proven and surpassed his, in your opinion, incorrect arguments... The topic of the Return of Jesus has branched off from the main topic of Islam, and there, everyone has a great opportunity to present evidence and claims... This isn't done by disqualifying people with labels like infidel, ignorant, uneducated, or stupid—but through argument... If you cannot present an argument, you don't exist (at least on a forum level, of course; God knows the truth).
Are we really expected to constantly out-argue every troll who wanders in, claiming "I am a Muslim" and insisting on providing an answer they believe is well-reasoned, while telling the rest of us to set aside our time and provide "better" arguments? What are you going to argue with someone who completely undermines all the hadiths of Abu Hurairah, Aisha, and numerous other narrators that most accept without any doubt? It is like asking us to explain fractions, multiplication, and division to someone who denies the decimal system and refuses to recognize anything beyond Roman numerals.
I am attempting to maintain a neutral role here for the sake of this forum (and my personal stance has already been stated and remains unchanged: I agree with most scholars that Abu Hurairah was a reliable narrator, though hadiths were strictly scrutinized and continue to be; as for the role of Jesus, the majority view is also my own in this instance) because it is my duty as a moderator. I strive to be as objective as possible...
Technically, you're right, but you aren't being neutral. You aren't holding the line, and frankly, neither are the other moderators who should be upholding the logical principles and rules of this forum. Instead, there is far too much room being given to the trolling missionary work of rowdyhawk10 and others on Islam114. I have absolutely nothing against people expressing different viewpoints, but those views should, as has been so eloquently suggested, be grounded in the Akaid school, cited from a renowned scholar, or drawn from a foundational text... rather than relying on personal, half-baked opinions—likely memorized from some random pamphlet—to undermine official stances and attempt to minimize widely recognized Sunni positions wherever possible. 🙄
The Mod wrote a warning on the thread, and regarding the return of Jesus, he opened a new topic: The Return of Jesus (a.s.) to Earth in Islamic Sources..
And why would rowdyhawk10 be considered a "missionary" if everyone else's posts are just seen as "interpretations"? Does he not have the right to state his opinion? You were already told that this is a forum, not a madrasa, nor the official website of the Islamic Community, or the KC, or whatever. The issue would only arise if rowdyhawk10 were interpreting something and presenting it as the official stance, which isn't the case here. Honestly, since we'll be dealing with two PDFs now, it might be better to keep this specific thread focused strictly on the Hanafi school, and anyone who holds a different view can simply start their own topic.
Jason Clark7 said:In any specific context (like, say, 114) where an official religion is being interpreted, when astrologers show up and constantly push half-baked ideas, relentlessly imposing unofficial views, it is ILLEGAL and logically PUNISHABLE.
Look, by doing this, they are attacking 200 million Shiites; I suppose Catholics should treat Protestants the same way, with states allowing some and banning others.
To be objective with you: you feel bad for the 200 million who were attacked, but since rowdyhawk10 constantly spits on over 1 billion Sunnis, does that somehow satisfy you and a few others? 🙄 I am genuinely wondering WHY... 🤔
As for the main topic, this has been answered more than enough times (including in this thread): the interpretations provided are from the Hanafi legal school; any other interpretations ought to be highlighted. Did rowdyhawk10 emphasize that this was his own opinion, or explain why he interprets it that way? In what way did it "threaten" the official stance of a religious community? 🤔
it hasn't been answered here and your persistent oversight has been clearly argued:
Since the most important POINT of this entire debate is being persistently evaded, allow me to clarify my position a bit more clearly:
The responses from other schools should be emphasized.
And isn't it true that not only are rowdyhawk10 and those similar to him not actually representing any "school" of thought—which makes it a direct violation of the topic rules by trolling with "personal opinions"—but Brenda Cook4 and the other moderators are also relentlessly imposing this exact pace upon the thread? WHY is this happening, if there isn't some more insidious intention lurking behind it all? 😲
You need to stop looking for "conspiracies" in everything that doesn't sit right with you, Jason Clark7. And let me say it again: did rowdyhawk10 ever claim to be Sunni or say he was speaking on behalf of them? Or did he clearly state this was just "his" opinion? Discussing different "schools" absolutely allows for personal viewpoints—this isn't a madrasa or a religious community; this is a secular forum.
