Posts by Jason Clark7

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...

Shouldn't a top topic of such importance be more precisely defined? If you moderators aren't clear on why you won't define it, then perhaps there is a problem... 😕

...
The introductory post for the top topic doesn't mention anything regarding Akaid questions (or Akaid schools); rather, that has been left to those who will write, and it likely wasn't intended at the start to dive into such deep matters (as is being done today). Regarding Akaid teachings, Islam is very democratic. The opinions of Islamic scholars are respected as long as they don't infringe upon the core foundations of the Islamic faith. Furthermore, this democracy is shown by paying attention to the MAJORITY. When someone provides a clear proof that a certain matter in Akaid represents the opinion of the majority of Islamic scholars, it is considered an Islamic belief. And when an opposing view emerges, that person will highlight it, and if they don't, others will do it for them, though one shouldn't be rude and attempt to push a minority stance as the official one.
...

That idea of being "democratic" is incredibly elastic... Beyond that, it is perfectly clear that the instruction was that Hanafi Akaid is Maturidi (not "very democratic"), and that is the official stance of our Islamic Community. Diluting the Akaid—which is incomparably more important than Fiqh, which is why Abu Hanifa called it the Great Fiqh—is problematic. I truly do not understand what is meant by such vague formulations; I assumed you had a better grasp of Islamic subject matter (in a well-meaning way), and I fail to see why you persistently evade answering my questions while instead choosing to hover around them... 🤷

Brenda Cook4 said: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.

Peace to you. You can never have too much love (grace). 🙂

Once again, you are diluting my point by using psychoanalysis to suggest I am some kind of conspiracy theorist. 👎
Surely it shouldn't be so extreme that you cannot distinguish a personal opinion from the position of the School? 🙄 On what basis would the "School" "allow" someone to offer a certain "opinion"—and which "opinion" specifically? Is it only the one favored by the administration, or just any random thought? Imagine how chaotic this topic would become if every single "Muslim" responding to a question about Islam tacked on their own "personal view" or "thoughts," essentially spinning the truth until the whole thing becomes a mess... it would be nothing more than peak trolling. 🙂
And then there is that standard line, "this is a secular forum," which perhaps you use to imply one has the right to ignore the rules established for the sake of the community—is it only because those rules benefit a specific religion that people should normally and unobtrusively present official stances without the ability for others to inject irrelevant commentary or exaggerate flaws while downplaying merits? 😲

It has reached the point where your constant accusations and insinuations regarding "subversive" conspiratorial ideas feel like a barrier to me. For several days now, I have hesitated to write on the topic "Return of Jesus to Earth in Islamic Sources," fearing that I might be accused of being a hardliner or, if I am not Muslim, that I will be mocked by your rhetoric.

I have focused my observations strictly on the main topic of Islam 114, which is clearly evident from my posts. I don't understand why you are now dragging other PDF topics into this, as they all have their own specific themes and rules defined in their opening posts. Please, do not tell me that my writing is causing issues even in your real life... believe me when I say (as my friend steelskipper5 once said) that it was never my intention, nor does it necessarily represent my personal view. 😉

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:@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.

this was already explained a week ago, yet rowdyhawk10 and a few others here are persistently playing dumb ☕

ps

the Hanafi school is official because it is official within the Islamic Community of Canada and the United States, which serves as the legal and legitimate institution representing Islam in these regions...

rowdyhawk10 said:Everything you're trying to explain to him was already explained by Kenneth Barnes7 a few days ago during that first blowout, here, where in post #2 he says:

When it is stated that answers in the main topic will come from the Hanafi madhhab (legal school), it means that applies to questions within the realm of fiqh, not general dogma! A question like "Will Jesus return to judge Golden Boy and Mus instead of not coming?" is not part of fiqh. To simplify it even further so it's clearer what Mus actually wants to know: a madhhab is a legal school. For instance, according to one madhhab, a certain amount of minor bleeding doesn't invalidate wudu (ritual washing before prayer), whereas in another legal school, even the slightest bleeding invalidates it, requiring a full redo of the wudu; or another example: in one madhhab, you pray with your hands tied at the navel; in another, your hands are lowered along your body during prayer; in a third, the hands are raised above the navel and tied there... and so on.

Fiqh is the science of determining what stance (or ruling) should be taken regarding the actions of an adult and mentally competent person.

This means: When someone in the main topic asks Muslims: "How should the hands be held during prayer?" they will be told: "At the navel, with the right hand over the left" — because that is how it is in the Hanafi legal school. If someone writes: "Hands are held raised at the chest" — then they should specify that this isn't according to the Hanafi view, but rather the Shafi'i madhhab... (this doesn't necessarily mean it's true, I'm just giving an example of what falls under fiqh). Essentially, the answers in the main topic pertain to fiqh (law) but not to dogma (faith/belief). Fiqh, for example, doesn't deal with whether angels have four wings or six. It doesn't deal with history! (for instance, whether Muawiya was great or terrible)... etc. The science of fiqh only deals with legal questions, such as the procedure for a divorce or what prevents a marriage between a man and a woman, and so forth.

Jason Clark7 went on a bit about how the core topic here is strictly Hanafi, arguing that everything discussed—including political stances, historical views, and even general worldly perspectives—serves only to present Hanafi viewpoints. He seems to think those things don't actually fall under the umbrella of Fiqh sciences. That's his take, I suppose. 🤷

Maybe no one else is stepping up because only rowdyhawk10 was brave enough to point this out to you all, risking some backlash in the process, but doing so to honestly state the truth. 🤷 Therefore, I haven't "sneakily misrepresented" anything! Any somewhat educated Muslim would know that. In fact, acknowledging this opens our perspective for the future and brings us closer together.

