Why is Islam being associated with fascism, and why am I personally being linked to "Islamic fascism

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.

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...) 🤷

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.

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...) 🤷

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.

Jason Clark7 said: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.

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.😉

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?🙄

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.

I might argue that Islam is a volatile religion that responds to any criticism with violence. You could point to the reactions of Muslims regarding those caricatures of Muhammad as proof.

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...) 🤷

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.

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...

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...

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

...

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.

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.

Jason Clark7 said: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... 👋

Jason Clark7 said: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...🍿

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.

Finally...

Do you remember the story of the man who for months threw waste and filth into Muhammad's courtyard, right in front of his doorstep? One day, the man fell ill, and since nothing was thrown into the courtyard that day, Muhammad went to the neighbor's house. The man asked, "Why have you come?" And Muhammad replied, "I didn't find anything in my yard today, so I feared you might be unwell. I brought you some fresh dates to help you recover." The man wept.

Jason Clark7 said: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...🍿

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, 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.

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.

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 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. ☕

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

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.🙂

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.🍿

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

Second thing: Look, here’s why I’m backing steelskipper5—because what you’re saying is just plain wrong. You can't claim that Islam isn't defined by how Muslims actually act. It totally is! Religion isn't some piece of software you can just run, or some framed picture hanging on a wall that we can judge from a distance—it's much more than that. Out of life.Quite the opposite! I think we should be judging him based on what he actually stirs up in people.

I guess I’d have to jump in and back up steelskipper5 on this one—it’s just that Islam isn't at all what those violent types claim it is when they try to speak for such a beautiful faith.

Second point: (why I’m backing steelskipper5): Because you're wrong when you claim Islam isn't defined by how Muslims actually act. It absolutely is! A religion isn't some piece of software you run or a painting hanging on a wall that we judge in a vacuum. On the contrary, we judge it by the actual impact it has on people's lives.

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

Jason Clark7 said: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... 👋

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).

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).

👍

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.

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.

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.