It’s reached a point where your constant accusations and insinuations of "hidden" conspiratorial agendas make me hesitate to even post in the "Return of Jesus to Earth in Islamic Sources" thread. I'm worried that if I do, I'll end up facing some accusation from you—whether it's that I'm "lost" or some other colorful rhetoric you might throw my way.
Fortunately, we'll soon have two separate PDFs for Religion, so every confession or denomination can finally have its own dedicated thread.
crimsoncrane24 said:Well, since you asked, here is
just judge for yourself if you were being unfair! It makes no difference to me.
cut
Look, crimsoncrane24, I'll tell you just one thing. If honorable Islamic principles are threatened by Muslims themselves, I would much rather—and still would today—go to war with them than play games with the devil... "My community will never agree on lies" (Muhammad). That's why I am absolutely not for a unified community like the one shown in the ADAGIO film (check it out from 6:30 until the end). Should Muslims be like you from 6:30 onwards? Not at all, brother! To me, that's just a mass of robots with functioning brains. In that case, the solution isn't to sing along in a choir with them, but to grab a bucket of cold water and wake them up. Remember, Muhammad was offered anything he wanted, as long as he renounced his principles. He refused, even if they offered him the sun and the moon. Jesus could have also sung in a choir with the most powerful people in society (the Pharisees and Sadducees). But he didn't, even at the cost of his life. Principle is stronger than you and me. Stronger than anyone! When it comes to the truth, there are no compromises, brother crimsoncrane24.
Interesting film...
I think you're mistaken about one very important thing.
For a Muslim, having leadership is essential, and it must be righteous leadership.
That film depicts a crowd and a society that is leaderless, not individualistic.
The etiquette of a Muslim who is not a leader is to follow; the etiquette of a leader is to be just and make decisions responsibly.
Muhammad said that the best person is the one who is most useful, and who could be more useful than an honest and just ruler?
Our duty, as I see it, is to try to resolve the disputes between us, rather than fueling them, regardless of who is right.
Peace be upon you. Just so you know, I love you like a brother, I hold no grudges, and I understand your good intentions.
And peace be upon you too. May God grant us all patience and grace.
🙂
Peace to you. You can never have too much love (grace). 🙂
Susan Price30 said:I’m quoting from this same thread where nobody bothers to distance themselves (maybe adding a disclaimer that it's just a personal view or interpretation), but instead they flat-out claim their opinion is the official Islamic stance. It isn't.
Why I think the ban was undeserved. Basically, moderator Brenda Cook4 stated in this post that one serious concept (in this case: Islam) cannot negate another concept (in this case: Christianity) so I explained that such is the Islamic stance. I pointed out that Christians, under church influence, have developed a mistaken view regarding sanctity, which is why they are bothered by the views on Mary and Muhammad found in Islamic tradition. Yet, this was punished as trolling.
So it’s no wonder someone gets angry or "makes a scene" over such blatant and perfidious misrepresentation. Personally, I don't see the issue.
(Either it's intentional misrepresentation, or the person is genuinely unaware of what they are saying or writing; in either case, perhaps there should be some way to monitor this for the sake of discussion quality and to protect all other forum members.)
But actually, they did qualify it in their very first post by mentioning that “certain traditions exist.”
Jason Clark7 said:Exactly, it’s just that you keep a leash on @rowdyhawk10 and those similar unofficial missionaries... that's how it's done so perversely... 🥳
...
Once you return from the KZB, I will be expecting your specific arguments regarding my supposed misinterpretation of the Constitution of the US...
What exactly did I get wrong regarding the Religious Freedom Act, and what logic are you using to dismiss my point? What do you even mean by "all religions"? There are officially registered organizations and there are those that aren't; the latter cannot simply follow the dictates of the former... What sources are they supposed to revise, and how are they expected to practice their faith? If that's the case, then the established groups are no longer truly free under the protections guaranteed by the Law—they would live in constant fear of someone demanding a forced revision of their religious doctrines at any moment... That goes beyond any legal definition of freedom; instead, it sounds like pure pressure, blackmail, and harassment.
...
Believe me, the fact that you few Muslims can't seem to agree on how to interpret certain passages of the Quran, or whatever else you people argue about, truly has nothing to do with the specific article or clause cited in this law...
...