I'd love for you to enroll me in an Islam course, so I could learn more about my faith and things I haven't known until now. To guide me toward the right path so my knowledge might be more complete... but, I suppose, you would have to surpass me in knowledge first before you could act as my teacher. 😉 Signed.

You are persistently diluting, confusing, and trolling what I explained briefly, clearly, and beautifully here:

Jason Clark7 said:...

To put it bluntly, aren't we being pedantic if we insist on sticking to one specific Fiqh school while simultaneously blurring the lines of the Akaid?😲 The Akaid of the Hanafi milieu is well-established and known to anyone with even a basic level of expertise in Islam—it is the Maturidi Akaid, and it remains untainted by rowdyhawk10's sectarianism. After all, Abu Hanifa himself referred to the Akaid as Al-Fiqh al-Akbar and authored a work by that name. Therefore, it is quite surprising that someone claiming to be an Islamic authority on this forum confuses these matters—either you lack the knowledge, or you aren't acting in good faith. 😕

Of course, rowdyhawk10 and many others on this forum are more than welcome to question things and voice their own doubts, but using that as a rebuttal isn't appropriate here at Islam114—and certainly not when such responses are packaged as the official stance of Islam (even if, according to rowdyhawk10, "official Islam" is just some abstract concept🙂)
...

rowdyhawk10 said:Everything you're trying to explain to him was already explained by Kenneth Barnes7 a few days ago during that first blowout, here, where in post #2 he says:

When it is stated that answers in the main topic will come from the Hanafi madhhab (legal school), it means that applies to questions within the realm of fiqh, not general dogma! A question like "Will Jesus return to judge Golden Boy and Mus instead of not coming?" is not part of fiqh. To simplify it even further so it's clearer what Mus actually wants to know: a madhhab is a legal school. For instance, according to one madhhab, a certain amount of minor bleeding doesn't invalidate wudu (ritual washing before prayer), whereas in another legal school, even the slightest bleeding invalidates it, requiring a full redo of the wudu; or another example: in one madhhab, you pray with your hands tied at the navel; in another, your hands are lowered along your body during prayer; in a third, the hands are raised above the navel and tied there... and so on.

Fiqh is the science of determining what stance (or ruling) should be taken regarding the actions of an adult and mentally competent person.

This means: When someone in the main topic asks Muslims: "How should the hands be held during prayer?" they will be told: "At the navel, with the right hand over the left" — because that is how it is in the Hanafi legal school. If someone writes: "Hands are held raised at the chest" — then they should specify that this isn't according to the Hanafi view, but rather the Shafi'i madhhab... (this doesn't necessarily mean it's true, I'm just giving an example of what falls under fiqh). Essentially, the answers in the main topic pertain to fiqh (law) but not to dogma (faith/belief). Fiqh, for example, doesn't deal with whether angels have four wings or six. It doesn't deal with history! (for instance, whether Muawiya was great or terrible)... etc. The science of fiqh only deals with legal questions, such as the procedure for a divorce or what prevents a marriage between a man and a woman, and so forth.

Jason Clark7 went on a bit about how the core topic here is strictly Hanafi, arguing that everything discussed—including political stances, historical views, and even general worldly perspectives—serves only to present Hanafi viewpoints. He seems to think those things don't actually fall under the umbrella of Fiqh sciences. That's his take, I suppose. 🤷

Maybe no one else is stepping up because only rowdyhawk10 was brave enough to point this out to you all, risking some backlash in the process, but doing so to honestly state the truth. 🤷 Therefore, I haven't "sneakily misrepresented" anything! Any somewhat educated Muslim would know that. In fact, acknowledging this opens our perspective for the future and brings us closer together.

I'd love for you to enroll me in an Islam course, so I could learn more about my faith and things I haven't known until now. To guide me toward the right path so my knowledge might be more complete... but, I suppose, you would have to surpass me in knowledge first before you could act as my teacher. 😉 Signed.

What you're showing here is either a very low level of Islamic education or pure missionary perfidy. The Hanafi school does indeed address political stances (through the judiciary and the application of Sharia penal codes), and as I mentioned earlier, Abu Hanifa himself referred to the principles of Akaid as the Great Fiqh. 👋

...
I would love for you to take me under your wing in an Islamic course, so I might learn about my faith and discover what I haven't known until now. To guide me toward the right path, so that I may be more complete in my knowledge... but, you would first have to surpass me in knowledge before you could act as my teacher. 😉 Post.

Maybe take a moment to look in the mirror and tell yourself how many amateurish lapses in knowledge you actually have, especially regarding a topic where you try to sound "authoritative" while lecturing everyone else and even calling for a "revision" of great Islamic scholars. 🤦

Brenda Cook4 said: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? 🤔

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:

Jason Clark7 said:okay, but I have to ask:

-what specific arguments regarding the return of Jesus did rowdyhawk10 actually present? Aside from the hatred toward Abu Hurairah...

-who is rowdyhawk10 to insist on his view on 114? It was stated clearly in the thread rules: Answers will follow the Hanafi legal school. Answers from any other school should be highlighted. So, here is my point: The responses from other schools should be highlighted. Which specific schools is rowdyhawk10 claiming answered us, and what are his methodological arguments? Only then can we actually examine this and engage in a civil dialogue. Instead, he (without naming names, of course) simply insults and disparages the official and majority stance; that seems to be the absolute limit of his argumentation:

...

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? 😲

steelskipper5 said:I never insinuated that.

😂 You're basically saying that since you aren't a lawyer...

Is this really the peak of your argumentation?

It’s crystal clear to any layman (not even counting lawyers) that rowdyhawk10 is acting contrary to the Islam114 thread rules set out here, but to paraphrase Balasov poetically: "a sheep is a sheep and a phalanx is a phalanx..."

Bring me one forum "lawyer" who will actually back up your claims.
Start a thread in the Law section and drop the link here; I'd honestly love to see what the legal experts have to say. ☕

Saying "it's obvious to any xy" isn't an argument—it's just a logical fallacy.

So, should I just telepathically present the deleted posts to you? 🙄

No. Just find one single post that wasn't deleted but was still moderated.

Of course I didn't, because you have the right to say harsh things that don't necessarily reflect your opinion, while I clearly don't have that privilege.🤷

If you can't see the difference in how we both expressed ourselves, then there's really nothing left to talk about.

So this whole thread is following some fascist ideology—is that the best you can do for an argument, or is that all you've got?😲

I didn't say that. I asked for an example of you tearing into people. This thread is exactly that example. That's all I said; nothing more.

So you’ve decided to just check out and play the troll on this thread... I never said anything about me shouting—it's only natural for someone to raise their voice when they're being baited into a conversation about fascism. Regardless, my question was this:

Jason Clark7 said:Even a high-priced attorney couldn't have defended rowdyhawk10 better—bravo. 👏

Could we perhaps see some actual evidence of this constant badgering? What exactly constitutes "badgering," and in what way can it be equated to "the methods of fascist ideology," other than in the minds of those who simply want to insult a fellow forum member? If I used the term sectarian, I provided an explanation. Why is there silence regarding my questions, and why can no one produce specific posts of mine that are supposedly "similar to the methods of fascist ideology"?😕

Why is there such a constant effort to dilute my specific inquiries? Honestly, even this level of engagement feels like progress compared to the sheer ignorance we used to deal with... Here.)? 😕

steelskipper5 Asks:
You won't achieve anything at all with such baseless and unsubstantiated accusations...

Your insinuation that Islam is a barbaric religion is nothing more than baseless speculation...

I have no interest in discussing that specific law, especially since you previously brought up the Constitution of the US and then misinterpreted it... It is simply impossible to provide any further explanation... There should be no restrictions... Lower....

😂 He told me straight up that I shouldn't bother weighing in since I'm not an attorney...

Cutting it close...

If someone chooses to misinterpret your views or your teachings, they aren't actually imposing anything upon you...

Private matters belong within the four walls... in public, it’s a completely different story.

The fact that one Muslim disputes another over the interpretation of Islam is truly not something that the law concerns itself with...

It all depends on whether the laws of a weak or strong nation are in effect. You would be truly astonished if you paid any attention to the sheer variety of interstate litigation handled by the German courts, for instance...

A Catholic might eventually declare you a heretic, but from where I'm standing, it feels like you're just whining and scrambling for legal protection because your actual arguments aren't strong enough...

Accordingly, @rowdyhawk10's missionary work, while seemingly backed by certain legal protections, lacks sufficiently robust arguments... so he really ought to hold his ground... 😍

If you have clear arguments proving that the moderation isn't following the established rules, please post your question in the Administration Questions thread.
If you could just tone down the constant attacks that seem to fill up every single one of your posts on this thread, maybe people would actually start taking you seriously...

I appreciate the suggestion, but this is an issue that has been dragging on this forum for several years now... back when I first requested that the public affirmation of "religious-sectarian" piercing be sanctioned, and they simply turned a blind eye then, just as they are doing today...

Are you a lawyer?
I am not. And I stick to the most conservative lay reading possible, simply because it is the least likely way for me to stumble into something foolish...
Feel free to start a thread in the Legal section, and perhaps the attorneys there can tell you if you're allowed to interpret the law the way you are interpreting it here.

It is crystal clear to any layman (not to mention a professional) that rowdyhawk10 on 114 is acting contrary to the established rules of this thread, but to paraphrase Balasov poetically: "a thing is a thing, and a phalanx is a phalanx..."

Once they gather the required number of believers. I believe that figure is currently 5,000, though I haven't looked into it deeply.
Regarding property rights, they would have none in relation to the Islamic Community, but they could structure their theology however they see fit.

And until then? Though I suspect that might happen one fine day, or perhaps even sooner...😍

Find me a single instance where such an entry resulted in a ban.
In earlier discussions, the administration explicitly explained why such entries should not result in anyone being banned.

Should I try to telepathically present the deleted bans to you? 🙄

More baseless accusations. Either provide an argument or retract what you said.

Oops, I can't, because an active decree is in place and I cannot explain it to lowly 😂

No, you aren't. I clearly stated what I could say without violating the law you mentioned. It is written in that very same post; I didn't need to offer any subsequent explanations. You, however, cannot point to anything in your banned post that actually supports your interpretation above.

Of course I'm not, because you have the right to say heavy things that don't necessarily represent your opinion, whereas I obviously do not possess that privilege...🤷

Note that I am not a moderator. 🥳

Well, even though you know I didn't report you for your post...😍

steelskipper5 said:What, you want a better thread than this one? ☕

So, this whole thread is basically operating on fascist ideology—is that really the peak of your argumentation, or do you just have nothing better to offer? 😲

What is the issue with a moderator providing an explanation for a deletion, particularly when that reasoning is being questioned—especially since the entire logic behind such removals rests almost entirely on the moderator's own judgment? In other words, they alone can discern what constitutes trolling, while 90% of the forum users see absolutely nothing wrong with the behavior... 🤷

Brenda Cook4 said: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.

Even a high-priced attorney couldn't have defended rowdyhawk10 better—bravo. 👏

Could we perhaps see some actual evidence of this constant badgering? What exactly constitutes "badgering," and in what way can it be equated to "the methods of fascist ideology," other than in the minds of those who simply want to insult a fellow forum member? If I used the term sectarian, I provided an explanation. Why is there silence regarding my questions, and why can no one produce specific posts of mine that are supposedly "similar to the methods of fascist ideology"?😕

steelskipper5 said:Look, separation of church and state basically means—among other things—that the government and its laws shouldn't be meddling in religious doctrines. And just to be clear, I'm not even touching the actual religious teachings here.