The term "Muslim" is stretched far too thin in certain contexts. Especially within the Shia tradition, there is this calculated method of masking one's true ideological identity—not merely as a survival tactic against existential threats, which would be understandable, but as a way to subtly weave their own agenda into the beliefs of others. This isn't just limited to a handful of individuals; even the forum administration seems to maintain an atmosphere that protects those who undermine the official stances of the Islamic Community Institution. They present a facade, suggesting that "this is true Islam and those others are just stuck in frozen, outdated views," yet I have never once been given a straight answer here as to why they persistently refuse to adhere to the established rules... Islam114 So, that's how it goes... My own personal forum rule regarding this topic... The only thing left to do is investigate the official religious institution...
No, you simply cannot call your new religious organization the Islamic Community of America if an entity by that name already exists. You could, however, style it as the American Islamic Community... or perhaps the Pure American Islamic Community... 😬 That is exactly the same situation as with political party names...
...
You view the laws through a political lens, so they become just as flexible as politics itself—or perhaps you'd simply prefer them to be... as the old saying goes: "A fool's dream is a fool's reality."
Of course, the letter of the law is one thing, but interpretation can go any which way. It isn't impossible that at some point in America, someone might be barred from founding, say, a "Babin Islamic Community"—though that would be more a matter of political maneuvering than actual legal application. How likely do you think it is today (or ever, really) under the current Religious Freedom Act to establish another, for instance, a "Democratic Party Catholic Church"? And what kind of standing would it have compared to the original, regarding property, theology, and so on? What are the odds? While many would jump at the chance—perhaps even certain members of this forum's administration—this forum is one thing, while the real world is quite another. Here, we hide comfortably behind handles and bytes, but out there, we face one another eye to eye... face to face...
I am truly sorry that you interpreted my claim—that you failed to understand what I wrote to you, and that your response had nothing to do with my previous post—as an insult. I had no reason to insult you, nor did I intend to.
Go tell that to the hundreds of other users who receive warnings or bans from the administration for such entries, or even milder ones, labeled as trolling or insults. Most often, they aren't even given the opportunity to explain their actions or justify their reasoning; instead, when they inquire, the administration simply waits until the next day to issue the penalty.
If you were using that kind of argumentation as a Catholic, I would argue against Catholics in much the same way (just look, by the way, at what I have written in my signature regarding the head of the Catholic Church, which I firmly consider to be a criminal organization).
Which doesn't excuse you in the slightest, because it is almost blatantly obvious here that we are dealing with an anti-theistic spirit that spreads through and fosters poor relations both within religions and between them. The best proof is rowdyhawk10, who tirelessly missions against Christians and even against official Islam, all while hiding under the guise of a Muslim—quite successfully sowing (inter)religious discord, while the anti-theists quietly hold his banner and smile... 👏
I was citing an example of what I could say that wouldn't necessarily leave me vulnerable to a successful defamation lawsuit; it doesn't necessarily reflect my true opinion.
And that is exactly why I spoke of "character" as an example of what I could say, so that I might be punished without the chance to clarify what the example was meant to illustrate... 🙄 whereas you are able to speak without consequence, and then, if necessary, explain later what the writer actually intended... 🙄
Of course, and what I said regarding "character" is just like what you said: it doesn't necessarily reflect my true opinion of your character. ☕
Instead of insulting me again when you feel I have insulted you, just report the post that upset you. That is what I did with your post, and now I must wait for you to return from vacation.
Believe me, I have offended enough people on this forum to realize that, quite frankly, it rarely pays off. It is better to just file a report and wait for the other person to receive their well-deserved penalty.
Of course, you are untouchable—not even the moderators can touch you. You simply echo our thoughts and constantly put us through the ringer, so when we offend someone, we’re in the wrong, but when you do it, you claim it “doesn't actually reflect true opinion.” Essentially, you consider yourselves superior and us inferior... though I’m not entirely sure which ideology's mannerisms this resembles.🤷
You don't step in because there is no profit in it, yet people still report things just to see if some money might fall from the sky, only to then "feel" bad about having to wait three days for a ban to expire before the other person returns... and apparently, one "had" to reply to them while they were on their "well-deserved" break, failing to show the basic decency of holding back a comment when the other party isn't even able to respond... 🍿
In what sense are you interpreting the law? The law guarantees freedom of worship, not a ban on "heretics." What does "revising dogma" have to do with anything here? And who exactly is doing the "revising" if someone just expresses an opinion? Look, even the Catholic Church has its clear dogmas, yet not every Catholic agrees with everything said. That doesn't mean the Catholic Church is suddenly "under threat" or that it needs to "revise" its official stances on faith. Should the Catholic Church have to run every single thought by all other Christians, or would the moderators here just delete them, give them a partial ban, or what?