Look, what you wrote doesn't even touch the actual point—and it definitely doesn't justify how the admins are acting. Laws might technically sit below the Constitution, sure, but they're still consistent with it at the same time. It’s not that complicated.

Look, they really ought to be following the Constitution—that should go without saying, right? But let’s be real, that isn't always what happens. They need to be much more specific than the Constitution itself. The thing is, the protections provided by the Constitution—which, from what I gather, is one of those rare legal documents in America that actually lays out explicit principles for how it’s supposed to be interpreted—aren't meant to be limited by some lesser law.

Look, their whole goal here is to provide a much clearer explanation—mostly because there are certain people (yeah, I'm looking at you) who, whether they realize it or not, just completely misinterpret the Constitution.

Once you get back from the KZB—and I mean actually back—I’m going to be waiting for some actual, concrete arguments from you. I'd love to hear why you think I'm misinterpreting the Constitution.

Look, buddy, you better pay attention to this— The Law on the Legal Status of Religious Communities—honestly, I don't know where to start with this one. It’s just... it's a mess. I guess if you actually sit down and read through the fine print, you'll see how much room there is for interpretation, which—let's be real—is usually where things go sideways. It feels like it was written to be intentionally vague, maybe? Just enough wiggle room to keep everyone guessing. It's a headache, frankly.

He’s completely irrelevant here—especially since you can't even decide if you're leaning on the Constitution or that specific Law.

Let's get down to brass tacks:
<sadržaj i način očitovanja>

Look, it’s pretty obvious to me—and I guess anyone with half a brain—that it's totally illegal for one religious group to force their specific beliefs or ways of practicing on another. I mean, come on... to any sane person, the legal side of this is crystal clear. It's just common sense. ☕

And who exactly is telling which religious group how they’re supposed to practice or what they should be saying about their faith?
You’re interpreting the legal text pretty arbitrarily—honestly, I bet any lawyer would tell you that you're totally off base here. I mean, forcing someone to follow a specific faith would be... what, I don't know, like if someone tried to force us all to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or if they demanded we accept certain Catholic dogmas just because we happen to live in some kind of Catholic Jamahiriya America? It's just not the same thing—it's like you're trying to force your prophet on us Pastafarians.
Look, if someone actually tried to dictate how you practice your faith, that’s when we have a problem. I mean—would they force you to go sit in a Catholic church? Or maybe try to ban your five daily prayers—is that the right number? I forget. Or what if they started banning us Pastafarians from entering Italian restaurants, or telling us which pirate outfits are okay to wear and which aren't? That's what real interference looks like.

Look, the fact that you guys—a handful of Muslims—can't agree on how to interpret certain parts of the Quran or whatever else you're bickering about, believe me, has absolutely nothing to do with the specific article or clause—whatever it was—of this law. It’s just not relevant. It's the same way the Catholic Church doesn't try to use this law to go after someone like Zlatko Sudac or anyone else who claims to be Catholic even though they practice something completely different.

and pay close attention to this specifically:
<title>

Basically, you're free to start a religious group, but you can't tuck it under the umbrella of an existing one. In other words, you can't take your own "free-thinking" interpretations and call them Islam. ☕

No, that's not it. You just can't name your new religious organization the "Islamic Community of America" if one already exists. But sure, you could call it the "American Islamic Community." Or maybe the "Pure American Islamic Community." 😬 It's exactly like political party names. Just because there's a "Democratic Party," it doesn't mean other parties can't throw the word "Democratic" into their title. Or just because there's a "Socialist Party," it doesn't stop some other socialist group from popping up.

resorting to insults when you lack actual arguments always shows that you don't have anything better to say.😍

I'm really sorry you took my point—that you clearly didn't understand what I wrote—and interpreted your response as me insulting you. My previous post had nothing to do with your character, and I had zero reason to insult you, nor did I.

Islam isn't defined by how Muslims behave, just like this forum isn't defined by how its users act (even though this forum has way more authority over its users than Islam does over Muslims). It's like you wouldn't blame the latest Mercedes model just because a drunk driver crashed it.🙂
I'm afraid you know your arguments are weak, but hey, if trashing Islam makes you feel better, go ahead—do it privately or here.🙂

If you were a Catholic using that kind of logic, I'd argue against you in the exact same way (just look at my signature regarding the head of the Catholic Church, which I honestly consider a criminal organization). I was just giving an example of what I could say without being able to successfully sue me for libel; it doesn't necessarily reflect my actual opinion.

as far as you're concerned, the shame of your behavior should be enough punishment; you'll have to live with that reputation for the rest of your life.🍿

Look, instead of lashing out at me just because you think I insulted you, why don't you just report the post that actually ticked you off? That’s what I did with yours—now I'm just stuck waiting for you to get back from vacation.

Trust me, I’ve gone toe-to-toe with people on this forum before, and I’ve realized it rarely pays off. It's better to just hit report and wait for the mods to hand out whatever punishment they deem fit.

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... 🍿

rowdyhawk10 said:You could eventually start this thread yourself, but just make sure you use your own handle: "Jason Clark7 Mus Islamski bistrolog." 🙂 You don't have the right to open this thread about me. In fact, nobody else should be opening it either—it's my business alone. And honestly, I suppose there's also the question of whether I even have the right to start a topic like this myself.

Personally, I don't see steelskipper5 as someone who acts in bad faith. I haven't known him since the very beginning of this forum—I think he was around back on that first one—but I can say with certainty that he possesses exceptional character. His level of education is also quite notable, if I may say so. I would argue, quite responsibly, that his conduct is better than many Muslims who post here. Or, perhaps to put it in terms you might better understand, steelskipper5 is... Islamic. He carries himself with more integrity than many Muslims I see on this forum, and honestly, from what I’ve observed in my own life outside of these threads, too. (steelskipper5, please forgive me if my use of "Islamic" came off wrong—there was truly no malice intended.) He stays fair and principled in his dealings with people. What’s more, he never seems to stoop to the level that so many other Muslims tend to sink to.

I largely—though not entirely—agree with his take on this.

Why am I backing him?

First: steelskipper5 didn't bring up that point just to take a shot at Islam; he was simply laying out how the U.S. Constitution works. His intention was to clarify that American police don't make arrests over blasphemy, which means the Islamic community couldn't exactly turn around and say, "Arrest steelskipper5 because of what he said." It’s the same reason we don't have rules against blasphemy here on this forum. I guess you seem to think that only your particular set of preconceived notions should be treated as the definitive word on Islam.

Secondly: (regarding why I support steelskipper5): It isn't true when you claim that Islam is separate from the behavior of Muslims. It really isn't. Islam isn't some software package or a picture hanging on a wall that we can judge detached from life. On the contrary, we measure it by what it stirs up in people. The spirit of Islam manifests precisely through the conduct of its followers, because it influences—just like any other religion—the morals and actions of its adherents. If it makes Muslims better people, then it is a good religion. If it turns them into savages or inspires them to act wildly, then there is clearly an issue with that faith, or perhaps with how those savages represent it, or maybe with a dormant clergy that refuses to condemn them because they are too afraid... much like how Cerić coddled the extremists during his tenure while aggressively meddling in the domestic politics of Canada (acting quite conspiratorially before the elections). He is the perfect example of how we have degraded ourselves as a community; the rot starts at the top. Bottom line: Islam is measured by the behavior of Muslims! Especially if such behavior isn't sharply and publicly condemned by the highest authorities.

Gandhi: "The quality of a religion is measured by how much better it makes people." Could it be any clearer? 🤷

Where I might supplement steelskipper5 is simply this: Islam is not what many violent individuals claim it to be when they speak in the name of this beautiful faith. Because just as there are those who would burn cartoonists alive, there are also those who laugh at such caricatures and simply move on with their day... and even if that same cartoonist were in trouble, they would step up to help! To me, those are the true Muslims, though to the other group—the arsonists—they are seen as nothing more than church rats or traitors. I’ll go even further: a true Muslim would defend anyone being attacked by a mob, even if it meant defending the very artists behind those caricatures. That is the true spirit of Islam living in the hearts of genuine believers.

As for the fact that the Islamic clergy remains silent about this savagery, or offers only half-hearted, reluctant condemnations of such brutality... or fails to denounce criminals like Osama bin Laden and others like him... it only proves that Islam is in a dire position. The clergy has frozen the faith in a dead letter from centuries ago. If Muslims want what is best for themselves and the world, they face a massive effort to wake up from this archaic slumber and catch up to the modern age. The train of time is moving and it waits for no one. Those who leave themselves frozen in the past will look to the world like a Neanderthal corpse found in an Arctic ice block from 15,000 years ago. By the way, instead of supporting steelskipper5 in his condemnation of these anti-caricature savages, you are attacking his character. Is that truly the spirit of your faith?

You see? This is the true Islam and the true Sunnah of Muhammad. The solution isn't street violence or attacking cartoonists. It is understanding the other person. If you understand this Hadith, and if you consider yourself a Muslim, then apologize to steelskipper5 for attacking his character; you had no right to say such things to him. steelskipper5 is a man of great integrity and a truly good person. Think about this. Selam

What frozen opinions? I never once suggested that anyone should be barred from offering a critical perspective... especially when they are addressing specific topics rather than just attacking people personally... Top 114 topics... The exact opposite... Standard forum rules... The unofficial views being pushed by these half-baked armchair critics are being positioned as the official doctrine of Islam...😵

Second: (Why I stand with steelskipper5): Because you are dead wrong when you claim that Islam isn't reflected in the behavior of Muslims. It absolutely is...
...

Then sports becomes nothing more than the hooliganism of fans, where players lie about fouls right in front of cameras and in front of millions of people, leaving behind a legacy of deception for our children and youth to follow... 😲
Islam is a recipe that will yield its full effect if applied to its maximum potential, yet here we find ourselves discussing Muslims who have been subjected to tyranny rather than being guided by Islamic governance and true Islamic education... Expecting Muslims living under tyranny to serve as a standard for Islam is like expecting a starving pet dog not to bite children... and then, once a bite inevitably happens, turning around and labeling all pets as wild and aggressive. 🙄

The fact that the Islamic scholars remain silent regarding the violence perpetrated by these savages, or perhaps offer only a half-hearted and reluctant condemnation of their brutality—much like they did with criminals such as Osama bin Laden and many others similar to him—is simply proof that Islam finds itself in an incredibly difficult position. It seems the clergy has frozen the faith in a state of stagnation, leaving it trapped in a dead letter from who knows how many centuries ago...

...

It isn’t that there is a lack of proper condemnation, but such voices are easily drowned out by a sea of media propaganda—much like the missionary work you’re conducting on this forum. If I were forced to condemn every single instance of unruly behavior by Muslims across the globe, what would be left for me to talk about? My signature would be endless... and even then, would it ever be enough to stop people like you from trying to discredit me by highlighting the negativity of others? It would be just as absurd if Christians were expected to constantly denounce every genocide or the destruction of religious sites; they don't do it constantly, nor do I believe they need someone from "their own side" to constantly rub those tragedies in their faces or force them into that context.
Here is my take on this matter, based on an excellent article from the official website of the Islamic Community an excellent article by Enes Karica.
However, Mustafa EF expressed it even more profoundly in his SERMON BY REIS-UL-ULEMA DR. MUSTAFA EF REGARDING THE 21ST INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PEACE ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2012.