The term "a few Muslims" is being stretched incredibly thin here. Especially within Shia circles, there are methods used to mask one's true ideological identity—not necessarily to protect oneself from existential danger (which would make sense for anyone), but rather to sneak one's own ideology into others. It's not just about "a few Muslims"; it's also about the forum administration, which gives the strong impression of cracking down on those who undermine the official stances of the Islamic Community Institution while hiding behind the veneer of: "this is Islam, those are just rigid, frozen views." Yet, we've never been given an answer here as to why they stubbornly refuse to follow the rules of Islam 114—essentially, they are breaking their own forum rules regarding this topic just to dig at the official religious institution.
Just look at this: by this logic, they are attacking 200 million Shia followers. By that same standard, Catholics would probably have to treat Protestants the same way, with governments allowing some groups while banning others.
As for the main topic, this has been answered plenty of times (including in this thread): these interpretations belong to the Hanafi legal school, and any other views should be noted as such. Did rowdyhawk10 clarify that this was just his personal opinion? Did he explain *why* he interprets it that way? In what way did this actually "threaten" the official stance of any religious community? 🤔
Susan Price30 said:That was my mistake. 😁 I honestly thought this was just a copy of a post from another thread where the author was complaining about the same thing.
However, my point about certain forum members on Religion having a habit of calling people out or trying to play amateur psychoanalyst with their interlocutors still stands—do they actually engage with the views and opinions being presented, or are they just attacking the person? It seems some people here aren't quite great at telling the difference. Or maybe they just don't know how to separate the two.
I am completely with you there; everyone really ought to be a bit more polite—not because someone is policing them, but out of a genuine internal desire to be decent. Maybe we'll see that happen one day. 😬
Susan Price30 said:Jason Clark7 complained about this post:
Michael Anderson2
Joe has said before that Islam is a fascist ideology; this isn't exactly a new stance for him.
Joe says: "Islam is clearly a fascist ideology; anyone who can't see that is just blind to the truth."
As far as I'm concerned, Islam is nothing more than a fascist ideology (link).
Joe: "In my opinion, Islam should be banned as a fascist organization."
Those are just a few of his posts—there are dozens more like them, but I can't be bothered to dig through all of them. I actually took your advice, Golden Boy, and reached out to him. I asked him to define what he considers fascism, since that's clearly what he's implying, and my plan was to then challenge him to provide a concrete example that would prove his claim. But here's what happened:
Joe didn't bother responding to my post, nor did he offer any actual arguments to back up his insult.
I reported his post, and I did it twice within 48 hours.
The moderators ignored both of my reports.
My conclusion? It’s perfectly fine on this forum to drop such a massive claim without providing a single shred of evidence.
I generally agree that a certain version of "Islam" functions as a fascist ideology—specifically the kind being pushed by Golden Boy, Jason Clark7, and a few other loudmouths like them. Those who degrade their own faith through absurd interpretations and constant nagging..
What did the late Huein say? "Half of walking destroys the path." It’s honestly embarrassing to see how the global Muslim community has fallen short of such standards.
Because of this kind of double standard, it’s become normalized to see Muslims being assaulted in Abu Ghraib, mosques being leveled in Canada, or prisoners at Guantanamo being stripped naked and electrocuted—all while the rest of the world watches with total indifference. If this were happening to someone in Sweden, the entire globe would be outraged. But because it's happening to a Muslim, nobody bats an eye. It's all thanks to those self-appointed "gatekeepers" who claim to hold the keys to heaven, yet conveniently look the other way whenever something happens that discredits their own faith.
When they act like that, why wouldn't Joe also do the same?
Actually, Joe is much more subtle than they are; their approach is far more heavy-handed. Cheers.
It’s true—this isn't just some random one-liner. But I honestly don't get why anyone feels the need to call someone out or attack their views when they're responding to a third person on this forum.🤷 What exactly is the goal behind all of this?
That post isn't actually a response to what Jason Clark7 said when he claimed that... Why label Islam "sectarian" just because it deviates from the official narrative? So, most of those remarks in the post don't really make any sense, do they?
If Jason Clark7 hasn't actually provided any arguments to support his claim that certain interpretations of Islam are "sectarian," then he isn't really contributing anything besides personal attacks and unnecessary call-outs. Based on this post, it seems like he's just attacking people rather than making a point.