The fact that Islam is portrayed as a religion of violence, and that a Muslim is viewed as a perpetrator of terror and terrorism, should not shake the faith of sincere Muslims who believe in peace and work toward global harmony.
This isn't the first time in history that a religion has been misinterpreted due to the prejudices of those mired in hatred toward the Other; it isn't the first time the core tenets of a faith have been systematically twisted... nor is it the first time that victims of prejudice must realize that misconceptions about them will not simply vanish on their own. They must stand up and speak clearly about their true concepts of life, faith, culture, and world peace. But they cannot merely speak; they must act convincingly, ensuring that what they say, believe, preach, and teach is embodied in their very way of life. Personal example carries more weight than a thousand words of empty preaching.
Furthermore, as Muslims, we must acknowledge that there are irresponsible individuals among us whose actions do nothing but cause profound harm to Islam and Muslims in ways that no one understands or accepts. They spread false perceptions of Islam and Muslims, leaving future generations with the heavy task of dismantling them. Having suffered injustice does not justify inflicting it upon others. God directs Muslims to promote peace and act justly even toward an enemy, so as to change their heart and turn them into a friend: Goodness and evil are not the same! Repel evil with good, and your enemy may suddenly become a close friend.

steelskipper5 said:Wait, you think we're talking secular? 😬

The Constitution protects freedom of worship in the sense that if you don't like one of the recognized religions, you can register a new one under certain circumstances—anyway, maybe read the Law on the legal status of religious communities before taking a stance.😉

No way. The Constitution protects freedom of worship by guaranteeing that very freedom and treating all religions as separate from the state and equal before the law. I really shouldn't have to dig through some law that's hierarchically below the Constitution just to understand how the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedom. I just need to read the U.S. Constitution.

So anyone can patent any invention or brand name and claim rights to it, but religions with hundreds of millions of followers don't have the right to protect themselves from malicious distortions?🙄

That claim has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, or with common sense in general. Honestly, I'd struggle to find a connection between that and horse racing.

Specifically, if you're talking about Islam, you have to stick to the official stance or clarify that it's just your opinion and not "Islamic," otherwise, legally speaking, it's considered slander.

No, honey. That would be blasphemy—which, in most parts of the civilized world, isn't even a crime anymore, regardless of how much certain Islamic countries have been leading the charge lately to make criminalizing blasphemy a global standard.

I could say, for instance, that Islam is a violent religion that responds to every critique with aggression. And I could back that up by pointing to the reactions of Muslims toward caricatures of Muhammad.
And you want to sue me for slander? I don't care what the Islamic community in Canada has to say about any specific case. Good luck with that.

Not exactly—more like outright illegal. To be secular means separating church and state, not stripping a religion of its core teachings... 🙄

No. The Constitution protects freedom of worship by guaranteeing it, treating all religions as separate from the state and equal under the law. I don't need to consult some statute that sits hierarchically below the Constitution just to understand how the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedom. I only need to read the Constitution.

What you wrote misses the point entirely and doesn't justify the administration's behavior. While laws sit below the Constitution, they exist to work in harmony with it, providing necessary details specifically because certain individuals (yourself included) tend to misinterpret the Constitution, whether intentionally or not. Therefore, my friend, please pay close attention to the Law on the legal status of religious communities specifically:

Article 2.

Religious communities independently and freely determine their internal organization; governing bodies, hierarchy, and jurisdictions; the entities and persons representing the religious community and its organizational forms; the content and manner of expressing their faith; maintaining ties with their central authority and other religious communities; associating with other religious groups; and other matters regarding their operations in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

In short, it is unlawful for any authority to impose a different content or method of expressing faith upon a religious community—honestly, this should be legally obvious to anyone with common sense... ☕

And take note of this even more specifically:

Article 8.
...
(5) The name and symbols of a religious community may not be identical to the name and symbols of a religious community previously entered into the Registry.

So, while you are free to establish a religious community, you cannot mask it under the title of a previously registered one. In other words, you cannot claim your "free" interpretations and beliefs are actually Islam.☕

That assertion has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, nor does it have anything to do with logic in general. One could struggle to find any connection to horse racing if they tried hard enough...

Resorting to insults when you lack valid points always serves as a clear indicator that you simply have no better arguments to offer...😍

...

I could, for instance, claim that Islam is a savage religion that responds to every critique with violence. And one could point to the reactions of Muslims regarding Muhammad caricatures to support that claim.

Islam is not the same thing as the behavior of its followers, just as this website isn't defined by the conduct of its users (though this site certainly holds far more authority over its users than Islam does over Muslims). Nor can we blame the latest Mercedes model because a drunk driver caused a crash while behind the wheel. 🙂
I fear you are aware of your own poor reasoning, but feel free to continue disparaging Islam if it brings you some sort of personal or online satisfaction...🙂

You’re accusing me of slander, regardless of whatever the Islamic community of Canada had to say about the specific case. I wish you the best of luck.

As for you, the mere fact that you have to live your entire life with such conduct should be punishment enough; you really ought to consider the shame of carrying oneself that way...🍿

Brenda Cook4 said: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!

You are truly pretending not to see the distinction: this is about devaluing forum members (where a member is treated "as if" they were some kind of sacred entity), specifically me, and being placed in the context of fascism without any actual arguments, yet the moderators tacitly approve of this, and I ask, why? 🤷

Furthermore, everyone has the right to express their opinion; you (and certain other Muslims) tell Shadyev that he is a "kafir," a "rafidite," or a "sectarian," which Shadyev denies and explains (both here and in several other places) regarding his reasoning.

Do not attempt to conflate me with "others" to exaggerate the situation. Half of what you are claiming I said is untrue; please, go ahead and quote my actual words and argue whether that provides any justification for him to unpunishedly frame me in the context of fascism 🙄

I do not believe there is any confusion; everyone is entitled to their own interpretation and their own creed. We do not hand out expulsion cards for heresy here.

I said nothing against heretics, rather I spoke regarding thread 114 on Islam, where responses should follow the guidelines established at the start; you tolerate unofficial and sectarian answers there. Heretics have no place there, period. ☕

In the coming days, we will receive two PDFs on religion—specifically on the theological side—so you are free to open threads such as, for example, "Islam: Exclusively the Hanafi School Interpretation." Someone else could then open the same topic focusing on the interpretation of a different school.

Then what is the difference between what you are saying now: Islam: Exclusively the Hanafi School Interpretation

and what was stated during the opening of thread 114: Responses shall follow the Hanafi school. Responses from other schools should be clearly noted.

If you moderators once again allow sectarians to troll the thread with unofficial views and nonsense while using bans and deletions to provoke those who simply want the rules of the thread to be respected... 🙄

Susan Price30 said:You called his interpretation of Islam sectarian (in a different thread), and you aren't the only one. Plenty of others have commented or debated certain Islamic teachings he presents here that aren't official or legitimate, and now he's retaliating in kind. It's the same old pattern.

He also labels other Muslims on the forum as "Wahhabis" or uses other terms whenever it suits him to defend his alternative views or present them as the only truth.

Specifically, if you're discussing Islam, you need to stick to the official stance or clarify that it's just your personal opinion rather than Islamic doctrine. Otherwise, legally speaking, it's just slander.

The same applies to everyone else, 😉but there will always be sects. I agree with you that it would be better to specify when a view isn't the official position, but rather an alternative (or distorted) version that deviates from mainstream Islamic perspectives and interpretations.

What was it that I told him that proved so critical... Cultist...?😕 Besides, I am actively working to obstruct his attempts at spreading sectarian views under the guise of missionary work for Islam...☕ Does that really give this forum any right to tolerate him placing me in the context of fascism... 😲

He went around labeling other Muslims as "Wahhabis" whenever it suited him... simply to shield his own fringe interpretations of Islam and present them as the only legitimate way forward...

Isn't it perfectly obvious what kind of logic is being employed here... 🙂

The same applies to everyone else... 😉 But sects will always exist, and they always have... I find myself agreeing with you that if such a thing were to be published, it would be vital to emphasize that this does not represent an official position held by any authority, but rather something else entirely; an alternative—or perhaps a distorted—interpretation that deviates from the mainstream Islamic perspective and its traditional understandings...

Exactly. Someone really needs to start a thread about Shady's "Islamic" bistro... 🙂 They can debate that topic until they are blue in the face, provided they steer clear of anything involving institutional Islam or official state-sanctioned responses... 👋

steelskipper5 said:The Constitution doesn't exist to protect one specific religious interpretation over another.
The Constitution protects all faiths equally. Honestly, whether or not some specific Islamic community offers an "official" interpretation doesn't really matter here.

I'm not even going to get into the rest of this drama because I don't follow it and frankly, I don't care that much, but this part right here? It's just straight-up stupidity.

That is quite an anarchic approach to religion. The Constitution protects freedom of worship in the sense that if you aren't satisfied with an established religion, you can, under certain circumstances, register a new one—besides, you should probably read the Law on the legal status of religious communities before taking such a stance.😉

By your logic, anyone could patent any invention or brand name and claim rights to it, yet religions supported by hundreds of millions of followers have no right to protect themselves from malicious distortions...🙄

Specifically, if you are speaking about Islam, you must adhere to the official stance or clarify that your view is merely your own opinion rather than an Islamic one... otherwise, legally speaking, it constitutes libel.

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...) 🤷

Kenneth Barnes7 said:...
I stated: "Anyone who has followed this discussion can clearly see that most scholars disagree with Shady, yet that perspective remains widely recognized across the American Muslim community today, and he is well within his rights to present it, provided he supports it with sound arguments..."

Well, I find myself compelled to ask...

What specific arguments did Shady actually present regarding the physical return of Jesus... aside from his blatant animosity toward Abu Hurairah?

Who exactly is Shady to be making such assertions... 114 My position on this? It was stated quite elegantly within the topic guidelines... The rulings will follow the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. Any perspectives originating from other schools should be clearly highlighted... To put it plainly... The responses provided by some other schools ought to be given more significant weight... Which specific schools of thought is Slim Shady attempting to dismantle? I find myself wondering what methodological arguments he intends to present that might actually allow for a civil, reasoned dialogue... Instead, he chooses to resort to insults and disparages the established consensus, which seems to be the absolute limit of his argumentative capacity...

Shady Jason Clark7 said:The narrative regarding the second coming of Jesus lacks any foundation within serious Muslim scholarship... As I have previously stated... Here....

The Truth is simply this... Ignorant... Muslims believe that Jesus will return before the end of the world...It is primarily these newer individuals, those from the younger generations, who focus on this... In all our history, stretching back through the elders and beyond, there was never any discussion regarding some "Jesus's return." No one ever spoke of it, nor did anyone consider such an event to be significant or even probable. It simply was never part of the American Muslim experience until this current era...
...

Why is he permitted to insult others in such a manner, spewing these nonsensical criticisms about how one could supposedly distinguish between the hypocrites and the companions... when in reality, only the Messenger knew who the hypocrites were, and he never disclosed their identities to anyone else...

Slim Shady Jason Clark7 said:@ MukaFFa
What Muawiyah did following Muhammad’s era places him firmly among the hypocrites and oppressors, rather than within the ranks of the companions. And you are well aware of his actions. Being a companion isn't granted simply because someone happened to see Muhammad and spoke with him on two occasions... People like that are among them... There were hypocrites present, and they certainly recognize themselves.... Greetings...
...