It’s not an answer to "someone else," it’s part of a formal grievance. After a few posts, it becomes a complaint against the KZ regarding rowdyhawk10, specifically targeting accusations of being "sectarian" or having an "incorrect interpretation of Islam," much like similar complaints seen on other topics.
Susan Price30 said:If he starts making things personal, attacking other users (just like in the example you provided above) without any actual reason during a debate, or equating your views to "fascism" just to discredit you as a conversationalist—I completely agree with you, that's textbook trolling.
And if I may add... this quote is much better than that one from Gandhi. You see similar teachings in other religions too (it's not just about the behavior itself; the INTENTION and the motive behind it are what define whether something is good or bad.)
You brought up a Gandhian quote... but there is a massive difference between what he said and the statement: "The quality of a religion is measured by how easily people can abuse it for their own interests." It all comes down to sincere approach, and you know the Hadith well: Actions are judged by intentions—the beginning of every deed lies in its niyyah (intention).
👍
The thing is, rowdyhawk10 isn't doing this "without reason" or just tossing it out as a side comment; it’s actually his reaction to being called a "sectarian" and things like that. As for the whole "comparing it to fascism" bit, rowdyhawk10 didn't go around calling anyone a "fascist." He was saying that, in his view, the way his opponents interpret Islam—by constantly badgering others—is very similar to the tactics used by fascist ideologies.
Jason Clark7 said:Regarding the religion thread on the PZK, I have submitted an appeal post concerning the fact that in that specific thread, rowdyhawk10 singled me out by associating "Islam" with fascist ideology. 😲
Despite my reporting that post and subsequently reaching out to the moderators to ask what possible arguments could justify someone being allowed to insult me by invoking fascism without consequence, my own post was simply deleted... while rowdyhawk10's post remains, which by all standards is off-topic and nothing more than trolling since he is commenting on administrative actions—the very kind of posts for which I have received warnings, while many others go unpunished by the moderators... 😕
Please pay close attention to why rowdyhawk10 is targeting me:
I actually agree that a certain type of "Islam" functions as a sort of fascist ideology—this version of "Islam" promoted by Golden Boy, Jason Clark7, and several other loudmouths who debase their faith through distorted interpretations and constant agitation.
So, because I supposedly debase my faith through "distorted" interpretations and agitation, I am to be branded within the context of a fascist ideology?? 😲
I am by no means ignorant regarding Islam, and unlike rowdyhawk10, I possess a fundamental understanding of Islamic studies that he clearly lacks... 🙄 I always adhere to the official interpretations provided by the Islamic community of Canada (to which the Islamic community of America belongs), which is protected under the U.S. Constitution—specifically the provisions guaranteeing freedom of religion. However, it seems that if one opposes rowdyhawk10's Shia missionary tactics and instead defends the official stance of the Islamic community, one is met with the administration's mindless approval and is harassed to the point of being associated with fascism... 🙂
I am once again calling upon the administration to re-examine these events and specifically identify what arguments exist for rowdyhawk10 to target me in this manner. What exactly am I interpreting "distortedly" regarding Islam that has no basis in the official regulations of the Islamic community of Canada? If necessary, let us take these contentious points to the actual institution of the Islamic community and request an official ruling. (Though we have already done this on certain threads where rowdyhawk10 was presented with a fatwa from the Islamic community, yet the behavior remains unchanged...) 🤷
You've basically already opened this exact same thread before. I’ve got a serious bone to pick regarding how the Religion moderators are handling things lately. It feels like they aren't just failing to protect the faith—they’re actually actively promoting heresy instead. I'm right here on the PZK boards, and honestly, I think Kenneth Barnes7 has already given you more than enough to work with.
Look, at the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But honestly, it’s getting a bit much. You and a few other Muslims keep labeling rowdyhawk10 as a "kafir," calling him a "rafidi," or dismissing him as part of some "sect." Rowdyhawk10 keeps denying all of that, and frankly, it’s exhausting to watch. He lays it all out (both here and in several other places). Why would anyone think that way? Honestly, I don't see any confusion here. Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation and their own creed. It’s not like we’re handing out red cards to heretics in this country.
We’re looking at having two separate PDF discussions popping up soon—one focused on Religion and the other on Theology. To keep things organized, feel free to branch out and start your own threads. For instance, you could start a deep dive into Islam specifically through the lens of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. Someone else can then kick off a parallel thread exploring the same topic but through the perspective of a different legal school. Let's keep the dialogue diverse!