If he is truly as "brilliant and indispensable" as everyone claims, then why don't you just create a sticky thread titled "Ask Shady at the Shady Islamic Bistro anything" and let him run wild... 114 will this become an official institutional topic?

Kenneth Barnes7 said:Therefore, it is clearly emphasized both in your wording within the title and in my words here that his position does not represent the official stance of Islam.

And what if no one else speaks up while you happen to be busy elsewhere, leaving his opinion to be treated as the official one...

A similar approach is applied to the occasional emergence of so-called "Wahhabis" on certain topics, where they answer questions through their specific lens of Islam. They provide answers according to their own view, while others point out that the majority of Islamic scholars do not hold that position. It is much the same regarding this matter: the consensus among most Islamic scholars is that Jesus will return.
A discussion in a new thread could move toward directions such as the authenticity of narrations, those scholars, and so forth.

That isn't the same thing; we all know exactly what the so-called Wahhabis are and that their views are unofficial, whereas here, Shady’s private opinions are being disguised as official doctrine.

Only the Truth holds the strongest ground 😉 All other pillars are fleeting, for only the Haqq remains forever. 🙂

👍

Kenneth Barnes7 said:The rules governing this discussion have been established with absolute clarity. Every American on this forum understands that there exist nuanced differences in how certain matters—specifically, particular hadiths—are interpreted... and these variations in perspective are not something one should use to hastily categorize a person into a specific group, whether that be labeled as an outsider, a sectarian, or anything else...

When it comes to Drake and his penchant for that sectarian, interfaith maneuvering... there is a much larger, more profound context at play here... ☕

Furthermore, the initial thread parameters explicitly state that all responses shall be provided in accordance with Islamic Jurisprudence, which pertains specifically to matters of legal rulings... The particular inquiry being addressed in this instance does not fall within that specific classification, meaning an alternative perspective may be offered without violating any established protocols...

To put it most bluntly, would we even be considered practicing our faith if we claimed it was essential to adhere strictly to one specific school of Islamic Jurisprudence while simultaneously suggesting that we can just mix and match different creeds at will...😲 The theological landscape of the Hanafi tradition is well-understood by anyone who has dedicated themselves to a serious study of Islam—it follows the Maturidi creed, which remains entirely untainted by the sectarian deviations of Smith... In the end, it was Ebu Hanifa himself who defined this creed... Regarding the profound principles of El-Fikhul-Ekber, which encompass the vast reaches of Islamic Jurisprudence... And he produced such a work. Given that, it is quite startling that you, acting as an authority on Islamic Jurisprudence within this forum, would trifle with such matters... either you lack the necessary expertise, or your intentions are simply not sincere... 😕

Those who disagree with Elon Musk have had ample opportunity to present their counterarguments and offer substantive rebuttals. Anyone following this discussion can clearly see that while a significant majority of scholars may not align with his views, he maintains the right to express his perspective provided he supports it with sound reasoning. The arguments from both sides have been laid out quite clearly, and that should be where the conversation concludes... rather than devolving into baseless accusations or attempts to label people as part of certain fringe sects.

Drake and many others contributing to this document are certainly welcome to scrutinize the material and voice their own doubts, yet presenting such skepticism as a definitive rebuttal is entirely misplaced here on 114, especially when those responses are framed as... The official position regarding Islamic Jurisprudence... Though it is widely accepted that Drake serves as the official designation for Islamic thought...🙂)

I believe he lacks the authority to inundate 114 with such statements...

The narrative regarding the second coming of Jesus lacks any foundation within the established texts of Islamic Jurisprudence...

He failed to mention that this is merely his personal opinion. Anyone questioning the authenticity of specific narrations within Bukhara, or casting doubt on Hadith simply because they were transmitted by Ebu Hurejre, ought to explicitly state that such views are their own. This distinction is vital, as such skepticism is a hallmark of certain Shia perspectives...

...

In short—Elon Musk is entitled to present his arguments as a Muslim, and anyone else is free to respond. Ultimately, we all know who holds the truth and who will deliver the final judgment.

Peace be upon you, and best regards.

A reasoned debate regarding such a "dilemma" should be initiated in its own dedicated thread. Not everyone here carries the authority granted by the administration, and I have no desire to engage in a back-and-forth with Drake on page 114, only to have some moderator step in to delete his posts while I end up being the one receiving warnings...😍.
As a moderator, you really should have moved this discussion to a separate topic so we can see whose arguments actually hold weight. Please do so, because he lacks any real substance and hasn't even studied the subject deeply enough to make such sweeping claims...

I submitted a formal complaint through the Help Center but received no response, which is why I find myself compelled to address this here.

The moderators on this specific thread regarding Islamic studies are failing to uphold the established guidelines; instead, they seem intent on enforcing the sectarian whims of Drake... one wonders why this continues, and how much longer it can persist.

It is a grievance I have voiced before, yet it feels like a recurring pattern: allowing certain users to transgress simply to bait a targeted individual into responding to an administrative warning, thereby providing grounds for a suspension.😲

Does such conduct stem from an administration too weak to engage democratically with user perspectives, or is there a sense of satisfaction found in penalizing one person with a strike while merely deleting another's post for the exact same offense? 🤷

Daniel Ward87 said:...

This site isn't an American forum in the sense that it belongs to the United States; rather, it is the private property of a specific individual who simply does not wish for it to be anything else.

...

It should have been made clear here, as it has been in many other places, that there is no point in engaging in lengthy or broad debates regarding logical structures...🤦

One ought to plainly inform the users that things will proceed exactly as the owner dictates, and everything else is merely a matter of circumstance...😍